Monthly Archives: November 2019

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Posted on by
Reply

“About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” This appeared in an article – “The secret of successful drug launches,” published by McKinsey & Company in March 2014. There isn’t any recent evidence, either, that this situation has improved now.

Even innovative drugs no longer guarantee a commercial success, as greater competition is building up there, as well. Today, the number of such drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006 making the task tougher, according to another article of McKinsey & Company, titled ‘Why innovative products aren’t enough for a successful pharma launch,’ brought out in August 2017.

Top marketers’ intimate involvement in these launches, backed by robust marketing strategies notwithstanding, large scale ‘brand failures’ or rather ‘branding failures,’ still remains unavoidable. Although, its telltale signs are more often visible immediately after launch, but may happen even several years after.

Pundits are just not scratching their heads, but doing extensive research to fathom why it happens. However, with changing times – the market dynamics and the research outcomes/inferences keep changing too. And that will be the focus of my today’s discussion in this article, while I explore various facets of the same.

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

That pharma branding is not just a marketing exercise and its failure at any stage – from launch to even years after, I reckon, isn’t the sole responsibility of the pharma marketer. This is mainly because, doctors would ideally prefer to prescribe specific pharma brands and patients would feel confident to use those, because of successful construction of a positive brand bias. Which in turn creates a higher perceived efficacy and a low anticipated safety concern with the brand.

Although, it will be right to assume that good pharma marketers are solely responsible for the creation of this intangible brand asset, but the tangible intrinsic brand value should necessarily be ingrained into each dose of the same that patients consume, always.

Thus, tangible brand value creation, its maintenance, if not enhancement, span across many other functional domains of a drug company. Some of these include, unbiased reporting with expected disclosures of all clinical trial results, maintaining a robust and highly efficient supply chain network or high-quality manufacturing facilities, besides a few others. Evidences exist that irrational pricing could also result in a kind of brand failure. Considering these aspects in totality, creating a positive bias during a pharma brand-building process, is a collective responsibility, and not just of the marketers.

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

There are ample examples to substantiate that creating a positive stakeholder bias during its brand-building process, is a collective responsibility. Let me illustrate this point by drawing a few examples of branded failures prompted by supply-chain network, disclosures on clinical development and of course perceived ‘irrational’ pricing that falls basically in the marketing domain. It is worth noting, similar incidents may also be related to the manufacturing process, even for top selling generic drugs.

Supply-chain: In the beginning of 2008, serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, were reported with Heparin (Baxter), which used to be widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries. The primary reason of the same was a serious breach in the supply-chain integrity.

Disclosures on clinical trial results: On 30 September 2004, Vioox (rofecoxib), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that had been on the market since 1999, was suddenly withdrawn by its manufacturer MSD, owing to concerns about its effect on cardiovascular health.

‘Irrational’ pricing: Like a lot of new cancer drugs, Zaltrap (aflibercept) wasn’t cheap carrying a price tag of USD 9,600 a month. But its price was quickly taken down. This followed some serious public flak, such as, doctors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) wrote a blistering review for The New York Times in November 2012. They declared that MSK was taking the drug off the institution’s formulary, because less expensive and just as good alternative angiogenesis inhibitors were available. Although, Sanofi initially defended the price, it subsequently backed down, cutting down the price by half.

Manufacturing process: On September 13, 2019, the FDA announced that preliminary tests found low levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine (Zantac), a heartburn medication. Consequently, almost all companies, including Novartis (through its generic division, Sandoz), GSK, Apotex and many others announced its withdrawal from a large number of markets. Interestingly, these announcements came after a Connecticut-based online pharmacy informed the FDA that it had detected NDMA in multiple ranitidine products under certain test conditions. The NDMA impurity was believed to have been introduced by changes in the manufacturing process. There are several other well-reported examples, as well.

These examples vindicate that creating a positive brand bias remains a collective responsibility throughout the product lifecycle. And it involves several functional areas of drug companies. That said, let me now focus on the creation of a positive bias for pharma brands.

Creating a positive brand bias:

Skillful creation of a positive brand-bias, supported by high quality – tangible and intangible value offerings, is the net outcome of any successful branding process. It augments stakeholder confidence, leading to an increased prescription generation, alongside a favorable patient experience.

More often than not, a positive brand-bias successfully brings into being greater perceived brand-efficacy and higher perceived brand-quality, with lesser anticipated safety concerns. Consequently, the process invigorates an emotional bonding with customers for a long-term brand-loyalty. A positive brand-bias also creates a strong brand equity that often helps in working out a good pricing strategy for the company.

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

The October 8, 2019 issue of Fierce Pharma featured an article on creating a positive brand-bias with “Prime and prompt” marketing strategies, outlined by CMI/Compas.

According to Changing Minds: ‘Priming works by providing people with information that is easily brought to mind. The prompt that brings the information to mind can be an implanted and specific trigger or can be an associated term that will naturally bring back the primed information.’ Illustrating the point, it adds: ‘Prime-and-prompt can be a bit like firing a gun, where priming cocks and prompting pulls the trigger.’

Putting this concept in the pharma industry perspective, the CMI/Compas officials explained in the above article, ‘pharma marketers can create primes with product messages that condition people to recall their product when they need medicine or are diagnosed with a condition.’

Hence, a pharma marketer’s adroitness in the ‘priming’ strategy helps ‘prompt’ the desirable action, such as, going to a doctor to ask about a product. Hence, the persuasion technique is termed – ‘prime and prompt’, the paper explained. Naturally, the question that follows: what are the key principles behind this strategy?

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

As elucidated by the Changing Minds, when thinking and deciding, we are influenced by related information from the past. At that time, our memories would supply that information, which helps us understand, make sense, decide and act on the subject at hand. Thus, those things that come at the top of mind will have a more immediate and disproportionate influential effect, while those things which are long forgotten may have little or no effect.

It further adds: ‘Priming is driven by implicit memory, where recall is entirely unconscious as the person ‘just knows’ without having to think hard or otherwise put effort into remembering or working things out.’

How to apply the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy in pharma?

It’s no-brainer that to use ‘priming’ in the persuasion process, say for increasing prescription support, the marketers need to provide stakeholders with relevant information beforehand, and more importantly, in a different setting. And only thereafter, they need to focus on a normal brand persuasion strategy. One may most appropriately comment, this is easier said than done in the drug industry.

Taking a cue from the above interview with the CMI/Compas officials, some of the broad steps of the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy, I reckon, may be summarized as follows:

  • Consistent messaging through omnichannel media achieving target reach and frequency, as I had explained before.
  • For intended top of mind recall, a combination of print, digital, social, search, display at appropriate places and in TV, especially for OTC drugs, should consistently surround the target audience for ‘priming.’
  • According to a recent research, the most highly rated ‘priming’ spots for pharma ads for physicians are medical journals, conferences and the likes. Similarly, for patients, appropriate displays at doctors’ clinics and similar places also appeared to be one of the top-rated ‘priming’ spots.

Consequently, a well thought-out ‘priming’ strategy, skillfully executed – based on research findings, is expected to be effective. It will then help trigger desirable ‘prompts’ for the target-audience, augmenting a successful branding process. However, it comes with a caveat that the tangible intrinsic value of the brand, especially those which originate in other functional areas, don’t get compromised or changed in any way.

Conclusion:

Branding exercise in the pharma industry has never been more challenging, as it is today – both for innovative and generic drugs. As stated above, the number of innovative drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006, making the market competition tougher. Likewise, product proliferation with cut-throat pricing for branded generics, is also making the generic drug marketers grasping at straws, as it were.

In this challenging situation, creating a positive stakeholder bias for brands, as the net outcome of the pharma branding process, is a collective responsibility. Any non-marketing misstep in the tangible brand value offering, could sweep a brand away to oblivion – not just during launch, but at any stage of its life-cycle. Pharma marketers will of course be solely responsible to create the critical intangible brand assets, such as a positive stakeholder bias for brands.

At this tough time for pharma branding, several fresh marketing concepts like, ‘prime and prompt’ are now being seriously evaluated. Thus, I reckon, its also a time for astute marketers in the pharma industry to test the water, in pursuit of excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Are Pharma Business Ethics And Performance Interlinked?

Posted on by
Reply

Way back in the 1960s, many could realize that of upcoming consumer-focused business environment will bring business practices under intense stakeholder scrutiny. This prompted both the business schools, as well as the commercial organizations to bring the concept of ‘business ethics’ under focus.

However, a boom in the ‘Business Ethics’ curriculum, virtually in every business school, globally, alongside numerous training programs, was palpable around the 90’s. This trend continues even today with as much gusto, but with increasing participation of various companies, primarily to showcase their commitment to ethical standards and values as fundamental business requirements.

Like many other industries, the same is visible in the pharma business, as well. Which is why, many pharma CEO’s, such as of Novartis, emphasized even in its 2018 CEO’s letter to the company shareholders that: ‘We have made clear to everyone at Novartis that we must never compromise our ethical standards to meet business objectives.’ The previous CEO of the same company also used similar words. Moreover, one can find a similar commitment to business ethics being displayed in the respective websites of many other drug companies.

I have discussed various different aspects on this subject since 2011. One such article is titled, ‘Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk,’ published in this blog on December 26, 2011. However, in this article, after a broad outline, I shall endeavor to explore whether or not compliance with pharma business ethics is intimately related to the company’s performance, especially in the medium to longer term. While doing so, let me help recapitulate what exactly does ‘business ethics’ mean to all?

‘Business Ethics’:

As many would know, the ‘business ethics’ or ‘ethical business behavior’, is defined as ‘acting in ways consistent with what society and individuals typically think are good values. Ethical behavior tends to be good for business and involves demonstrating respect for key moral principles that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights.’

When this definition is applied to the pharma industry, in general, one finds, despite bringing to market top innovative drugs, a pharma player with dubious ethical behavior, may face a great risk of losing its reputation – a key element for business success, if not survival.

What is happening today in this area?

As, stated above, from various statements of pharma head honchos and also as displayed in their respective websites, it seems to be a serious area for them. Intriguingly, despite such laudable intent, the situation on the ground for many of these companies are quite different. According to reports, even in the Indian Pharma Industry, blatant disregard for maintaining basic ethical standards is, reportedly, not uncommon, either. Interestingly, no less than the Prime Minister of India is, apparently, aware of some of these issues in the pharma industry.

Ultimate ethical goals and consumer perceptions of ethical behavior:

Many research papers have been discussing this point, since long. They also flagged some critical areas, across pharma business domains, for corrective action. One such paper is titled, ‘Ethical challenges in the pharmaceutical industry,’ published in the April 2012 issue of Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law.

It clearly articulated, the ultimate ethical goal in the pharmaceutical industry is to discover and develop safe, efficacious and high-quality drugs that allow patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives, while making a profit to reward shareholders and to invest in research for the next generation of medicines. The essence of it holds good also for generic drugs, too.

While this may be mostly happening, as the article noted, overall consumer perception of pharma business ethics is largely negative. This avoidable stakeholder perception is primarily triggered by, among others, pricing, data disclosure, clinical study design, marketing practices, cost effectiveness of treatments, and often reported ‘pharmaceutical frauds’, as quoted earlier.

Regardless of drug industry claim, consumers generally perceive new drug discovery as a fundamental business necessity for the industry. Whereas, they are more interested in access and affordability to these drugs, besides other related business practices. This brings us to the question – Are alleged breach of ‘business ethics’ systemic in nature for pharma?

Are ‘business ethics’ related issues, systemic in nature?

While many pharma CEOs keep highlighting, how ethical their operating standards and corporate values are, reports keep coming that these issues are not superficial but systemic in nature. One such report was published in Fierce Pharma on October 14, 2019 carrying a headline – “Novartis appears to have a systemic ethics problem. What can it do make amends?” Justifying this caption, the news article elaborated:

‘When a company is repeatedly embroiled in scandals or compliance breaches—from on-the-ground sales activities to decisions made at the very top—an isolated infection isn’t to blame. It’s a systemic illness. And judging by the long list of allegations and infractions at Novartis, that’s what the Swiss drug maker is facing. But is there a cure? Some soul-searching and a closer look at the company’s culture could help.’

Quoting a corporate ethics and compliance expert Hui Chen, the article underscored, for such malpractices ‘don’t just blame everything on a few rogue employees.’ Pharma leadership may wish to accept this reality and make amends wherever necessary, soon. With the above perspective, it will also be worth looking at, how is this toxin invading a corporate system, jeopardizing its business performance, and why?

Even patients expect pharma to demonstrate ethical business practices:

Generating new and more prescriptions for patients’ treatment being the lifeblood of any pharma business, the core strategic focus of the business should naturally be on patients, and the society they belong to. This is a fundamental requirement, not just for making profit in business, but for its survival, too. It is now clear that even patients are becoming increasingly aware of this fact.

Consequently, they expect the pharma players to demonstrate ethical behavior and follow ethical business practices, instead of being on a self-serving mode. Scores of instances, across the globe, suggest that many pharma players are failing again, again and again in this critical area of business. One may say that commercial interests overshadowing consumers’ interests, is not uncommon in business. But wait a minute, we are talking here about an industry that patients look up to, while fighting dreaded diseases to save lives. Thus, the question that follows – why is this virus of non-compliance to business ethics invading a corporate system?

How is this virus invading a corporate system?

Search for an answer to this question isn’t new. It was discussed in the Harvard Business Review - more than 25 years ago, in its May-June 1993 article – ‘What’s the Matter with Business Ethics?’ Even at that time, the author noted: The more entrenched the discipline of business ethics becomes in business schools, the more bewildering it appears to managers. This discussion brought to the fore many interesting points. One such was, the field of business ethics is largely irrelevant for most managers. It’s not because that they are hostile to the idea of business ethics, but ‘real-world competitive and institutional pressures lead even well-intentioned managers astray.’

Presumably, because of this reason, as the Author acknowledged, all managers face “hard issues whose solutions are not obvious,” where the “reconciliation of profit motives and ethical imperatives is an uncertain and highly tricky matter.”

Thus, I reckon, many organizations find achieving organizational expectations, especially for demanding short-term financial goals, while maintaining business ethics, is becoming a real challenge. Similar sense would obviously influence many practicing managers, too. Now, the question that comes is, what happens to the organization, if its managers keep doing so to achieve the set financial objectives of the company?

When achieving end-goals by following business ethics is considered impractical:

If the business strategy is increasing brand prescription generation by any possible manner to outperform competition, the means adopted to meet the goals may find easy acceptance by many in the company. In the pharma industry, such situation may arise while chasing annual and monthly targets or at times closing the month-end sales deficits, too. Such acts may help achieve short-term goals with flying colors, regardless of blatant violation of business ethics or breaking legal norms, such as, bribing prescribers for writing prescriptions.

When remains undetected, such practices continue. But, when repeated compromises on the ethical practices of a company at the cost of patients’ interest, surface and reported by the media, one precious asset of the organization gets seriously damaged – its reputation. Again, one may ask, will it have any impact on the company’s medium to long term financial performance?

How are ethical ‘business practices’ and the company’s performance interlinked?

The fine thread that links these two, is the corporate reputation – an invaluable asset of the organization, having a strong connect with stakeholders, including patients – for a sustainable business growth. The broader aspects of its consumer-connection have been discussed by both academia and individual experts. One such illustration may be drawn from the Charter College of the United States.

It underscores: ‘Not only does it feel good to be part of a company with a great reputation, but it’s great for business. When you have a reputation for consistently being ethical in how you source and build products, and treat employees, customers and the community, more people will want to do business with you. This means you’ll appeal to a variety of people and organizations that will be great for boosting your business…’

This means, compromising with ethical business practices to achieve short-term goals comes at a great risk of jeopardizing the medium and long-term success and sustainability of the organization. This is not a mere theoretical possibility. Research studies also vindicate that ‘reputation is an economic multiplier.’

Reputation is an economic multiplier:

Some may conclude, ethical business practices may help enhance company’s reputation, but don’t create any significant impact on business performance. This point has been well deliberated by the Reputation Institute (RI) in its analysis, titled - ‘The Business Case for Reputation.’

The analysis established ‘a strong reputation yields 2.5 times better stock performance when compared to the overall market.’ This vindicates the point that reputation indeed enhances corporate performance for its stakeholders and is an economic multiplier. Understandably, the paper reiterated: ‘This is not a bold claim — it’s a fact.’

Conclusion:

The drug industry, in general, and research-based pharma players in particular, seem to feel that propagating its focus and efforts on bringing innovative drugs to the market, would help build a good reputation. But it doesn’t really happen that way. Instead, public perception that helps create corporate reputation, is often driven mainly by issues such as drug pricing – access and affordability, besides various widely reported alleged unethical business practices of drug companies.

Many such purported breaches in ethical behavior of a company are recurrent, such as one that was reported on October 22, 2019. It said, Novartis’ Zolgensma launch has been anything but boring: First a record-setting price tag, then a data-manipulation scandal and now the company is facing “manufacturing questions” that will delay Zolgensma’s approval in the EU and Japan.

The impact of these alleged unethical business practices of drug companies also got reflected in the 2018 2018 Gallup Poll where the pharma industry came out as the most poorly regarded industry, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually. Interestingly, the Reputation Institute (RI) also reported a 3.7 percent decline in pharma reputation between 2017 and 2018.

Thus, the core point that stands out is, ethical business practices and company performance are interlinked. Ethical business behavior plays a key role to enhance a company’s reputation, which in turn add value to the long-term financial performance of the company and vice-versa.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

A Link To Ponder: Pharma Digitalization – Cyber Threats – Cyber Immunity

Posted on by
Reply

Digitalization in the pharmaceutical industry – slowly but steadily, across its various domains, from drug discovery, clinical development, supply chain, sales and marketing to engage with various stakeholders, is a reality today. Consequently, the concept of data as a business asset, is fast taking the center stage, being the nerve center of the business. It encompasses, conceiving data requirement, generation of a massive pool of credible data accordingly, their analysis and finally – putting a robust data security system in place, against any kind of theft or misuse.

While digitalization of pharma business, helps transform the company to an all-time ready and an agile customer-centric business entity, with one ear always listening to customers to delight them with its deliverables. Conversely, the other ear is on its employees with a similar objective. This is a difficult task and mostly involves disruption of status-quo within the organization, but often produces game changing outcomes for the business, as is known to many.

Which is why, one sees a good number of people around, offering expert digital services for the pharma industry – along with a hope of a never before improvement in the future organizational performance. So far so good, but this transformation process also invites a huge technology-related threat to business – ‘Cyberthreat.’ In this article, I shall focus on the critical need of taking guard against this threat, as is often advised by all well-qualified domain experts. This risk is expected to increase further, as the technology keeps advancing.

Although, I had deliberated on Cybersecurity in my article, ‘Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma,’ in a different context, before delving into the core point of today’s discussion, let us together try to recapitulate what does ‘Cyberthreat’ mean to us, in the real world.

Cyber-threat in the digitalized business:    

Let me paraphrase, especially in context of the pharma industry, what the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the Government of the United States, has stated. It articulates, ‘Cybersecurity’ or ‘Cyber threats’ to a control system, refer to the attempts of unauthorized access to a control system device and/or network using a data communications pathway.

This access can be directed from within an organization by trusted users or from remote locations by unknown persons using the Internet. Threats to control systems can come from numerous sources, including disgruntled employees, and malicious intruders. To protect against these threats, it is necessary to create a secure cyber-barrier around the Industrial Control System (ICS).

Many sources indicate that the threat to cyber security in business, is often triggered to gain access to a company’s digital system to damage or steal data, or even to rattle its digital infrastructure for accomplishing a specific purpose.

Rapid digitalization in pharma may attract more cyber criminals:

According to a senior official of Kaspersky - a global cyber security company: “As rapid digitalization penetrates the healthcare sector, cyber criminals are seeing more opportunities to attack this lucrative and critical industry, which is honestly not equipped enough to face this virtual danger.”

The company further emphasized, with systems are now interconnected and mobile devices extensively used, both for remote access and for data sharing, digitalization in pharma increasingly exposes the organizations to both generic and targeted attacks. Thus, ‘creating Cyber immunity’ to ensure a powerful safeguard against such threats, becomes a top priority area in the digital transformation process of the drug industry.

Interestingly, way back in 2012, another report had also cautioned: ‘Cybercrime costs economy billions annually, with pharmaceutical and biotech companies among the hardest hit.’

Evidences of Cyber-attacks on pharma across the world:

There are numerous evidences of Cyber-attacks on the pharma players, globally. Such as, in June 2017, The Washington Post reported, US-based global pharma major, was among dozens of businesses affected by a sprawling cyberattack, with victims across the globe facing demands to hand over a ransom or have their computer networks remain locked and inaccessible.

Another report of December 13, 2017 wrote, by the third quarter of the year, ‘Merck had a better idea of the financial tab from the attack. While it generally had a very solid quarter, the results were dampened by the impact of the attack. There were $300 million in lost sales and costs.’

The Deloitte paper, titled ‘Cyber & Insider Risk at a Glance: The Pharmaceutical Industry’, also reiterated, the evidence abounds that pharmaceutical companies are the target of sophisticated Internet criminals. Serious cyberattacks are taking place even in the most advanced countries, including the US, Europe and Japan.

In the US, besides Merck, hacking has taken place against other major pharma and medical device makers, such as, ‘Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, and Wyeth, the drug maker acquired by Pfizer Inc. The same group successfully hacked the Food & Drug Administration’s computer center in Maryland, exposing sensitive data (including formulas and trial data) for virtually all drugs sold in the US,’ the paper revealed.

The real impact of the attack often doesn’t come out:

Outside world often doesn’t get to know about the comprehensive impact of numerous cyber-attacks for various reasons. Some of which may include, it’s possible aftermath on both the corporate image and also the brands, besides share prices. At the same time, the situation may prompt many to question the company’s capability to protect its business in the digitalized world.

The key reasons:

As the 2018 Data Security Incidence Report highlights, healthcare-led all industries accounted for around about 25 percent of more than 750 reported incidents, in volume. As identified by Kaspersky from various cyber-attack techniques and behavior of cyber-criminals, on the digital infrastructure of pharma players, let me paraphrase below the three key motivators, besides a few others:

  • Getting Intellectual Property (IP) related strategic details, including R&D, unpublished clinical trial results and formulation development processes.
  • Detailed business plans for pre-identified products.
  • Or, may even be for ransom.

Where does India stand?

According to reports, India ranks 6th for highest cyber-attacks on pharmaceutical companies. Nearly 45 per cent machines in the Indian pharmaceutical organizations more than four in 10 devices were detected with malicious attempts. Ahead of India features - Pakistan (54 per cent), Egypt (53 per cent), Mexico (47 per cent), Indonesia (46 per cent) and Spain (45 per cent).

Such attacks are taking place even in India, as cyber-criminals “are slowly realizing that pharmaceutical companies house a treasure trove of highly valuable data such as the latest drugs and vaccines, the newest researches, as well as medical secrets,” the report says.

Likewise, another article, published in Health Issues India, on September 17, 2019, made some interesting points. The article is titled, ‘Cyberattacks: A crisis in Indian pharma?’ It flagged in the following three areas, in this regard:

  • Numerous cracks exist in the cyber-security armor of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  • Just five to ten percent possess security systems strong enough to protect information from hackers.
  • And many do learn about a breach for several months.

Quoting a top expert, the paper reemphasized that generally in the Indian pharma companies “current systems don’t have security control and visibility in place to immediately detect the attack and respond on a real-time basis.” Thus, ‘it is unsurprising that Indian pharma has been so hard hit by cybercrime,’ the article further commented.

Conclusion:

Echoing many others, Booz Allen also advised in its article – ‘Understand the risks, and stay ahead of the game.’ This is a critical requirement in the digital age. Although, most pharma companies agree on the possibility of huge business losses from a cyber-attack, the industry continues to lag behind other industries when it comes to cyber-security implementation, the paper reiterated.

On the other hand, just strengthening a company’s IT systems, alongside an installation of powerful anti-virus software may still not be enough. Nor will it be adequate to working closely with the vendors who help protect cyber-security of the digital infrastructure of various companies. Even a robust system of forensic audit and analysis and reevaluating cyber-security protocols on an ongoing basis, may not be able to prevent cyber-attacks.

This is primarily because, a company is run, managed, looked after and cared by its employees. Although, it always remains the endeavor of any company to hire good, trustworthy and high performing employees, it does not always happen that way. It is also equally possible that some of them, at some time, for some reasons, may misuse the digital network for others or personal gain.

Thus, besides putting in place all other safeguards, as stated above, to attain desirable ‘Cyber-Immunity’, it is crucial for the organization to ensure buy-in of each employees a vital concept. This is – protecting cyber-security is everybody’s responsibility in a digital business framework, both individually and collectively. The process should start from the CEO and percolate down to the lowest rung in the ladder of hierarchy.

Hence, the reality is – ongoing digital transformation process of the pharma business would open the door of cyber-threats – often leading to crippling cyber-attacks. Thus, developing a comprehensive and strong cyber-immunity framework becomes essential for the organization. From this perspective, right from the start of this process – and not later on, drug companies need to ponder over the critical link between digitalization and cyber threats to provide adequate cyber immunity to its digital systems, for game changing outcomes.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.