Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Gene Therapy Price: Commercial Viability And Moral Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

On May 24, 2019, Novartis announced the US-FDA approval of ‘the first and only gene therapy’ – Zolgensma, for a type of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a lifesaving treatment for infants of less than 2 years of age. This unique drug halts disease progression with a single, one-time intravenous (IV) infusion.

On value offerings of Zolgensma,the Novartis CEO said: “The approval of Zolgensma is a testament to the transformational impact gene therapies can have in reimagining the treatment of life-threatening genetic diseases like spinal muscular atrophy. We believe Zolgensma could create a lifetime of possibilities for the children and families impacted by this devastating condition.”

Unquestionably, this development in medical science is indeed commendable. But, the jaw-dropping price tag – USD 2.125 millionattached to this product, has brought back gene therapy at the center stage of the incensed debate on access and affordability of such treatment for a vast majority of the population, across the world. Besides, two important issues related to gene therapy need to be effectively resolved – long-term commercial viability and the ‘moral dilemma’ that its market launch would prompt. And both are interconnected and also associated with the pricing rationale of such therapies.

I am terming  the second factor as a ‘moral dilemma’ rather than an ‘ethical dilemma’ because, “ethics is a more individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a more intersubjective community assessment of what is good, right or just for all.”In this article, I shall deliberate on these two interrelated issues. But, before delving into it, let me recapitulate in simple terms, what exactly is ‘Gene Therapy.’

What exactly is ‘Gene Therapy?’

According to US-FDA, human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

  • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
  • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
  • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Gene therapy products are now being studied to treat diseases including cancer, genetic diseases, and also infectious diseases.

Gene therapy price has been going higher than highest, thus far:

‘At USD 2.1 million, newly approved Novartis gene therapy will be world’s most expensive drug,’ says another report of May 24, 2019.It is noteworthy that Zolgensma price has been kept higher than the highest priced drug before this product came. If his trend continues, the future gene therapy cost is likely to exceed even Zolgensma price, the implication of which for patients who will need such treatment to save life or manage the disease, will be huge.

Intriguingly, the high treatment cost for a rare ailment like, SMA - a degenerative disorder that usually kills an infant within two years, is not limited to just gene therapy.  According to the April 04, 2019 article titled, ‘Biogen SMA drug price, Novartis estimates for its treatment far too high – U.S. group’ of Reuters, the price of another drug for SMA – Biogen’s Spinraza, which is not a gene therapy, is also very high. Its list price is USD 750,000 for the initial year and USD 375,000 annually. As reported, ‘Spinraza, an important growth driver for Biogen, took in USD 1.7 billion in 2018 sales.’

What should have been the actual prices of these drugs?

Interestingly, to determine the value of these drugs, the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) ‘used a measure known as “quality-adjusted life year” (QALY), in which each year of healthy or near-healthy life resulting from the treatment is worth USD 100,000 to USD 150,000.

Using the QALY benchmark, ICER, reportedly, said Spinraza should cost between USD 72,000 and USD 130,000 for the first year of treatment, and cost USD 36,000 to USD 65,000 per year after that, for infants not yet showing symptoms of the disease.

Further, with an alternative benchmark, known as life-year gained (LYG) based on the additional number of years a person lives due to a treatment, Spinraza is, reportedly, worth USD 83,000 to USD 145,000 in year one, and USD 41,000 to USD 72,000 annually thereafter, as ICER determined.

Zolgensma, on the other hand, would, reportedly, be worth USD 310,000 to USD 900,000 for Type 1 SMA patients based on the QALY assessment, and USD 710,000 to USD 1.5 million using the LYG calculation, ICER said.

Notwithstanding, whether one takes the QALY assessment or LYG based price of Zolgensma and Spinraza, the treatment cost of rare diseases, such as SMA for infants, is beyond the affordability of most people – whenever these drugs become the only choice to save lives. Thus, the question comes: Is gene therapy commercially viable or sustainable?

Is gene therapy commercially sustainable?

Undoubtedly, the development of gene therapy signifies yet another milestone in medical science to save lives, which is highly commendable. Nevertheless, the question arises, who will be able to afford this treatment? Thus, is development of gene therapy commercially viable and could be a money churner for a company on a long-term basis? There doesn’t appear to be a clear answer to these questions, just as yet. There are several reasons for this apprehension. But, I am citing below just two examples – related to their humongous treatment cost.

According to the article, published in the Scientific American, in the past five years, two gene therapy drugs have been approved in Europe and one in the United States. The name of this article is ‘Gene Therapy Is Now Available, but Who Will Pay for It?’ Interestingly, only three patients have so far been treated commercially with gene therapy, in Europe.

UniQure’s Glybera, used for a very rare blood disorder, costing around USD 1 million per patient, has been used just once since approval in 2012. However, in 2017, due to commercial reason UniQure decided to withdraw Glybera from the market. Similarly, Strimvelisof Orchard Therapeutics – used for severe Combined Immunodeficiency, costing USD 700,000, ‘has seen two sales since its approval in May 2016, with two more patients due to be treated later this year.’ Interestingly, these apprehensions have not deterred many companies. The ball keeps rolling.

But the ball keeps rolling:

That the ball keeps rolling, and at a faster pace, is evident from what US-FDA envisages in this field. According to US-FDA, by 2025, they are likely to approve 10 to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year. This is based on an assessment of the current pipeline and the clinical success rates of these products.

Importantly, despite apprehension of many, even some of the top pharma players, are fast moving into this space – based on their own assessment of the market. But, to move meaningfully in this direction, there are many several critical success factors, most of which are quite challenging and cost-intensive. A few of these, for example, are – a right collaborative model, ability to develop a scalable manufacturing process and overcoming various technical and regulatory challenges on the way. Interested pharma players, apparently, have realized these needs.

Big Pharma players joining ‘Gene Therapy’ bandwagon:

Big Pharma players, such as, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) have started moving into this space. Let me illustrate the point with just a couple of examples.

On March 20, 2019, Pfizer announced: ‘Pfizer has acquired a 15 percent equity interest in Vivet Therapeutics and secured an exclusive option to acquire all outstanding shares.’ Both the companies will collaborate on the development of Vivet’s proprietary treatment for Wilson disease – a rare and progressive genetic disorder, if remains untreated may cause liver (hepatic) disease, central nervous system dysfunction, and death.

Just before this, on January 31, 2019, Janssen Pharmaceutical of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced a worldwide collaboration and license agreement with MeiraGTx Holdings plc – a clinical-stage gene therapy company, to develop, manufacture and commercialize its clinical stage inherited retinal disease portfolio, including leading product candidates for achromatopsia. Even prior to this, on January 05, 2018, J&J had announced that the company has established an exclusive research collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania’s ‘Gene Therapy Program’ for fighting Alzheimer’s disease with gene therapy. There are several such instances of gene therapy collaboration for Big Pharma.

With a slightly different collaborative model for gene therapy, on April 12, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) signed a strategic agreement to transfer rare disease gene therapy portfolio to Orchard Therapeutics, taking a 19.9 percent stake in the company and a seat on the board. Simultaneously, this agreement strengthens Orchard’s position as a global leader in gene therapy for rare diseases.

What could be the moral dilemma in gene therapy pricing?

The dilemma with gene therapy is that they are frightfully expensive, but at the same time is ‘life-transforming’ for many, across the socioeconomic spectrum. This could be another ‘moral dilemma,’ as such exorbitant, if not seemingly ‘vulgar pricing’, as it were, would raise many questions on the company’s own principles regarding right and wrongin saving lives of patients with its gene therapy.

The reason for this moral dilemma in, especially gene therapy pricing is aptly elucidated in an article titled, ‘How to pay for gene therapies in developing nations,’ published in  Evaluate Vantage on March 22, 2019. Admitting that discrepancies in healthcare between rich and poor nations are nothing new, the article also raises a flag, indicating: ‘The potentially curative nature of many gene therapies heightens the moral conundrum that companies will face if and when these projects get to market.

Acknowledging that gene therapies are hot right now, with their developers taking aim at everything from hemophilia to rare eye diseases prevalent in rich nations,the author raises a pertinent question: ‘With rich countries like the US finding it hard to fund gene therapies, it is worth asking whether these projects will ever reach patients in developing countries. And if they do how will companies cope?’

Intriguingly, to create a larger market some are also targeting disorders, largely seen in poorer areas, such as sickle cell disease that could prove valuable also in the developing world. Expectedly, the pressure will mount from many corners to provide gene therapy at an affordable price. Big pharma players are likely to face this strong head wind, adding further fuel to fire of the moral dilemma of gene therapy pricing, especially for the developing world. As on date, no one knows what percentage of people in the developing world will have access to gene therapy. Even Novartis, reportedly, does not seem to have any plan to make its product available in the developing nations.

Conclusion:

Despite what has happened so far, as described above, looking around, we find a steady flow of gene therapy, some even promise remedial treatment outcomes. Big pharma companies, as well, have commenced a long-haul journey in this direction, with big stake investments.

Regarding, not achieving a huge commercial success with gene therapy, so far, one point is common for all, these are for the treatment of very rare diseases. Probably, because of this reason, some companies, having taken a cue from it, are moving away from ultra-rare diseases. Illustratively, GSK is still looking to use gene therapy in a collaborative platform, to develop treatments for more common diseases, including cancer and beta-thalassemia – another inherited blood disorder – as the above Scientific American article reported.

That said, the point to ponder now, if the effort to come out with a remedial gene therapy for these indications fructifies, would it ensure a long-term commercial viability, alongside giving rise to a moral dilemma on the rationale for gene therapy pricing? This seems to be akin to a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. It will be interesting to witness how it pans out, as we move on.

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.

Why D&I Is A Powerful Growth Driver For Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

‘Diverse India’ now needs an ‘inclusive society’, vowed the Prime Minister of India, after his massive electoral win on May 23, 2019. Many may consider a part of it as rhetoric, notwithstanding, as and when the government policy of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) gathers wind on its sail, the realization of its importance would reverberate – even in the corporate world, including the pharma industry, especially in India.

I discussed this subject in my article of June 25, 2018 ,in the context of transforminga pharma company to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization, with implementation D&I within the organization. However, in this article, I shall deliberate, over and above, the current status of D&I in the pharma industry, why most drug companies are still not leveraging it as one of the powerful business growth drivers. While opening this discussion, let me recapitulate what these two words mean to us, and their importance in the drug industry.

Recapitulating D&I:

As there are several, but similar definitions of D&I, I am quoting below just one – from the Ferris State University. It goes, as follows:

  • “Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs.”
  • “Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.”

The relevance and importance of D&I as a corporate growth policy for the drug industry is immense. It will not just, help them recognize and create business policies, based on diversity in people – a wide range of human differences in their consumers or potential consumers. In tandem, it will also help promote, and sustain a sense of belongingness with the society and communities where it operates – their values, beliefs, expectations and desire for a healthy living.

D&I begins within the company, and for the customers:

There are clear indications that many pharma companies are slowly, but surely realizing that for a consistent and sustainable financial performance the whole approach to business needs to undergo a metamorphosis. One such area of transformation, is a sharp focus on effectively satisfying a set of well-defined expectations of both their external and internal customers.

This journey begins with the creation of a Diverse and Inclusive (D&I) workplace. Nevertheless, the key goal remains – meeting expectations of the society where the drug companies operate, including a diverse set of customers – by saving and improving their quality of life, with affordable and accessible medicines.

While talking about diversity to Business Insider on January 10, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley also reiterated, for a future facing employer in an industry, D&I should be a priority corporate strategy – for aggressively modernizing the business.

D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry’:

This has been well-articulated even in the Workforce – a multimedia publication, where it says: D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry, where the workforce needs to be both business savvy and socially empathetic to serve their increasingly diverse communities.’

Quoting another CEO, a different article titled, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the pharma industry’, published in PMLiVE on June 27, 2018, emphasized: ‘The global Biopharma industry is one of the most powerful and important industries today, directly affecting the lives of billions of people around the world on a daily basis. In order to understand and meet the critical unmet medical needs of patients, the industry must represent the population it serves.’

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

“Many successful companies regard D&I as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” This was highlighted in the January 2018 research paper of McKinsey titled, ‘Delivering through Diversity.’

The article further elaborates: ‘D&I is a powerful growth strategy for an organization because it creates ‘a diverse and inclusive employee base – with a range of approaches and perspectives – would be more competitive in a globalized economy.’

Importantly, this research established a statistically significant correlation between greater levels of diversity and inclusion in company leadership and a greater likelihood of outperforming the relevant industry peer group on a key financial performance measure – profitability.

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

That some drug companies are gearing up to adopt this growth strategy, but still there is a lot of ground to cover in this area, gets reflected in the December 2018 ‘Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarking Survey’ of PwC. The survey included 183 corporate respondents from 5 regions and 15 countries. As many healthcare organizations have publicly declared their commitment to D&I, the study wanted to measure how they have translated strategy into execution and what impact it is leaving on the employee experience. The following are some of the key findings

  • While D&I is a stated value or priority area for 68 percent of organizations, only 51 percent of respondents disagree that diversity is a barrier to progression at their respective companies. Thus, ‘Diversity still remains a barrier to progression.’
  • Only 4 percent of healthcare organization’s D&I programs reach the highest level of maturity.
  • D&I program goals are quite varied. For about 38 percent it’s a way to attract and retain talent – 25 percent – a way to comply with legal requirements – 17 percent to achieve business results – 13 percent to enhance the external reputation and 8 percent to respond to customer expectations.
  • Interestingly, in 39 percent of cases there was no D&I program-leader in place, 32 percent cases the person reports to senior executives, 19 percent of cases the responsibility was assigned to staff with non-D&I responsibilities and only in 10 percent of cases – the leader is a peer to C-suite.
  • Only 29 percent leaders are tasked with specific D&I goals.

These may not be the points to cheer about – not yet, nonetheless, the survey findings send a clear signal about the beginning of D&I in the pharma industry.

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

As I said before, D&I is more important in the health care space, especially for drug companies, where the employees across the organization not just be business savvy with patient orientation, but also be inclusive and socially compassionate to benefit the diverse communities.Thus, there are two clear facets, I reckon, around which organizational D&I policies, especially for pharma players, should be formulated, as follows:

  • For employees within the organization.
  • For stakeholders outside the organization – putting patients at the core of the business strategy.

The above PwC survey is on the first one – D&I for employees within the organization. However, a holistic D&I policy requires dovetailing business savviness with a socially empathetic mindset to serve increasingly diverse communities, is even more challenging.

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

To serve increasingly diverse communities, dovetailing business savviness with socially empathetic mindset, appears to be more challenging for the pharma industry, in general. Its manifestations are varied, such as, dented image or its declining reputation – leading to trust deficit with many stakeholders, including patients. Likewise, one of primary causative factors that give rise to such manifestations is considered to be in the drug pricing area.

The current scenario in this area has been captured in a paper titled, ‘Curbing Unfair Drug Prices’, published by The Yale Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP), Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, National Physicians Alliance and Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut. The article unambiguously states, the high cost of prescription drugs is unsustainable, wherever it is. Spending on prescription drugs is increasing, either for different payers, or directly to patients through ‘out of pocket’ expenditure – at a faster pace than any other component of health care spending. Consequently, it is forcing many patients to skip doses of critical medicines, and several others to choose between their health and necessities, like food and rent.

The paper adds: “Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry continues to launch new drugs at exorbitant prices, increase prices of many old drugs without justification, and reap record profits. Evidence has unequivocally shown that high drug prices are not linked to the actual costs of research, development and manufacturing. Instead, inflated drug prices are a result of drug manufacturers’ power to charge whatever price the market will bear. The need for legislative action is urgent.”

One of the most recent examples of such jaw-dropping drug price was reported by Reuters, along with many others, on May 25, 2019 as: “Swiss drug maker Novartis on Friday won U.S. approval for its gene therapy Zolgensma for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), the leading genetic cause of death in infants and priced the one-time treatment at a record $2.125 million.”

That said, achieving this facet of D&I, is not just desirable, but also necessary to gain a sharp and well-differentiated competitive edge in sustainable financial performance. It is noteworthy that to be successful in this area, one of the key requirements is to assign specific accountability for D&I to that individual, where the bucks stop.

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

Yet another article titled, ‘Diversity and Inclusion: A Pharma 50 Perspective’, published in PharmExec on June 23, 2016, asserted that there is little point in tackling diversity without solving for inclusion.

It underlined: ‘Whereas diversity is the hardware bringing different machines together, inclusion is the software that brings the system to life.’ The authors suggested, as many others would: ‘Hiring a chief diversity officer can help, accelerating the process at the highest levels.’

Conclusion:

The good news is, the above McKinsey research study also found: ‘Corporate leaders increasingly accept the business imperative for D&I, and most wonder how to make it work for their firms and support their growth and value creation goals.’ The article reiterated the correlation between D&I and company financial performance. Thus, to effectively leverage this factor, developing a robust corporate D&I strategy aimed at both – the employees and the society, at large, appears to be the right choice.

From this perspective, a diverse and inclusive pool of employees, with varied range of approaches and perspectives are expected to meet both business expectations and the health needs of the society with more innovative ideas. Consequently, this deserves to be an organizational growth strategy, having a sharp competitive edge. It is mainly because, the initiative will uncover newer and unconventional pathways for providing greater access to affordable medicines, to save and improve the quality of many more lives. As the process rolls-out, it will keep gathering critical momentum, with support from all around and, more importantly, the enormous goodwill that the D&I strategy will attract from public, in general.

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.

The Game is Changing: Ensure Better Treatment Outcomes: Leverage Technology

Posted on by
Reply

Today, several pharma players, mostly ‘encouraged’ by many non-pharma tech companies, are trying to gain, at least, a toehold in the digital health care space. It is visible even within the generic drug industry. Such initiatives, as they gain a critical mass, will remold the process of doing – almost everything in the pharma business, catapulting the concerned drug companies to a much higher growth trajectory, as many believe.

This is quite evident from an interview of Fierce Pharma with the senior management of Sandoz – the generic drug arm of Novartis, that was published on May 14, 2019. The honchos said: “We’re looking across the whole value chain to make sure we’re embracing digital and technology wherever we can. So that means from the way that we innovate, to the way that we sell and the way that we operate and do day-to-day business.” The process covers “a whole range of activities from how you use AI and automation, all the way through to prescription digital therapies.”

I discussed about leveraging technology in the pharma space to address many burning issues – both for patients and the pharma industry. One such article, “Focus on Patient Compliance To Boost Sales…And More…”, was published in this blog on May 20, 2019. It establishes that even world-class sales and marketing programs can, at best, ensure higher prescription generations, but can’t prevent over 50 percent revenue loss from those prescriptions, due to patient non-compliance.

Interestingly, the issue of ‘nonadherence to treatment’ is being debated, since several decades. Various conventional measures were suggested and also taken. But the problem still persists in a huge scale, with probably an increasing trend. Thus, fresh measures, preferably by leveraging modern technology, are of high relevance in this area.

In this article, I shall illustrate the above point, with one of the most exciting areas in the digital space – the digital therapeutics. This is a reality today and marching ahead at a much faster pace than many would have anticipated.

Unfolding another disruptive innovation in healthcare:

One of the articles that I wrote on this subject is ‘Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare,’ which highlights a different facet of the same subject. Thus, let me begin today’s discussion with a recapitulation of some important aspects of a drug, particularly the following ones:

  • A large number of patients don’t find many drugs accessible and affordable during the entire course of treatment.
  • Drugs have to be administered orally, systemically or through any other route
  • Alongside effective disease prevention or treatment, many drugs may bother patients with long and short-term side-effects, including serious ones.
  • Treatment outcomes can’t often be easily measured by patients.

These are, of course, known to many, but several questions come up in this area, which also deserve serious answers, such as:

  • Are drugs indispensable for the treatment of all types of disease?
  • Can a holistic disease treatment be made more accessible and affordable with radically different measures?
  • Can the same effectiveness of a drug, if not more, be achieved with no side-effects with a non-drug therapy?
  • Can outcomes be significantly improved following this process, as compared to drugs?

In search of answers to these questions – arrive digital therapeutics:

In search of answers to the above questions, a number of tech savvy whiz kids. dared to chart an uncharted frontier by asking themselves: Is it possible to treat a disease with a software – having no side-effects, but providing better cost effectiveness and treatment outcomes to patients?

Today, with the signs of healthy growth of the seed – sown with the above thoughts, ushers in – yet another game changing pathway for disease treatment. The quest for success of these pathfinders can benefit both – the drug innovators and also the generic players, in equal measure, besides patients. Digital therapeutics is an upshot of this pursuit.

Its ‘purpose’ outlines – why it’s one of the most exciting areas in digital space: 

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance well captures the purpose of digital therapeutics, as, “Improving healthcare quality, outcomes, and value through optimizing the use and integration of digital therapeutics.”

What do digital therapeutics actually do?

There are several, but quite similar descriptions of digital therapeutics. For example, Deloitte described digital therapeutics as software products used in the treatment of medical conditions, enabling patients to take greater control over their care and are focused on delivering clinical outcomes. It also highlights, ‘digital therapeutics are poised to shift medicine’s emphasis from physically dosed treatment regimens to end-to-end disease management based on behavioral change.’

Digital therapeutics offers all positives of a drug and more:

In indications where digital therapy is approved and available, the new approach offers all positive attributes of an equivalent drug, with no side-effect. There isn’t any need of its physical administration to patients, either. Deloitte elucidated this point very aptly: “As software and health care converge to create digital therapeutics, this new breed of life sciences technology is helping to transform patient care and deliver better clinical outcomes.” More importantly, all this can be made available for better compliance and at a cheaper cost in many cases.

For example, according to the article published in the MIT Technology Review on April 07, 2017, carrying the title ‘Can Digital Therapeutics Be as Good as Drugs?’: “Some digital therapeutics are already much cheaper than average drug. At Big Health, people are charged $ 400 a year, or about $ 33 a month to use the insomnia software. The sleeping pill Ambien, by contrast, costs $ 73 for six tablets of shut-eye.”

Two basic types of digital therapeutics:

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance also underscores: “Digital therapeutics rely on high quality software to deliver evidence-based interventions to patients to prevent, manage, or treat disease.” It further elaborates: “They are used independently or in concert with medications, devices, or other therapies to optimize patient care and health outcomes.” In line with this description, the above MIT Technology Review article, as well, classifies digital therapy into two basic categories:

  • For medication replacement
  • For medication augmentation

It also says that the digital therapy for sleep (sleep.io), belongs to the first category, making sleeping pill most often unnecessary and with outcomes better than those of tablets. Whereas, the second category includes various disease specific software apps that improve patient compliance with better self-monitoring, just as co-prescription of drugs.

Nonetheless, the same MIT article gave a nice example of ‘medication augmentation’ with digital therapy. The paper mentioned, Propeller Health – a digital company, has inked a deal with GlaxoSmithKline for a ‘digitally guided therapy’ platform. The technology combines GSK’s asthma medications with Propeller Health made sensors that patients attach with their inhalers to monitor when these are used. Patients who get feedback from the app, end up using medication less often, the study reported.

The first USFDA approved digital therapy:

Let me give one example each of the launch of ‘medication replacement’ and ‘medication augmentation’ digital therapy, although there were other similar announcements.

  • On November 20, 2018, by a media release, Sandoz (Novartis) and Pear Therapeutics announced the commercial availability of reSET – a substance use disorder treatment that was the first software-only digital therapeutic cleared by the US-FDA, for medical prescriptions.
  • Closely followed by the above, on December 21, 2019, Teva Pharmaceutical announced US-FDA approval for its ProAir Digihaler for treatment and prevention of bronchospasm. Scheduled for launch in 2019, it is the first and only digital inhaler with built-in sensors that connects and transmit inhaler usage data to a companion mobile application, providing insights on inhaler use to asthma and COPD patients – for prevention and better treatment of the disease.

Many other projects on digital therapeutics are fast progressing.

Conclusion:

Stressing a key importance of digital therapeutics in chronic disease conditions, McKinsey article of February 2018, titled ‘Digital therapeutics: Preparing for takeoff’, also underlines: ‘Digital therapeutics tend to target conditions that are poorly addressed by the healthcare system today, such as chronic diseases or neurological disorders.’

It also, further, emphasized that digital therapeutics can often deliver treatment more cheaply than traditional therapy, by demonstrating their value in clinical terms. It illustrated the point with US-FDA’s approval for a mobile application that helps treat alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine addiction, well-supported by clinical trial data. The results showed 40 percent of patients using the app abstained for a three-month period, compared with 17.6 percent of those who used standard therapy alone.

I now come back to where I started from. The pharma ball game is changing, and that too at a faster pace.Ensuring and demonstrating better treatment outcomes for patients – both for patented drugs and the generic ones, will increasingly be the cutting-edge to gain market share and grow the business. Thus, leveraging technology to its fullest is no longer just an option for pharma companies. The evolution of digital therapeutics as a game changer, vindicates the point.

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.

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

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.

Focus On Patient Compliance To Boost Pharma Sales…And More…

Posted on by
Reply

One high-impact area in the healthcare space that often finds its place in the backseat is – patient noncompliance. A term that is commonly used in regard to ‘a patient who does not take a prescribed medication or follow a prescribed course of treatment.’ It comes with a steep price, for causing serious adverse impact not just on human health and health system, but also in the pharma business. Intriguingly, such incidents are still not scientifically monitored enough and vigorously acted upon, both globally and locally.

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has also flagged it as a huge problem, as it reports, 10 percent to 25 percent of hospital and nursing home admissions result from patient noncompliance. Furthermore, about 50 percent of prescriptions filled for chronic diseases are not taken correctly, with 40 percent of patients not adhering to the treatment regimen.

In this article, just after giving a flavor to its financial cost to patients, I shall dwell mostly on its impact on the pharma players, as overcoming this important problem doesn’t generally fall in the area of strategic focus for most of them. Finally, I shall explore how drug manufacturers can translate this problem into an opportunity – as the third growth driver for business, creating a win-win situation for all.

Economic and health impact on patients:

Noncompliant patients suffering from both acute and chronic ailments, pay a heavy price, not just in terms of longer suffering arising out of complications, but also incurring significantly more health expenditure for treatment of the same diseases. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, on average, less than 40 percent of patients around the world are fully complying with their treatment instructions.

Even in the Indian context, the problem is no different. Let me illustrate the point with the example of a chronic disease, such as Asthma. The article published on June 26, 2018 in ‘Lung India’ – the official publication of Indian Chest Society reported: “The mean annual direct costs among compliant and non-compliant patients were ₹14, 401 and ₹24, 407, respectively. Percentage of hospitalization was less among the compliant group (6 percent) when compared with noncompliant group (17 percent).”

The study concluded, asthma is not only associated with patient-specific impairment, but also creates a significant economic burden for the family and society. The major contributors to the burden are the medication cost and hospital admissions. Patient compliance with prescribed drugs can help keep asthma under control, thereby decreasing the economic burden and emergency hospital admissions – avoiding the economic risk from ill health with high out of pocket payments.  Productivity loss is another under-appreciated source of economic loss contributing to indirect cost. The rising costs of investigations, interventions, and treatment of chronic diseases further complicate the problem.

Economic impact on pharma business:

According to November 16, 2016 report, published by Capgemini and HealthPrize Technologies, globally, annual pharmaceutical revenue losses had increased from USD 564 billion in 2012 to USD 637 billion due to non-adherence to medications for chronic conditions. This works out to 59 percent of the USD 1.1 trillion in total global pharmaceutical revenue in 2015.

The report highlights, besides medication nonadherence being a serious global health issue that needs to be addressed immediately, it also happens to be a critical business issue for pharmaceutical companies. Thus, it is the only area of their business where a sharp strategic focus “can generate significant top – and bottom-line growth, improve outcomes, and create substantial savings for the healthcare system – all at the same time.”

Major reasons for patient noncompliance:

Several reasons are commonly attributed to patient-noncompliance to medicines, such as:

  • Lack of knowledge of its health and economic impact
  • Importance of completing the full-course of the drug and dosage regimen for long-term remission, following immediate relief
  • Untoward side-effects and other inconvenience
  • Forgetting therapy because of preoccupation
  • Financial inability to complete the prescribed treatment regimen due to the high cost of drugs.

Nevertheless, the 9th Edition of Global Research Report by Capgemini Consulting underscores that reality is more complex. Patient adherence initiatives, if any, when undertaken, even by pharma companies, often lack a thorough understanding of the root causes of discontinuing treatment and failure to effectively engage patients with a holistic approach to the issue. It also emphasizes: “Individual tactics are tried by different brands and then discontinued as budgets and priorities shift, before their impact is known. Successes are seldom pulled through and expanded across the organization.”

Using it as the third major growth drivers for pharma:

The two primary factors that drug manufacturers are leveraging to boost growth of the organization are:

A.  New product introduction – gradually extending to line extensions and new indications. One such illustration is the cholesterol-fighting drugLipitor of Pfizer. The lifetime sales of this brand as of the end third quarter 2017 generated a stunning USD 150.1 billion of business for the company. Incidentally, Lipitor patent expired in 2011. There are many similar examples, including Humira of AbbVie.

B.  Regular and hefty price increases for already marketed products, for various reasons, but almost regularly. According to this 2019 report, percentage price increases, on a huge base, of some of the world’s top pharma brands were as follows:

  • AbbVie: Humira, a blockbuster drug with USD 15 billion in sales in the first 9 months of 2018: +6.2%
  • Allergan: Many of its brand-name drugs, including dry-eye medication Restasis: +9.5%
  • Biogen: Multiple sclerosis drug Tecfidera: + 6%
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb: Eliquis, a drug that prevents blood clots and is on pace for USD 6 billion in sales in 2018: + 6%
  • Eli Lilly: Type 2 diabetes medication Jardiance: + 6%

Many studies have captured the importance of regular price increase, as a key pharma strategy, not only to drive the internal growth, but also to keep their investors, as well as, the stock market on the right side. There are examples that for some of the top global pharma players, this strategy was directly responsible for 100 percent of earnings-per-share growth in 2016, and more than 20 percent of the revenue made in the first three quarters of 2018.

On the other hand, some top analysts’ findings highlight that drug companies serious strategic focus just on the issue of patient noncompliance with novel tactical measures, could fetch as much as a 30 percent increase in annual earnings per share for many players, even in India.

This brings up to the point – can strategic focus to minimize patient’s non-compliance, supported by adequate resources, be the third growth driver for drug companies?

Can focus on patient noncompliance be the third growth driver for pharma?

For a moment, leaving aside the above two primary growth drivers, if we look at the estimates, as quoted above, well over 50 percent to 60 percent of a brand’s potential sales is wasted due to patient noncompliance. Isn’t it huge? Can this be ignored? Obviously not. Instead, why not pharma converts this problem into an opportunity, with a sharp strategic focus, leveraging technology.

Translating this potential opportunity into reality is neither very easy nor is every company’s cup of tea. But the reward for the winners is indeed phenomenal. To chart on this frontier, one of the toughest barriers, besides a winner’s mindset, is getting access to credible and meaningful patient-data, for various reasons. On the other hand, it isn’t an insurmountable problem, either – especially, with today’s rapidly progressing technology.

Some companies have started the long march:

According to the review article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine: ‘The ability of physicians, to recognize non-adherence is poor, and interventions to improve adherence have had mixed results. Furthermore, successful interventions generally are substantially complex and costly.’

Realizing that it as a potential opportunity – disguised as a problem, several pharma players have started thinking about exploring this not much charted territory, confirm reports coming from different countries of the world. To give an illustration, November 22, 2016 edition of Fierce Pharma reported: ‘Pharma companies have more recently joined the conversation with partnerships and programs that include adherence aims.’

It is generally believed today that rapid ascendency of modern technology, and its strong influence on people, will help create a new awareness of its current adverse impact both on patients and the drug companies.

What else could be done in a much wider scale?

Digital interventions, such as smartphone apps, are becoming an increasingly common way to support medication adherence and self-management of chronic conditions. In this regard, the May 14, 2018 study titled, ‘Smartphone apps for improving medication adherence in hypertension: patients’ perspectives’, published in the journal of Patient Preference and Adherence, concluded as follows:

‘These data showed that patients can identify the benefits of a medication reminder and recognize that self-monitoring their blood pressure could be empowering, in terms of their understanding of the condition and interactions with their general practitioners.’ But some loose knots are still to be tightened.

Tightening the loose knots:

Having leveraged the state of the part digital technologies to tighten the loose knots in this area,a host of AI-enabled smartphone health and diagnostic apps, capturing patient compliance details, especially in chronic disease areas, are fast coming up. Most of these are being developed by large, small and medium sized non-pharma pure tech companies, including startups. For example, according to reports: ‘With the release of the Apple Health Record and Apple Watch with a single-lead ECG, it’s evident that Apple has officially entered the healthcare space.’

A good number of these apps have received even the US-FDA approval, such as: MyDose Coach - a reliable dose calculating app for type 2 diabetic patients who take insulin once-daily in concert with physician guided insulin recommendations. Or, GoSpiro – a home spirometer, to measure air output from the lungs for COPD patients and connects wirelessly to provide hospital-quality data regarding breathing.

That many non-pharma entities are trying to create a space for themselves in a high-tech, but non-drug treatment segment within the pharma space, has prompted, several drug manufacturers to rewrite their marketing playbook, incorporating this ‘new notation’.

It’s real now…for some:

As the above Fierce Pharma article reported: ‘Pharma companies have more recently joined the conversation with partnerships and programs that include adherence aims; efforts from Verily and Sanofi and IBM and Novo Nordisk have recently made the news.’Further, on November 07, 2018, in another report it brings to the fore that Geisinger Health System has developed mobile apps to manage asthma with AstraZeneca, and a wearable app to manage pain with Purdue. It also joined forces with Merck to develop tools for patients and caregivers to improve care coordination and medication adherence.

Moreover, on February 09, 2019, Japanese drug major Astellas and WiserCare - a company that develops healthcare decision support solutions, announced a collaboration that includes improving patient adherence to care plans, and improve the overall care experience.

In tandem, concern on patients’ data privacy, may also now be addressed, possibly by making use of blockchain or similar technology for such initiatives, as I discussed earlier in this blog.

Conclusion:

‘Acquiring new customers is important, but retaining them accelerates profitable growth,’ is the theme of an article, published in Forbes on June 08, 2016. Therefore, just as any other business, this dictum applies to the pharma industry, as well, especially in context of patient noncompliance to medicines, with a clear strategic focus to minimize its impact on performance.

The major reasons for patient noncompliance ranges from ignorance of its adverse impact on health to side effects, forgetfulness and right up to inability to afford full-course of the prescribed drug treatment. Despite its continuity over decades, adversely impacting patients, health system and the pharma players, it won’t be prudent to infer that no attempt was being made in the past, to address this critical issue. Nevertheless, those measures have not worked, for many reasons, as we see today from various research studies in this area, even in the Indian context.

Once again, intervention of technology to make patients compliant to medicine, is showing promise for following it up more vigorously. That some global drug majors are entering into collaborative arrangements with non-pharma, technology companies of various sizes, sends a signal of the emergence of a third major growth driver for pharma, as discussed above.

This issue is so important, especially considering that the low hanging fruits of R&D have mostly been plucked, just as regular hefty increases of drug prices are meeting with tough resistance, squarely. In this scenario, a robust strategic focus on patient compliance would not only boost pharma sales but would also reduce the disease burden of a large section of people significantly. This will benefit all and harm – none.

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.

Is Pharma Communication In Sync With Doctors’ Expectations?

Posted on by
Reply

Not many pharma companies, especially in India, undertake any ongoing data-based analysis to gain insight on expectations and change in behavioral pattern of their customers, particularly doctors and patients. Many developments are taken as obvious, such as, when busy practitioners don’t want to give much time to a medical rep for brand detailing, if not any time, common spontaneous inference remains – ‘they are too busy.’ These responses are mostly without any data backup. Thus, meaningful efforts in finding ‘productive alternatives’ continue to remain elusive.

As making personal calls to some top medical practitioners becoming increasingly difficult, non-personal outreach for them tend to significantly go up. It often happens without any quantifiable assessment of how each of these targeted doctors is responding to even the non-personal outreach of the company.

That this is happening, was captured in a world-wide survey by ZS Associates in 2016. It highlighted: ‘The number of digital and non-personal contacts that the pharmaceutical industry now has with physicians exceeded its number of sales rep visits to doctor offices.’ It is worth repeating, this finding comes from a global survey.

Lack of insight in this area, could give rise to an avoidable disconnect between many pharma company’s core communication strategy, and what individual doctors would like to hear from them and in what way. Unless this issue is addressed sooner, it could be a strong invisible barrier to brands’ success, if not the image, too. Thus, in this article, I shall explore its implication, the key factors driving this trend, and most importantly, how to bridge this gap. Let me start with the well-established trend of increasing volume of non-personal contacts and hasten to add, by ‘non-personal’ I mean situations where a person is not physically present.

Increasing volume of non- personal outreach:  

In these days, personal interaction of medical reps with doctors, despite being traditionally important, is just one of the many channels for delivering requisite content to them. With increasing difficulty in getting top prescribers’ time, for effective brand detailing, many more non-personal channels are fast opening up.

Today, even in the Indian context, more than half of the total outreach volume of many drug companies, especially to such prescribers, are taking place through non-personal promotions. These include activities, such as:

  • Both, general and personalized e-mails
  • Mobile alerts to achieve various different objectives
  • E-detailing
  • Continuing Medical Education (CME)
  • Speaker program with associated arrangements and fees
  • Sponsoring medical events, seminars, symposia
  • Advertising in medical journals

Whereas, a little less than 50 percent of the total outreach by volume, still take place through in-person interactions with medical reps for brand detailing, as studies indicate. Interestingly, for known products, such contacts are often no more than just brand reminders.

The productivity of such calls needs to be measured and quantified, just as what is required for various non-personal channels, including digital – the contact volume of which is fast increasing for several companies. Curiously, despite this prevailing scenario and in some cases, a declining performance trend notwithstanding, higher promotional budgets continue to be available, based on hope and supported by optimistic forecasts.

The key reason attributed to this trend:

The article titled ‘What healthcare professionals want from pharma’, published in Pharma IQ on April 23, 2019 wrote about a key research finding on this subject. It emphasized, ‘only 46 percent of physicians worldwide are “accessible”- defined as meeting with a pharma sales rep in 70 percent of requests in the past year – a figure that has declined from 78 percent in 2008.’

On the same issue, the survey brought out two other important points:

  • 38 percent of physicians restricted MR access, and
  • 18 percent of physicians “severely’’ restricted MR access

The question that follows is, how much doctors’ time is taken by non-personal communication?

Doctors’ time taken by non-personal communication:

The above article also found: ‘These doctors estimate they receive more than 2,800 contacts from pharma reps each year via digital and non-personal marketing channel – contacts that consume an estimated 84 hours per year, or two full work weeks of their time.’ This level of “white noise” makes it imperative to rethink strategies for reaching prescribers, the article added.

What do doctors do with non-personal communication?

In this situation, understanding when doctors open doors to MRs, read promotional emails, commit to speaker events, and engage with other sales and marketing channels could be the difference between gaining market share by delivering a strong customer experience and failing to keep pace with a competitor. This was one of the key findings of ZS Associate’s 2017 Access Monitor study.

Thus, gaining insight on individual customer behavior for personalized customer engagement, would help create a cutting-edge competitive advantage for pharma players. With this acuity, astute pharma marketers would require prioritizing their focus on communication channels and platforms – alongside resource allocation for each.

Current resource allocation:

As reported in the above survey by ZS Associates, while marketing executives and doctors notice the increase in non-personal communications, pharma players, in general continue to allocate around 88 percent of their total sales and marketing budget to the sales force. This is despite non-personal communications – including digital, now comprising 53 percent of the total marketing outreach, as captured in this worldwide survey.

The survey findings do raise a point of caution as it says: ‘If pharma companies continue to increase investment in less expensive digital communications without considering customer preferences, physicians may feel overwhelmed and eventually ignore them.’ Thus, it will be important for drug companies understand doctors’ expectations in this area.

Pharma – doctor communication: Expectations and gaps: 

On the doctors’ front, there are two important developments that pharma marketers should take note of:

  • Core expectation of doctors is much clearer now:  As one of the above studies clearly indicate, the core expectation of all practicing doctors, from both personal and non-personal contacts with the drug companies, is to get the ‘news that they can use’, in their respective medical practices.
  • Availability of multiple expert sources/channels to fetch relevant medical information: The reality today is, medical representatives are no longer the only credible source for many busy practitioners to get useful medical information, not just for the molecule, but also for specific brands. ‘And with more choices, physicians increasingly prefer to learn about products on their own terms,’ as the above worldwide survey points out.

Hence, there exists a gap between how and what type of content busy practitioners expect from pharma companies and how and what the drug companies actually deliver to them. There isn’t an iota of doubt that this gap has to be bridged for making sales and marketing efforts more productive.

It demandsa deep insight into the way doctors gather medical information – based on real-time data analysis. This is critical, considering the role it plays for success in generating increased brand prescription support.

Acquiring insight into the way doctors gather medical information:

There are four key elements, I reckon, to acquiring insight into the way doctors gather medical information:

  • What each high-value medical practitioner considers as ‘the news that he/she can use’ in their practice, which would also help a company to generate increasing brand prescription support? Its answer should be the key driver for targeted content development.
  • How a doctor would prefer to receive it – as a personal or non-personal communication?
  • What would be each such doctor’s most preferred channel or platform to receive this message?
  • How to create an effective and measurable synergy between personal and non-personal communication for each important prescriber?

As too-much, too-frequent and too-many types of communication may often be counterproductive, delivering the right content, on the right platform, through the right channel for each top prescribers, would likely to pave the way for success in this effort.

Real-time monitoring to increase the strike rate is important:

This is relevant for both personal and non-personal communication and would include several areas, such as, after getting appointment of a top specialist, with great difficulty, what results follow after the interview concludes. Or after sending important and even personalized emails, how to monitor whether doctors are opening those, reading and acting upon, as intended.

This is no rocket science. There are ample mechanisms to make it happen. However, it is important to decide first, which of these means would suit a particular company the most, for effective implementation. That said, leveraging modern technology and constantly updating it, is the only way forward, for sure. While the task is difficult, but is certainly achievable – with the optimal mix of right resources and perseverance.

Conclusion:

When the expectation is, to build a strong pharma brand with a long-term success record, the only tool is effective communication of brand-value to target customers – in the right way, leading to tangible value creation for all. The source of communication being respective drug companies, one can be sure that it will be relayed to targeted receivers, such as doctors, patients and other stakeholders. However, none can be too sure whether the receiver will be willing to receive it the way it was planned by the source – and through the same channels.

Like many other industries, pharma customers are also becoming more selective in receiving, accepting and acting on medical communications, according to individual expectations and preferences. Several research studies have confirmed this emerging trend. Simultaneously, it is also getting revealed that most communication of a large number of drug companies are not quite in sync with doctors’ expectations. As a result, return per dollar/rupee spent on such communication is fast declining.

Thus, it’s time for a significant course correction – with a sense of urgency, as discussed above. No doubt, all pharma players have a strategy in place to make their brand communication effective. Nevertheless, what they should also focus on, is to align their communication with doctors’ expectations.

It is, therefore, imperative that pharma communication is made in sync with doctors’ expectations – not based on a couple of interviews with them, as it were, but by analyzing a massive pool of credible data, leveraging modern technology. Otherwise, high value prescribers may keep considering reps visit as ‘noise’ and remain indifferent to such outreach.

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.

Creating Satisfied Patients Begins With Developing Satisfied Employees

Posted on by
Reply

‘The core issue in health care is the value of health care delivered,’ wrote Michael Porter in a paper titled, ‘Value-Based Health Care Delivery,’ published by the Institute of Strategy & Competitiveness of Harvard Business School (ISC-HBS) on January 15, 2014.

Building on this concept, EY in its 2018 edition of ‘New horizons: Executive insights on the future of health’ articulated: ‘Value-driven care means delivering the best clinical outcomes with optimized costs, while delivering a satisfying experience for patients and providers.’

Creating a ‘satisfying patient experience’ – or ‘satisfied patients’ for its brands, being the ultimate objective of a drug company, I shall add an interesting dimension to it, in this article. And that is: Will it necessitate creating satisfying employees within the organization to achieve this goal? To build a right perspective in this direction, let me begin with the core concept of Michael Porter on this subject. This starts with – what is generally regarded as ultimate ‘value’ to patients, in healthcare delivery?

Defining ultimate ‘value’ in health care delivery:

Porter defined this ‘value’ as ‘patient health outcomes per dollar spent’. He also made some key assertions in this context, which I am summarizing below:

  • Delivering high and improving value is the fundamental purposeof health care.
  • Value is the only goal that can unite the interestsof all system participants.
  • Creating positive-sum competition on value for patients is fundamental to health care reform in every country.

Are these assertions attainable?

To create ‘Value-Based Health Care Delivery (VBH),’ the people would also need a ‘Value-Based Pharma Industry (VBP)’, delivering ‘Value-Based Medicine (VBM)’, for all. The three key principles for any VBM are considered as follows:

  • Thoroughly selected values must be based on the best research evidence available and applied as treatment options. 
  • Values for patients are converted into measurable utility values to facilitate the integration.
  • The cost-utility level expected from selecting a particular treatment option is the basis for decision-making.

In other words, the whole purpose of offering a VBM is to provide cost effective, science-based healthcare that incorporates patient values. Nonetheless, effective implementation of both VBH and VBM would entail a radically different leadership mindset, with quite a different set of success requirements, both globally and locally.

To drive home this point, let me illustrate just the third point of the Porter’s model of VBH, as quoted above. This clearly articulates: ‘Creating positive-sum competition on value for patients is fundamental to health care reform in every country.’ But the current reality of ‘competition’ in the drug industry is far from what it should be, as evident from one of the Brookings studies.

How competitive is the pharma industry to reduce cost of health care?

The Brookings paper titled, ‘Enabling competition in pharmaceutical markets,’ published on May 02, 2017 shares its research findings on the subject, which in a broader context include the following points:

  • Over the years, industry participants have managed to disable many of the competitive mechanisms and create niches in which drugs can be sold with little to no competition.
  • When manufacturers can earn high profits by lobbying for regulations that weaken competition, or by developing mechanisms to sidestep competition – the system no longer incentivizes the invention of valuable drugs – incentivizes firms to locate regulatory niches where they are safe from competition on the merits with rivals.
  • But, health care system performs well when competitive forces are strong, yielding low prices for consumers, as well as innovation that they value.
  • Weak competitive forces often lead to a lack of market discipline with high drug prices and are more damaging to in the pharma consumers than some other sectors.
  • Without strong competitive conditions, healthcare expenditure will continue to grow, inviting public demand for drug price regulation through legislation.

These findings provide enough reasons to ponder how to overcome the barrier of ‘Creating positive-sum competition on value for patients’ to move towards VBH.

The good news is, VBH concept was soon put to use:

The good news is, soon after publication of Michael Porter’s paper – ‘Value-Based Health Care Delivery’ by (ISC-HBS) on January 15, 2014, it was put to practice by the American College of Cardiology (ACC).The article titled, ‘A New Era of Value-Driven Pharmaceuticals’, published by Health Standards on May 21, 2014, reported it.

The article wrote, at the end of March, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a joint statement saying they “will begin to include value assessments when developing guidelines and performance measures (for pharmaceuticals), in recognition of accelerating health care costs and the need for care to be of value to patients.”

The authors pondered, ‘are we entering a new era of value-based medications or value-driven pharma?’ There are several such reports. For example, another article titled, ‘Value-based healthcare’, published by the ‘Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM)’ observed, value-based healthcare has emerged as a field of its own – feet firmly founded in ‘Evidence-based Medicine’ or ‘Value-Based-Medicine.

VBH concept is slowly gaining acceptance:

EY in its 2018 edition of ‘New horizons: Executive insights on the future of health’ also reiterated this point. The paper mentioned, ‘the trends of reducing costs and improving outcomes show no sign of receding, and new models for delivering health care are only adding pressure to traditional brick and mortar facilities.’ It further highlighted, some pharma companies have started systematically reviewing the business processes, procedure and patient interface within the organization to identify and eliminate waste and inefficiency.

But, still a lot of ground to cover:

In this regard, EY Health Advisory Survey 2017 came out with several interesting findings based on the responses of 700 qualified healthcare professionals. One such finding is, although high importance is attributed to creating both – a good ‘patient experience’ and a meaningful ‘patient engagement’, but a lot less is done on the ground. This was supported by the following data:

  • 93 percent of respondents reported, they are undertaking ‘patient experience’ initiative that year, but only 26 percent of them selected patient access or satisfaction as one of the top three for the same.
  • Although 81 percent of the professionals said ‘patient engagement’ is considerably important to them, but most of the top initiatives undertaken by their organizations don’t directly involve soliciting and analyzing patients’ needs and wants.

‘Employees satisfaction’ a prerequisite for ‘patient satisfaction’:

The same EY Health Advisory Survey 2017, found many respondents articulating that ‘employee satisfaction’ is a prerequisite to ‘patient satisfaction’. However, its importance gets diluted whiling translating the same into reality, as vindicated by the following finding:

  • 51 percent of respondents believe that employee satisfaction in health care drives patient satisfaction, but only 35 percent said that their organizations have already initiatives underway to create more positive work and environment. Interestingly, only 10 percent of them have undertaken any employee satisfaction survey soliciting employee input.

It is quite apparent from this situation that leaders of respective organizations don’t walk the talk, especially in this critical area. Harmonization of ‘patient satisfaction’ as a critical success factor for delivering VBH, with the core business value of the company, is not taking place. A deep-rooted belief that success in developing mostly transactional and partly emotional relationship with the heavy prescribers is the only ‘magic wand’ for business success in pharma. Thus, the old habits die hard, even today.

Conclusion:

Despite several barriers in its way, for a long-term survival in business, hopefully, many pharma companies would willy-nilly move towards delivering ‘value-based health care’ through ‘value-based medicine.’ This would necessitate having a clear goal to create an increasing number of satisfied patients for the brands. There are ample evidences today that ‘employee satisfaction’ is a basic prerequisite to ‘patient satisfaction’, where many drug companies are lagging behind, significantly.

Only the movers and shakers in the senior leadership of pharma industry can break this status-quo. It may be initiated with – example-setting activities, which should enable giving shape to developing a set of standard operating procedure – culminating into the culture and value for the organization.

Nurturing humane approach to employee commitment for creating satisfied employees is the primary step of this important initiative. Then, encouraging their active participation – willingly, to bring patients at the center stage of pharma business, should be the ongoing process.  It’s, therefore, imperative to note - the goal of creating ‘satisfied patients’, should always begin with developing ‘satisfied employees.’

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.

Adopt A Hybrid Business Model For Better Sales – Not A Large Field Force

Posted on by
Reply

For aggressive business expansion or to attain greater market access, creating a large sales force has been the thumb rule in the pharma industry, since long. To meet the challenge of changing market dynamics, going for a thorough re-engineering of even a rattling sales and marketing machine, is still considered a risky proposition.

Many studies have captured the common reasons of such hesitations. For example, the McKinsey article titled, ‘Cutting sales costs, not revenues,’ finds that field force being a major growth engine for sales, since long, the thought of overhauling it fills senior executives with dread. Thus, to keep sales flowing, companies will make piecemeal ongoing repairs as long as they can – ‘no matter how patched up or spluttering that engine may be.’

Nevertheless, some compelling business reasons have now prompted several pharma players to accept the ground reality – fast-evolving over the last one and half decades. Many of them have realized that in today’s changing market dynamics, a leaner and smarter sales force (or field force or medical rep, or MR) will fetch the desired results than ‘flabby’ and larger ones.

In this article, I shall not discuss the obvious reasons of downsizing, such as to record profit under trying circumstances, or when per rep productivity keeps declining consistently, or during a change in the promoted product-mix, or a decision to reduce focus on volume intensive-low margin generic brands. But, what I shall discuss is, the reasons for an urgent need of creating a hybrid sales and marketing model, during this changing paradigm.  

It begins with accepting a change in the business environment: 

If the objective of sales force size reduction remains limited to cost-cutting for short-term improvement of the bottom-line, it could be grossly counterproductive, possibly with many unforeseen consequences. Field staff will continue to remain one of the key growth drivers in pharma and biotech business, but not the sole mechanism to increase brand prescriptions. Finding a well-integrated alternative model would begin with acceptance of a significant change in pharma business environment.

Undoubtedly, a perceptible change is noticeable today in pharma stakeholders’ mindset. This change is being further fueled by rapid increases in their usage of various digital platforms and networks. For example, many patients are trying to be reasonably informed of even various disease treatment options and the cost of each, much before they visit a doctor’s clinic or a hospital. The nature and quality of their interaction with health care providers, including doctors, are also changing. Patient-experience during a treatment process, and the value offerings that come with a pharma brand, will have increasing relevance to business performance – more than even before. Anything going against the patient-interest will possibly be shared with all, mostly in social media, which has a potential to precipitate serious consequences.

As this trend keeps going north, pharma market dynamics would change, commensurately, making pharma’s key business success factors significantly different with medical reps no longer being the sole prescription generators. A new hybrid – digitally empowered sales and marketing model is, therefore, the need of the hour. In this new ball game, as a growth driver, the role and size of the field staff will be quite different, where the senior management warrants a new vision for pharma business.

The situation warrants a new vision for pharma business:

In this changing situation, to generate more prescriptions from doctors by deploying a large field force, could prove akin to swimming against a strong tide. Whereas for achieving business success at this time, pharma players would require creating a well-oiled augmented value delivery system for enhanced customer experience, primarily for patients during their entire treatment process.

While creating this sleek and effective system, it would be necessary to cut unproductive or less productive flab in the frontline, with great precision. However, this process must be dovetailed with implementation of other communication and customer engagement platforms, mostly digital, to achieve the set objectives.

The new strategy being augmented value delivery to customers, the process would entail, besides innovative and modern tools, a different genre of field staff members, possessing some critical skill-sets. The goal of need-based field force downsizing complemented by new synchronous measures for operational synergy, must not only be clear to senior management, but also be explained to all concerned.

What would ‘augmented value delivery’ to customers lead to?

Another McKinsey article titled, ‘The few, the proud, the super-productive - how a smart field force can better drive sales,’ articulated: ‘Indeed, our perspective on the past five years is that leaders that used field reductions to actually rethink the commercial model – rather than taking a “blunt instrument” approach to cuts – are reaping rewards.’

As the current pharma sales and marketing models are undergoing a metamorphosis, globally – this transition phase throws several tough challenges – from defining new roles and capabilities for field staff to creative use of various interactive communication platforms.  As the McKinsey article underscores: ‘new capabilities need to be added even as we continue to use the tried and true current model, albeit with less success.  It further adds: ‘The inconvenient truth: we will have to sweat the current model and build the capabilities for the future in parallel. Those hoping for a ‘flip the switch’ transition, are likely to be disappointed.” With his, I reckon, will emerge a robust ‘augmented value delivery system’ for the business leading to:

  • Higher profitable sales through satisfied customers
  • Increase in sales per employee ratio
  • Containing/reducing sales and marketing spend as a percentage of total revenue.

Several initiatives to translate this concept into reality is now palpable, globally. A few examples may suffice to drive home this point.

Downsizing field force complemented by new measures for synergy pays:

Here also there are several research studies to bring home this point. One such is the paper titled, ‘Big pharma proves that oncology pays as workforces shrink,’ published in ’Vantage’ of Evaluate on July 23, 2018. The researchers touched upon this area while discussing the workforce productivity for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). It found that a substantial shrinking of its workforce, alongside some other important measures, has given BMS a big boost in sales, with a dramatic impact on its overall performance. As the study indicated, even investors will find this fact hard to ignore. Let me hasten to add that ‘downsizing workforce’ mainly involved sales and R&D staff in this analysis.

The article further highlighted, during the period of 2007 to 20017, the management teams of some other pharma majors, as well, such as GlaxoSmithKline), AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, either reduced their workforce significantly or kept flat. According to this study the changes in the workforce of these 4 companies are as follows:

Workforce Bristol-Myers Squibb GlaxoSmithKline AstraZeneca Eli Lilly
2007 42,000 103,483 67,400 40,600
2017 23,700 98,462 61,100 40,655

However, even in the year 10, all the four companies - Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly posted not just sales growth, bit all-round performance improvement, as may be seen by clicking on each.

Having deliberated on the impact of downsizing field force, let me now focus on powerful complementary measures for augmented value delivery to customers.

Today’s reality for pharma business in India can’t be wished away:

The EYstudy titled, ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India,’ captures the current situation quite well. I am quoting below just a few of those:

  • Today’s tech-savvy physicians are relying far less on reps and more on digital devices for healthcare information. Only 11 percent of healthcare professionals in India prefer in-person visits from a company representative, according to a 2016 study by Health Link Dimensions. Likewise, many patients arming themselves with medical knowledge available online, gradually relying less on only physicians’ decision-making. Thus, the rules of engagement need to be redefined.
  • With a shift in focus toward more complex or specialty medicines, pharma companies continue to add new layers of MRs to increase geographic coverage. The increasing number of MRs and the number of brands under each of them have drastically reduced the time and quality of sales pitches – from being scientific to mere brand name reminders.
  • Physicians’ place at the center of the pharma ecosystem as almost the sole-decision makers, is very likely to become a thing of the past with the emergence of a broad array of customers with a new mindset.
  • New tech-based entrants providing information platforms, analytics, e-consultation services and access to medicine online are challenging pharma’s value creation story.

Enhancing customer experience needs a hybrid business model:

The new market dynamics, demands cutting-edge brand-value augmentation measures, enhancing customer-experience with some tangible benefits. These telltale signs can only be ignored at one’s own peril. Let me also illustrate this point with the findings from another research study.

According to 2015 Oncology Customer Experience Tracker of ZS, “Oncology companies can add USD 50 – USD 75 million in incremental sales for every USD 1 billion in current sales by delivering a better customer experience.”

This vindicates that creating a better customer experience should be the key goal of pharma’s augmented value delivery system – going much beyond the traditional communication of key product features and its clinical benefits. This new concept is fast emerging as the fulcrum – not just for creating a strong brand pull, but also enhancing the public image of the organization. And can be achieved with a right blend of:

  • ‘Must do’ mindset of top management,
  • Expertise in well-targeted – multi-channel content making,
  • Expertise on data-science and analytics to churn out the right information from a large pool of data,
  • Wherewithal for effectively using the right digital platforms, either directly to customers or through a leaner and digitally-skilled sales force having a ‘can do’ attitude, as the situation will demand.

Some companies are testing the water:

Conventional ways to improve Sales Force Effectiveness (SFE), especially with soft skills, besides, of course product knowledge, is not new to the pharma players. What they need to do is change the primary focus of increasing sales through delivering mostly the key intrinsic value of the brand, to increase profitable sales by delivering augmented brand value, leading to enhanced customer satisfaction.

This is a major shift from the traditional paradigm and would surely entail application of digital technology and data science. As I wrote before, many companies have started adopting this approach – mostly with one baby step at a time, right or wrong.

Observation and findings of an India specific study: 

Noting that ‘Indian pharma’s journey to a digital world has just begun,’ the same EYstudy, as quoted above, reported the following findings, among a few others:

  • Lack of a clear digital strategy/value proposition and change management are the two key barriers to embracing digital.
  • Whatever was being done manually earlier is now being done digitally. But we are not adding additional value. On the other hand, companies globally are now cautiously moving toward being digital practitioners.
  • Indian pharma majors will need to grow into integrated health care providers – offering both products and services, forging patient-centric partnerships and demonstrating value to a broad array of customer groups.

The good news is, some of the key observations of the study also include the following:

  • Some are using digital technology to capture untapped and unstructured data, to make their sales and marketing decision making process more agile and robust.
  • Powerful apps with dynamic, meaningful content and the right value proposition are gaining popularity.
  • Several players, while staying within the realms of regulatory boundaries, are enabling patients to actively manage their care. 

Conclusion:

As we look around, many drug companies, especially in India, continue to remain focused on the age-old transactional sales and marketing models, delivering the intrinsic brand values, irrespective of the changing pharma market dynamics, especially disregarding what today’s customers in the knowledge economy look for. Traditional training and incentivizing a large, and often flabby, sales force on product and rupee value territory-sales against the target, are the general ways to achieve these. The focus on achieving the internal sales targets, regardless of the processes being contentious or not.

Modern time warrants a different conversation altogether – creation of a unique customer experience – with augmented value delivery systems. Achieving this goal would entail astute applications of modern technology, complementing the reach and impact of the right-sized field staff efforts, and leading to improvement in ‘sales per employee ratio.’

Thus, I reckon, higher sales or the need for an expanded market access, may not necessarily entail a larger field force, but a new breed of leaner and especially skilled MR to deliver the needs of the changing healthcare landscape.

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.