Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Making Drug Pricing Transparent May Work Better Than Price Control

Posted on by
Reply

“Now, one-fourth of the Indian pharma market to be under price control.” This possibility was reported by some national dailies, on July 03, 2018. The new methodology of drug price control could be anything – ranging from earlier ‘cost-based’ model to the current ‘market-based’ one – to even the new pharmaceutical index, as proposed by the Government ‘think tank’ – Niti Aayog. This gives an indication of acceptance by the policy makers that none of the price control mechanisms have worked as intended, till the last 48 years. Otherwise, why are such changes taking place?

On the other hand, the drug pricing models of the pharma industry, are also not working. Drug pricing related issues, directly or indirectly, continue driving pharma reputation down south. Strong negative vibes on the industry continues, despite a vigorous and expensive advocacy of the industry trade associations, primarily positioning the need to encourage ‘drug innovation’ right at the front. No perceptible impact of this pharma strategy on the policy makers is still visible, besides a few spoon-fed media editorials – as many believe. The saga continues. The pricing focus keeps remaining solely on a company’s financial interest. How far the price of a drug can be stretched to benefit the company, is the point to ponder. Why aren’t the basis and rationale of drug pricing made transparent, voluntarily? In this article, I shall discuss on this contentious issue.

Current pricing approach becoming counterproductive: 

The good news is, of late, some global drug majors apparently have been compelled to realize that this approach is gradually becoming more and more counterproductive, inviting more drastic measures from many Governments. Even recently in the United states, ‘Trump wants U.S. Health Secretary to get tough on drug prices, opioids.’ This situation demands, more than ever before, that a measurable quantum of all-round health benefits accrued by patients with the medicine, have to be factored into the drug pricing model, now.

Can pharma too, look for an ‘Out of the box’ solution?

I found two excellent examples of ‘looking outside the box’ in an article featured in the Pharmaceutical Executive, on March 06, 2018. Both the illustrations from non-pharma companies focus on product output to the consumer rather than inputs on the same by the companies, such as the cost of a drug innovation to an innovative company. Many find difficult to accept – why for extending life of cancer patients by just three to six months, an innovative oncology drug would cost thousands of rupees more to the sufferers, or their family?

Couple of interesting ideas:

The two interesting ideas are as follows:

- Erstwhile Monsanto, the article says, ‘had historically been able to maintain its market position and technological edge in developing superior genetically modified seeds through patents and contracts with farmers. In order to fully capture the value of its genetically modified seeds, however, Monsanto went a step further and shifted to a royalty type price model, charging a fee after the crops were harvested based on the yield. This end-use fee shifted Monsanto’s price model from seed-based to yield-based pricing, i.e., from input- to output based.”

-  The second one comes from a time “when Michelin developed a new tire that lasted 25 percent longer than existing tires, the company found it difficult for customers to accept a premium” – the paper highlights. “Rather than giving away the innovation, Michelin changed its pricing model. Truck fleets, a key customer segment, track cost per mile for each truck as their revenue model is also based on charging its customers per mile. Michelin decided to adapt its pricing model and to offer the new tires on a price per mile rather than per tire basis. The company then offered a contract to replace the tires after they wore down. Under this new pricing model, customers perceived a parity price as they were not asked to pay more, while longer lasting tire from Michelin was able to capture a premium for its innovation” – the article emphasized.

Two patient-oriented pharma pricing models:

Looking somewhat ‘outside the box’ and trying to factor in patients’ overall interest, some global majors are contemplating the following two broad approaches:

  • Value based pricing (VBP)
  • Outcomes based pricing (OBP)

The Drug Pricing Lab (DPL) based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center defines these two models as follows:

Value-based pricing: When the price of a drug is based on its measured benefits, for instance, in clinical trials leading to its approval.  Methods used to determine value-based prices are transparent, reproducible and data driven.

Outcomes-based pricing: Refers to arrangements between manufacturers and payers, in which the manufacturer is obligated to issue a refund or rebate to the payer that is linked to how well the therapy performs in a real-world population. This refund or rebate is off of a list price that the manufacturer sets.

These concepts are neither very new or untried. Nevertheless, these are being used very selectively by some global pharma majors, from time to time. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent approach with these two models, thus far. For example, in 2005, with its erectile dysfunction drug Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative in Denmark, where patients dissatisfied with the treatment get a refund. Moreover, there are several instances of interchangeable use of these two definitions, in various literature. But, I shall stick only to the above definition, in this deliberation.

Are there any takers for VBP?

A few other pharma majors, such as Eli Lilly, have accepted the need in finding a right balance between investment on innovation and providing affordable medicines, as the key to bettering the health of the world with value-based pricing. It will call for requisite engagement between the drug manufacturers and health planners, covering the following two points, especially in the Indian context:

  • Critical scientific evidence about new drugs would create a pathway to set accurate rates for better availability to patients who need treatment.
  • Making drug price regulators and health policy planners better anticipate the holistic impact of the drug on patients, leading to generation of more accurate efficacy and pricing/health economics data.

The major issue with VBP:

The critical point to note, that for a meaningful discussion on VBP, the pharma players will require to share their pricing data with the competent authorities. In this regard, the article, titled “Pricing Turning Point: The Case for Innovating Pharma’s Model,” published by Pharmaceutical Executive on March 06, 2018, flags an important reality.

It says,a drug pricing model consists of two parts – How to charge (the details of the rationale)? And how much to charge (the level)? The article reinforces that the pricing decisions in the pharma industry generally focus on ‘how much to charge’, for the last 100 years. This process is now being stretched to a mind boggling level that raises many eyebrows in ‘disbelief’. I, therefore, reckon, it would be a real challenge for the drug maker to make the basis or rationale of a pricing decision transparent to all. In that case, the moot question is, how would the value-based pricing work?

Are there any takers for OBP?

According to reports,  the erstwhile CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, and his Amgen counterpart at that time – Robert Bradway, among others, publicly spoke about pegging drug costs to their outcomes. Intending to be a part of the drug pricing solution, Novartis inked performance-based contracts with Cigna and Aetna on its new heart failure medication Entresto, so did Amgen on its anti-lipid drug – Repatha. Novartis also fleshed out the details of outcomes-based pricing model in a comprehensive report, describing its benefits to address the affordability challenge. However, such initiatives have not gained momentum, just yet.

OBP may not be the right option, and why:

Thereafter,the Drug Pricing Lab (DPL), based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center,analyzed that the methods manufacturers use to generate list prices are typically opaque, inconsistent, and driven more by market factors than clinical data. These methods are often referred to by manufacturers as “pricing to what the market will bear”.

‘The Drug Pricing Lab’ illustrated the basic difference to patients between the ‘value-based’ and ‘out-come’ based pricing models by looking into Amgen’s outcome-based refund contract with Harvard Pilgrim for Repatha (Evolocumab). Amgen had agreed to refund Harvard Pilgrim the cost of medication for patients who have a heart attack or stroke, an estimated 3.5 percent of individuals on the drug. This equates to a reduction in annual list price from US$ 14,100 to US$ 13,620. In contrast, the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’finds that a value-based price for Repatha would be US$ 2,200 to US$ 5,000 per year, one third to one fifth the expected price resulting from the outcomes-based contract.

VBP comes out as a better option:

Based on the available data, it appears that VBP is a better option that focuses on tangible value delivery of a drug to individual patients. This is quantified with the help of available statistical tools, in a transparent manner. Application of Health economics is also being tried in this area.

Thus, the core concept behind VBP is that any drug price should be a function of the differential value that it delivers over the conventional ones, generally used for treating the same disease. Unfortunately, arriving at a consensus on the ‘value assessment’ metrics for a drug, often throws a tough challenge, especially to the manufacturers.

Conclusion:

Recently, with exorbitantly high-priced new drugs coming into the market, the issue of drug pricing mechanism has become a major concern for all stakeholders. Pharma companies can’t wish it away, any longer, even with the high decibel advocacy of ‘protecting and encouraging innovation’ of new drugs. The consequent potential risks are becoming too costly.

This situation prompts the pharma players to reengage with the consumers, providing quantifiable details about the differential value that a drug offers to patients and its relationship to the price that the company charges.  This is easier said than done. It’s time for drug companies to establish a solid link between these two. As I said before, many stakeholders are refusing to accept, just to extend life for a few months, why should an innovative anti-cancer drug cost thousand or even lakhs of rupees more than a conventional one – pushing families into dire financial distress?

Pharma players can’t afford to remain a part of this critical problem, any longer. They should take responsibility to become a part of the solution. With VBP or with any other credible alternatives, making drug pricing transparent – voluntarily, may work better for them than facing mandatory price control. It’s a different ball game altogether, requiring a new mindset, and… the name of the game is: ‘out of the box’ Ideas.

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.

Unbridled Box Office Power Helps Reduce Cancer Drug Prices

Posted on by
Reply

Unbridling box office power in the healthcare space has just commenced. A Chinese social comedy film named ‘Dying to Survive’, released onJuly 05, 2018, sparked off public concern on high priced cancer drugs in China.The film depictsa real-life, heart wrecking story of a leukemia patient’s struggle for survival by asking a drug dealer to smuggle illegal cheap drugs from India into China. The medicine trader later finds his redemption, and becomes a hero saving more patients – as the China Internet Information Center in Beijing reported.

Consequently, reacting to public outcry for cheaper cancer drugs in China, the country’s all-powerful health insurance administration is, reportedly, aiming to deepen discounts on cancer drugs, which are already on its National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). The effort – as the report says, would use public bidding and procurement, specifically for cancer therapies. Meanwhile, officials will start enlistment negotiations for treatments not yet included on the coverage list.

Nearer home, responding to a similar public concern, although not a film-induced one, Indian Government announced a major relief for cancer patients. In March 2017, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) slashed prices of some cancer drugs by up to 86 percent, as reported in the media. For example, the price of AstraZeneca’s lung cancer drug – was brought down from Rs 29,259, to Rs 3,977. This could well be an off the cuff approach. Nevertheless, the Chairman of NPPA assured that more cancer drugs will soon come under price control. That said, if with such degree of price reduction, all the above brands can still survive, it may not be difficult for many to fathom what factor really drives the cancer drug pricing models of the drug makers?

This is the prevailing pricing quagmire for cancer drugs, the world over. Thus, improving access to affordable cancer treatment has assumed priority in several countries. Are the pharma players missing the ‘storm signal’ in this area, even now?  In this article, before delving into that issue, let me begin with a relevant background.

‘Cancer is now the second leading cause of death globally’ – W.H.O:

The February 1, 2018 report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O), elucidating the ‘Key Facts’ on the disease, vindicates this concern. Cancer is now the second leading cause of death globally and was responsible for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. The world over, nearly 1 in 6 deaths is due to cancer. The economic impact of cancer is significant and is increasing. Interestingly, round 70 percent deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries – the report says.

“India Against Cancer” - a group of medical doctors and researchers at the National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research (NICPR)- a premier institute, under Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), raises similar concerns in India, as well. It says, estimated number of people living with the disease: around 2.5 million. Every year, over 700,000 new cancer patients are registered. Officially diagnosed, cancer-related deaths stand at 5,56,400. One woman dies of cervical cancer every 8 minutes in the country.It goes without saying that a large number of cancer sufferers remain undetected, because of various reasons.

India’s GDP per capita income, reportedly reached USD 1,974.76 in March 2018, from USD 1,763 in March 2017. As compared to this, the cost of cancer chemotherapy is very high in the country, which severely hits many families, as most of the treatment cost is Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE).It costs roughly between Rs 30,000.00 (around USD 460) – Rs 100,000.00 (around USD 1,540) – per session. Hence, increasing price of cancer medication has become the centerpiece of a raging debate, globally, including India. This article will deliberate on the latest developments and trends in this area to explore a way forward.

The economic impact of cancer in India:

The research paper on ‘Economic burden of cancer in India’, published in PLOS ONE on February 26, 2018, reiterates that the increasing prevalence of cancer is a major public health concern. The issue assumes utmost relevance for developing countries, such as India, because of a large population base, limited diagnostic facilities, very high treatment costs and poor survival prospects. Ongoing demographic and epidemiological transition in India, are aggravating the situation further. – the paper underscored.

The study found that OOPE on cancer treatment in India is among the highest for any ailment. The average OOPE on inpatient care in private facilities is about three-times that of public facilities. Further, treatment for about 40 percent of cancer hospitalization cases is financed mainly through borrowings, sale of assets and contributions from friends and relatives. Also, over 60 percent of the households who seek care from the private sector incur OOPE in excess of 20 percent of their annual per capita household expenditure. This has catastrophic socioeconomic implications in the country.

This is the scenario, at least, in many developing countries, besides some developed nations, as well, as I shall narrate below. Therefore, the high price of cancer drugs has now assumed a global dimension.

High price of cancer drugs – now a global issue:

This ‘ghost’ haunts even the largest ‘free market’ in the globe – the El Dorado of the drug players, across the world – the United States, as evident from various reports and expert analysis on the subject.

“Financial toxicity caused by high cancer drug prices is harming people’s ability to fight the dreaded disease” – warned the latest President’s Cancer Panel Report released on March 13, 2018. ‘President’s Cancer Panel’ monitors the activities of the National Cancer Program and report to the President of the United States on barriers to progress in reducing the burden of cancer. The Panel was established by law in 1971 when the National Cancer Act was enacted by President Richard Nixon.

In 2013, cancer patients paid, on an average – USD 207,000 a year for their medications. This is against USD 54,100 a year in 1995. Whereas, in 2015, cancer patients paid from USD 7,484 to USD 21,834 a month, for new breakthrough drugs, just for survival – the report highlights.

If the situation remains unchanged: “More radical steps could be taken to force down drug prices, even in the United States, where health care is largely a private, decentralized affair. Under federal law, the US government has the right to procure generic versions of patented drugs in exchange for ‘reasonable’ royalties that compensate patent holders.” This warning was articulated in an article, titled “Bringing down the cost of cancer treatment”, published in the International journal of science - Nature on March 07, 2018. It also reminds: “Innovative drugs have the potential to save lives worldwide – if they are affordable”.

‘High cancer drug cost is for high cost for innovation’ – can’t be justified:

Yes, that’s the most common justification coming from the innovators for new cancer medications. The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug development (CSDD), published in the May 2016 edition of the Journal of Health Economics, estimates the R&D cost of new drugs at USD 2.870 billion. This study is based on 106 randomly selected new drugs were obtained from a survey of 10 pharmaceutical firms. Whereas, the November 2017 paper, published in the JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the cost of developing a new cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, which is significantly lower than the above Tuft Center Study. Importantly, the revenue since approval, was found to be substantial with median, USD 1658.4 million – ranging from USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million) – The JAMA study reported.

This paper was based on the analysis of the US Securities and Exchange Commission filings for drug companies with a number of drugs on the US market that received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration as a cancer drug from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2015. Cumulative R&D spending was estimated from initiation of drug development activity to date of approval. Earnings were also identified from the time of approval to the present. The study was conducted between the period of December 10, 2016 and March 2, 2017.

“The number, coupled with the revenue the drugs made after approval, flies in the face of the argument that drug companies need to set high prices to recoup their investments.” The observation was made in the article, titled “A new study undermines Big Pharma’s justification for charging high drug prices,” published in Business Insider, on September 11, 2017.In addition, the cancer drug prices are found disconnected from the benefits that they provide or the differential tangible value they offer. This is applicable both for old and new cancer drugs.

Drug prices are disconnected from the benefits provided – both for old and new:

High prices for cancer drugs – not just for the innovative ones, but also of older varieties, are a cause of concern, as they are getting increasingly disconnected from the benefits they provide. The February 2017 research article, published in JAMA Oncology flags some of these important facts. The paper is titled, ‘The Rising Price of Cancer Drugs—A New Old Problem?’

The authors find that the high price of cancer drugs is increasingly drawing criticism from leading academic researchers. They also find that new cancer drug pricing seems to bear no relationship to novelty or efficacy and are disconnected from the benefits provided. At the same time, price increases for older drugs have been less often discussed, although their investigation finds that older oncology drugs have undergone larger price increases than newer drugs, which needs to be taken care of, soon.

Cancer drugs are the cheapest in India, but are these affordable? 

Cheapest cancer drug price in India? Probably, yes. But study shows, calculated against per capita income of Indians, they are still the least affordable. The June 2016 ‘Thomson Reuters Study’ on cancer drug prices in seven countries, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, also underscored this issue. On June 06, 2016, Reuters reported from this study, although Americans pay the highest prices in the world for cancer drugs, but the treatments are the least affordable in lower income countries.

The study noted the lowest drug prices in India and South Africa. But after calculating price as a percentage of wealth adjusted for the cost of living, cancer drugs were found to be the least affordable in India and China. Moreover, not too long ago, on October 01, 2014, an Indian media report flashed a headline: “The price of Glivec, an anti-cancer tablet, for example, has risen from Rs 8,500 to Rs 1.08 lakh.”

Pharma continues to remain defiant:

In this complex situation, maintain status quo on the drug pricing strategy will be, I reckon, more counterproductive. There is no indication either, that pharma players are becoming less defiant in this area. For example, Washington DC based, probably the largest pharma lobbying organization, – PhRMA makes some absurd argument in favor of maintaining the status quo. It draws a simple linear relationship between reduction in cancer death rates and the high-priced cancer drugs. It was evident from the comment of its spokesperson on the ‘President’s Cancer Panel’ report. She, reportedlysaid that: “Thanks to these breakthroughs, the cancer death rate in the United States has fallen 25 percent since its peak and two out of three patients diagnosed with cancer are living at least five years after diagnosis.”

Whereas, the fact remains, the fall in cancer death rate takes place because of multi-factorial initiatives by the policy makers, such as, increasing awareness, early screening and detection, prompt initiation of various types of treatments and so on. And of course, the new innovative drugs are of the many, which a large number of patients find difficult to afford.

Conclusion:

In search of a win-win solution to contain the public outcry over high price of cancer drugs, I shall dwell on some alternative drug pricing strategies, in my next article. However, to move meaningfully towards that direction, pharma players should realize the hard reality on the ground, across the globe that: “Financial toxicity caused by high cancer drug prices is harming people’s ability to fight the dreaded disease”. Alongside, don’t we also need a compassionate film maker unbridling the box office power to create a similar and a synergistic effect in this regard, as is now happening with ‘Dying to Survive’ social comedy movie, in China?

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.

 

Blockchain: A Game Changer For Safe Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

‘Your medicine box may have fake drugs’ was the March 18, 2018 headline of a popular pan Indian news daily. Just the year before, the 2017 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), also flagged that around 10.5 percent of all medicines in low-and middle-income countries, including India are substandard or fake. Even prior to this, another news headline of February 15, 2016 highlighted: ‘1 In 7 Indian Drugs Revealed As Substandard.’ These reports paint a scary situation for consumers of medicine in India, especially when the same incidence is just around one percent in the high-income countries of the world. Nevertheless, getting into a protracted discussion to prove the veracity of this issue, may not yield much, either. Some may even term these as efforts to ‘sensationalizing’ the situation.

That said, the good news is, the Government Think Tank Niti Aayog and also the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) of India,are reportedly contemplating to combat this menace with cutting-edge technology. In this article, I shall dwell on this threat, starting with its profound impact, not just on human health, but also on the economic and the socioeconomic space of India.

Why is it so important?

The most obvious fallout of this hazard is of course borne by the consuming patient.  The other two critical impact areas has also been well captured by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2017 study, titled ‘A study on the public health and socioeconomic impact of substandard and falsified medical products’. I am summarizing those 3 key impact areas hereunder:

A. Health impact: 

  • Adverse effects (for example, toxicity or lack of efficacy) from incorrect active ingredients
  • Failure to cure or prevent future disease, increasing mortality, morbidity and the prevalence of disease
  • Progression of antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant infections, loss of confidence in health care professionals, health programs and health systems

B. Economic impact:

  • Increased out-of-pocket and health system spending on health care
  • Economic loss for patients, their families, health systems and manufacturers (and other actors in the supply chain) of quality medical products
  • Waste of human effort and financial outlay across the health system, further straining resources, staff and infrastructure
  • Increased burden for health care professionals, national medicine regulatory authorities, law enforcement and criminal justice systems.

C. Socioeconomic impact:

  • Lost income due to prolonged illness or death
  • Lost productivity costs to patients and households when seeking additional medical care, the effects of which are felt by businesses and the wider economy
  • Lack of social mobility and increased poverty

What the Government contemplates in India? 

According to the April 09, 2018 news report, “Indian policy think tank Niti Aayog is working to put the entire inventory of drugs made and consumed in the country on blockchain with an intent to crack down on counterfeit and spurious drugs, according to two government sources. The government wants to complete a proof of concept (PoC) solution by the year-end and begin implementation in 2019.”

On May 16, 2018, DTAB reportedly deliberated and approved a Track and Trace mechanism to address this issue. The proposal is a stand-alone measure to combat fake or counterfeit drugs covering 300 pharma products. However, it does not intend to cover the entire drug supply chain integrity with Blockchain technology, in a comprehensive manner.

According to the above report, this particular approach involves asking the pharma manufacturers to print a unique 14-digit alphanumeric code on the package of the drug. While buying any medicine, the individual can inquire via a text message, whether the drug bearing that code is genuine or not.

I wrote an article in this Blog on the use Blockchain by pharma players, on January 22, 2018. You may wish to refer that to know more about it in context of the pharma industry.

Recent Blockchain initiatives by global pharma majors:

Some global pharma layers have already covered some ground with Blockchain, especially in this area.On September 21, 2017, an article titled ‘Big Pharma Turns to Blockchain to Track Meds’, published in Fortune, presented some interesting facts. It indicated: to stop a flow of fake, spurious or counterfeit medicines entering the supply chain and reaching patientshow the pharma industry appears to be on the verge of resolving this long-time problem with the intervention of one of the most modern technology – Blockchain.

A group of companies, including Genentech and Pfizer has announced the MediLedger Project for creating blockchain tools to manage pharmaceutical supply chains. The group, has completed a successful pilot program to track medicines, where all concerned – from drug manufacturers to wholesalers to hospitals and retailers will be recording drug deliveries on a blockchain. This would ensure that, at each step of the distribution process, a network of computers will vouch for the ‘provenance and authenticity’ of a drug shipment—making it virtually impossible for counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs – the article highlighted.

Quoting domain experts, the authors underscored the key difference between current practices in this area and managing supply chain through Blockchain technology. At present, most companies use various software to manage the supply chain. However, these usually consist of a mishmash of different databases. ‘The introduction of a Blockchain system, in which each participant controls a node on the network, and transactions require a consensus, is thus a significant leap forward’ – the experts noted.

On scaling up, if this project achieves the intended goals, it would possibly be a game changer for the pharma companies in addressing the counterfeit or fake drug menace, effectively.

How will Blockchain combat fake or counterfeit drugs?

In India, there are basically four constituents in the pharma supply chain: source of procurement of various ingredients – manufacturers – C&F Agents – wholesalers – retailers, besides hospitals and dispensaries. To avoid counterfeit or fake/spurious drugs in a comprehensive way, it is critical for these constituents to see and share relevant data based on a modern and tamper-proof technology platform. Unfortunately, the current practices mostly fail to address this serious threat in a holistic way.

Experts envisage Blockchain delivering a superior value in this area, as it has the potential to cover end-to-end supply chain network of a pharma business. A November 14, 2017 article appeared in a Harvard Business School publication of Technology and Operations Management (TOM) explains its rationale very well. The paper is titled “Can blockchain help solve the problem of counterfeit drugs?”

In the context of a supply chain it says, blockchain can be used to track the flow of goods and services between businesses and even across borders. At each step of the distribution process, a network of computers can unmistakably indicate the provenance and authenticity of a shipment, making it harder or counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs. The key advantage of this technological process is that

it is virtually impossible for malicious actors to alter the event logs. Another advantage is speed: should a shipment be disrupted or go missing, the data stored on the common ledger would provide a rapid way for all parties trace it, and determine who handled the shipment last, the author elaborates.

Common anti-counterfeit-measures:

In many countries, including India, drug regulators are focusing on putting in place various anti-counterfeit measures, such as, ‘track and trace’ and ‘mass serialization.’ In some nations these mandatory in nature. At present, the most common process, globally, is to have machine-readable codes carrying a serial number featuring on each and every pack of medicines. Many anti-counterfeit solution providers call these in various different names, to position themselves on a marketing high ground. Other such measures include, forensic markers, cloud-based supply chain data repositories are also being talked about.

So far so good, but the current reality continues to remain scary for patients, probably more in India. Each year ‘tens of thousands dying from $30 billion fake drug trade,’ – reported Reuters just recently – on November 28, 2017. As reported by IntelligentHQ on November 3, 2016, ‘studies have shown that the pharmaceutical industry still struggles on two main counts: interoperability between all the participants, from the manufacturer to the dispenser and data management, to better integrate the serialization systems. Being able to avoid drug counterfeiting is just one of the reasons for which it is so critical to successfully track products down the supply chain.’

Conclusion:

Ensuring safety and security of the pharma supply chain – from sourcing to manufacturing to logistics to retail chemist and ultimately to the final consumer, is now possible with the application of Blockchain. In fact, this process has already been developed, and tried in many continents of the world, including Africa (video).

Thus, in my view, for an effective anti-counterfeiting system to work or even a substandard drug ingredient going into any original final product that ultimately will be consumed by patients, the most important requirement is to ensureend-to-end supply chain visibility and integrity.Any stand-alone anti-counterfeit measure can’t possibly provide such holistic solution.

Just to emphasize on this point – what happens, if anything goes wrong during sourcing of ingredients, or during the manufacturing of the original drug? The drug in question, although could be substandard, can’t be termed counterfeit. Hence, any standalone anti-counterfeit mechanism will obviously indicate ‘all is well’ for the patients to consume this original medicine – before the product is ultimately recalled, if and when the defect is detected by other means.

From this perspective, the application of Blockchain technology covering end-to-end supply chain network has the wherewithal of being a game changer – offering safe medicines to patients.

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.

Pharma Brand Building: Criticality of Enhancing End-To-End Customer Experience

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s fast-changing world, the types of medicines being developed, the way technology contributes to health, and how the value of health care is calculated, are all undergoing a metamorphosis. A wave of cell and gene therapies are bending the definition of what constitutes a drug, both clinically, and in terms of expectations of outcomes, duration of treatment and costs. Global health is poised to meet a series of key turning points, and changes seen in 2018 will mark the key inflections that drive the outlook for the next five years and beyond.

These are examples of key observations, as captured in the March 13, 2018 research report, titled: “2018 and Beyond: Outlook and Turning Points,” of the IQVIA Institute (previously IMS Institute). Arising out of these, the report envisages the following key impacts on the pharma industry in the next five years – from 2018 to 2022:

  • Patent expiry impact will be 37 percent larger than the prior five years, including both small molecule and biologics.
  • New medicines’ growth will be slower in 2018 – 2022 than the period from 2013 -2017.
  • Net price levels for branded drugs will rise modestly in the United States at 2–5% per year but will fall in other developed markets.
  • Volume for existing branded and generic medicines will remain slow, with the ongoing shifts towards newer medicines over time.
  • To increase access to medicinesGovernment and other payers to focus on addressing outstanding healthcare disparities or to invest in approaches to address system inefficiencies.

Such a situation, would obviously impede performance and productivity of many pharma players – both research-based and also the generic ones, across the world, including India. Against this backdrop, I shall discuss about the criticality of ‘enhancing end-to-end customer experience’ in pharma brand building exercise. The words to specially take note of are – ‘end-to-end customer experience’ and not just in some ‘touchpoints’. This would help many pharma players to navigate through this strong headwind to remain in the organizational growth trajectory.

Not a solitary finding:

Another series of articles from Bain & Company, published on June 30, 2015, May 25, 2017, May 09 and May 23, 2018, not just reflect similar core concern, as articulated in the IQVIA article. Moreover, the barriers to deliver growth from the in-market portfolios being tough, many drug companies are using even steep price increases as a key lever to achieve their financial goals. It continues to happen, despite strong criticisms both from the public and some powerful governments, such as the United States and also India, further denting industry’s public reputation.

Pharma sales reps no longer a primary learning resource about medicines?

It also came out clearly from some of these articles that ‘doctors in many developed countries have been moving away from pharma sales representatives as a primary resource for learning about medicines.’ It’s just a matter of time, I reckon, similar situation will prevail in India. So, what do the pharma organizations do now – wait for a similar situation to arise and then act, or initiate a proactive strategic marketing process, as soon as possible?

Enhancing customer experience in pharma brand building:

To mitigate this, a new concept for improving market share is gaining ground. It suggests, the intrinsic value of a brand, and its value delivery system should enhance the customer experience during the entire treatment process with the drug. Achieving this would prompt widely capturing and in-depth analysis of targeted customer expectations, preferences and aversions. Just listening to a patient or a doctor won’t suffice, any longer, for a pharma company to succeed in business.

The February 24, 2017 article, titled “The Case For Managing By Customer Episode,” published in Forbes very aptly said, ‘companies that once relied on developing new product features and improving customer service increasingly see competitive advantage rooted in the entire experience that’s wrapped around the product.’

The same point has been corroborated in several research studies, since the last few years. For example, a 2014 survey by McKinsey & Company came out with some interesting findings. It highlighted, by optimizing customer experience at every ‘touchpoint’ – ensuring a reasonably seamless customer journey, a company can potentially increase its revenue by up to 15 percent and lower the customer service costs by 20 percent.

Another research article dated May 23, 2018, titled ‘Why “Episodes” Matter for Doctors’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive finds that about 40 percent of a doctor’s drug recommendations are linked to how effectively a firm delivers an overall experience, as distinct from product-related attributes such as clinical data. This share rises to about 60 percent for factors within the control of the commercial organization. Doctors who give high marks for their experience with a company, are between 2.3 and 2.7 times more likely to prescribe the company’s products as those who give low marks.The authors further highlighted, loyalty scores run low, both for the average firm and for many individual episodes for the pharma industry as a whole. That’s because firms have focused mostly on pushing out sales and marketing messages through as many channels as possible.

Units of ‘customer experience’ management:

Different publications acknowledge the need to have some key unit for managing customer experience. These units are described in different names by different experts, such as ‘episode’ or ‘touchpoint’.

Bain & Company said, each ‘Episode’ covers all tasks that a customer requires to complete for fulfilling a need. For each unit of ‘episode’, the clock starts as a customer feels and identifies a related need and ends when these are met with his/her full satisfaction. ‘The sum of a customer’s episodes over time comprise the entire experience of dealing with the company.’ So far as ‘Touchpoints’ are concerned, according to  McKinsey & Company, these are the individual transactions through which customers interact with parts of the business and its offerings. It reflects organization’s accountability and is relatively easy to build into operations.

Difference between ‘episode’ and ‘touchpoint’ in ‘customer experience’ management:

There is a difference between ‘episodes’ and ‘touchpoints’. Whereas ‘touchpoints’ are each point of contact or interaction, between a business and its customers,‘episodes’ focus on end-to-end design of a specific customer-need of an organization, as they align management and the front line around the customer experience.

Many companies believe that customers will be happy with the interaction when they connect with their product, customer service, sales staff, or marketing materials. However, McKinsey found that this siloed focus on individual touchpoints misses the bigger, and more important picture: the customer’s end-to-end experience or the ‘customer journey.’ It includes many things that happen before, during, and after the experience of a product or service. The companies providing the customer with the best experience from start to finish along the journey can expect to enhance customer satisfaction, improve sales and retention, reduce end-to-end service cost, and strengthen employee satisfaction.

Thus, only by looking at the customer’s experience through his or her own eyes, throughout the entire journey taken – a company can begin to understand how to meaningfully improve its performance.

Focus areas to create an exemplary customer experience:

According to Bain & Company there are 5 imperatives to focus on to create an exemplary customer experience, which I summarize, as follows:

  • Examine the experience from the outside in – from the customer’s point of view, not the organization’s structure and processes.
  • Meet customer expectations consistently.
  • Invest to provide outstanding experiences in the areas that have the greatest impact on customer advocacy.
  • Use rapid prototypes to deliver new services to customers.
  • Develop closed-loop feedback processes, continuously refining experiences to match or exceed ever-rising customer expectations.

Conclusion:

The mediocre performance of the pharma industry, especially, since the last few years, is bothering many stakeholders.The challenges to deliver business growth from in-market portfolios, coupled with frequent backlashes for using steep product price increase as a key lever to achieve financial goals, are some of the key causal factors.

Enhancing ‘customer experience’ in the process of pharma brand building initiatives, has also caught the imagination of some players. This is commendable. Nonetheless, several research studies indicate, if these are focused on individual customer-‘touchpoint’ based strategies, which, I reckon, is rather common, the outcome may remain quite far from expectations.

What really matters, is enhancing end-to-end experience with a brand – throughout a patient’s journey for disease prevention or effective treatment or even cure. This may, for example, begin with the search for effective and affordable treatment options – participating in arriving at the right treatment – prescription of right drugs, and finally receiving continuous requisite guidance throughout the course of treatment for better management of the disease or effective cure. Thus, pharma brand building by enhancing end-to-end ‘customer experience’, now assumes a critical strategic dimension.

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.

‘Diversity And Inclusion’: A Missing Link For Indian Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Inadequate access to affordable health care to a vast majority of the population has been a favorite topic of debate, since long, globally. This discourse is generally centered around the least developed and the developing world, such as India. However, in the recent time, the reverberations of the same can be heard even from the most developed countries, like the United States.

Possible solutions in this area generally encompass several tangible issues, e.g. high cost of drugs and care, alleged unethical practices of the providers, infrastructure bottlenecks – to name a few. Curiously, despite the availability of an increasing number of innovative drugs, state of the art facilities and diagnostics, brilliant healthcare professionals and so on, disparities in the degree of access to all these, between different members of the civil society, keep steadily mounting.

This cascading socioeconomic issue, creating a widening the trust deficit, especially on pharma, throws a critical management challenge for long term sustainability of business, if not survival too.

Transformation to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization:

Building a profit-making organization is not an easy task. However, transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric policies, is several times more challenging. That’s because, making a true external customer-centric organization gets kick started from a significant cultural change within the organization. Systematically creating a pool of requisite internal customers (employees), with diverse background, experience, gender, belief, perspective, talent and, more importantly, ably supported by the organizational vision of inclusion, forms the nerve center of this transformative process. No doubt, why the quality of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ culture of an organization is assuming the importance of a differential success factor in business excellence.

The August 25, 2016 E&Y article, titled “Embracing customer experience in the pharmaceutical industry” epitomizes its relevance by articulating: “It is the companies that focus on continuously delivering a better customer experience to build a trusted and transparent relationship over time that will win in the market. They will not only acquire customers that will remain loyal, but also win advocates that will refer the company or brand to more customers.”

The missing link:

It is now being widely established that creating a culture of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ across the organization, is of critical importance to maintain sustainable business excellence, with a win-win outcome. Going a step forward, I reckon, although, this is an arduous task for any organization, but an essential one – even for long-term survival of a business. However, today, the very concept of DI is apparently a ‘missing link’ in the chain of sustainable organizational-building initiatives, particularly for most Indian pharma companies.

The role of DI in making a customer-centric business:

Health care customers, like many others, are generally of diverse backgrounds, financial status, ethnicity, gender, health care needs, expectations, and also in their overall perspective. Thus, to make a customer-centric organization for greater market success, and drive product and service innovation accordingly, pharma companies need to deeply understand them, empathetically. A competent pool of well-selected employees with diverse backgrounds, race, ethnicity, gender, perspectives, could facilitate this process, more effectively. However, the company should also create an environment and culture of inclusion for all to listen to each other’s well-reasoned views – expressed uninhibited and fearlessly for this purpose.

In making this process more effective to add a huge tangible and intangible worth to the business, pharma players need to untether the employee potential through empowerment, making them feel valued and grow. This would also help immensely in charting newer pathways of all-round success in many other high-voltage complexities of pharma business.

‘Why diversity matters’?

That diversity within an organization matters in several ways, has been established in several studies. For example, the February 2015 article, titled “Why diversity matters”, of McKinsey & Company says, “More diverse companies are better able to win top talent, and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision making, leading to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns.” The analysis found a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership team and better financial performance (measured as average EBIT 2010–2013).

Why is inclusion so important?

In a large number of organizations that include Indian pharma, senior management staffs generally seem to appreciate hearing more of what they want to hear. This culture quickly percolates top-down – encompassing the entire company, probably with a few exceptions. Personal ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ of various nature and degree spread wings within many organizations. Such a situation is created from intrinsic apathy to patiently listen to and accept another employee’s viewpoint – even on critical customer-centric issues. Employees, in that process, also get branded as ‘argumentative’ and often ‘disloyal’, if not a ‘socialist’. The major decisions often get biased accordingly – sometimes unknowingly.

Whereas, inclusion entails empowerment and close involvement of a diverse pool of employees with dignity, by recognizing their intrinsic worth and value. Moving towards a culture of inclusion would require creation of an organizational desire to communicate professionally and learn how to listen to each other’s well-thought-through arguments with interest.

The business should accept that it is not really important in getting along with everybody on all issues – every time. Neither, does it make sense for professionals to develop personal ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ on other fellow colleagues, based on issue-based differences, while finding out ways and means to improve organizational performance, image or reputation. Inclusion helps employees to learn to work closely, despite personal differences on all important issues.

Has Global pharma industry started imbibing DI?

Yes, many global pharma majors, such as, GSK, Novartis and Merck and several others, have started practicing DI as a way of organizational life and culture. Some of them like GSK India has put it on its country website. But, generally in India, the scenario is not quite similar. Though, many head honchos in the country talk about DI, the February 16, 2017 edition of Bloomberg/Quint carried a headline “Most Indian Companies Do Not Value Diversity At Board-Level Hirings,” quoting Oxfam India.

A voluntary survey of ‘company diversity’ conducted by US-based DiversityInc at Princeton, ranks the companies on four key areas of diversity management: talent pipeline, equitable talent development, CEO/leadership commitment, and supplier diversity. It revealed an interesting fact in its 2016 study. The survey reported, while diversity continues to improve in the overall perspective, its ‘Pharma 50’, as a group, ‘is right in the middle of the industry pack when benchmarked against the Fortune 500.’  The survey also brought to light significant differences in the levels of gender, national, and ethnic diversity even at the company boards and executive committees of individual companies. Nonetheless, some global pharma entities are taking significant steps in this direction. But, these are still early days in many organizations.

Conclusion:

The E&Y article quoted above, also says that pharma “customers are becoming resistant to push sales and marketing, and are instead preferring to relate to the overall experience provided in their pull interactions with the company. The customer experience will be the next battleground for the pharmaceutical industry. The deployment of a customer experience capability is a transformational journey in often unchartered territories. The key to success is to start early and drive a process that is both rigorous and iterative, allowing the organization – and its customers – to learn along the way and always to be ready with the next best action in place.” DI, I reckon, plays a critical role in attaining this goal.

Pharma companies are also realizing that building a profit-making organization with blockbuster high-priced, high-profit making molecules, such as Sovaldi is possible, but this may not be sustainable. It isn’t an easy task either, not anymore. There lies the urgency of transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric business entity. This process, I repeat, is several times more challenging, but the business success is much more sustainable.

Organizational transformation of this nature is prompting the global pharma majors to use Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) while achieving their key financial and people goals. Both D (Diversity) and I (inclusion) work in tandem for taking any fairness-based organizational decisions, irrespective of whether it’s staff or customer decision.

DI has the potential to help an organization to create and chart new and more productive pathways almost in all functions within the company – right from R&D, communication, service delivery to market access. In all these initiatives, customer focus to occupy the center stage – for a win-win outcome – significantly reducing the degree of difficulty for access to affordable medicines. DI is not a panacea to mitigate this problem totally, but would help significantly, nonetheless – with the help of employees with diverse background but having fresh eyes. Many global pharma majors have initiated action in this direction. However, in Indian pharma business generally, DI still remains a missing link, as it is seen today.

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.

Will AB-NHPM Mitigate Indian Healthcare Crisis?

Posted on by
Reply

Since long, hypes have created on several healthcare schemes in India, by the successive Governments of different political dispensation. These attracted mostly positive vibes at the time of announcements. Nevertheless, as we move on, a vast majority of Indians continues to live in the midst of a health care crisis, as it were.

The National Health Policy 2017 also acknowledges this crisis as it writes: ‘growing incidences of catastrophic expenditure due to health care costs, which are presently estimated to be one of the major contributors to poverty.’

More recently, the May 31, 2018 article, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) continued to echo the similar concern. It reiterated, since both government funding and social health insurance contributions are insufficient to meet health care needs of households, over three-fourth of all healthcare payments are paid Out of Pocket (OOP) at the point of service delivery while medicine purchase (approximately 63 percent) account for the single largest component of these payments.

A major cause of catastrophe and impoverishment at the household level is undoubtedly the OOP expenditure on health care, including medicines. According to the above BMJ paper, 29 million households, implying about 38 million persons were pushed into poverty in the year 2011–2012, only because of this reason. Although, this study was based on a cross- sectional analysis of ‘National Sample Survey data, 1994–2014’, the public health expenditure in India has not shown any significant increase since then, either. On the contrary, the public spending in some health-related areas has come down in the recent years.

Is a health care crisis primarily a ‘financial’ crisis?

The issue of budget allocation and adequate public expenditure on healthcare in India assumes significance to understand this point better. It is generally believed that ‘a health care crisis is primarily a ‘financial’ crisis in which countries cannot successfully meet people’s access to medicine due to the rising cost of health care services and, more importantly, pharmaceuticals.’ A sincere political will is absolutely necessary to resolve these issues, meaningfully – the paper points out.

But, there doesn’t seem to be any financial crisis in the country now, as the Government claims. India is the fastest growing nation in the world. Why is then the health care crisis continuing for the majority of Indian, if not worsening? Why isn’t public expenditure on health care increasing despite such spectacular financial achievements? Could it be due to lack of requisite political intent?

On paper all health care related schemes look good:

Yes, I reckon, on paper all health care related schemes look reasonably good, assuming these will be implemented well. These may include, National Health Missions (NHM) covering both rural and urban poor or even the likes of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY). So is also the most recent one - Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Mission (AB-NHPM) announced by the Government during 2018-19 Union budget presentation and approved by the cabinet on May 21, 2018. However, its implementation on the ground seem to be wobbly, too. Thus, many wonders whether this new scheme on the block will help the nation tiding over the existing health care crisis.

I broadly discussed this subject on February 5, 2018, in this Blog. However, in this article, I shall try to ferret out the reasons of such apprehension on the AB-NHPM, against some critical parameters, just as illustrations:

Who contributes and how much to health expenditures: 

From the National Health Account Estimate (NHAE) of October 2017, one gets a broad idea of who contributes and roughly how much of the health expenditures in India, as follows:

Union Govt. State Govts. Local bodies Enterprises, including insurance NGOs External donors OOPE
8.2% 13.3% 0.7% 4.4% 1.6% 0.7% 67%

Where does the treatment take place?

Place Urban (%) Rural (%)
Public healthcare 21 28
Private healthcare 79 72

It is interesting to note, although private health care costs over 4 times more than the public healthcare, more patients are compelled to go for private health care. (Source: National Sample Survey 2014, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation.)

Reasons for not using public health care facilities:

Around55.1percent of households are not using public health facilities.The reasons for not using public health care facilities by the members of the household when they fall sick, as reflected in the National Family Health Survey (NHFS) data, are interesting. Following are the main reasons:

Poor quality of care No nearby facility Long waiting time Inconvenient facility timing Health Personnel absent
48.1% 44.6% 40.90% 26.4% 14.8%

Addressing these reasons would help significant reduction in OOPE:

The February 2018 report of the ‘Centre for Technology and Policy Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Madras,’ vindicates this important point. It provides unambiguous evidence that strengthening the basic infrastructure of Health Sub-Centers (HSC), along with trained personnel and adequate medicines, ensure diversion of patients from expensive private facilities – increasing patients’ access to affordable health care. Consequently, OOP expenditure by families in health care and particularly medicines, sharply comes down.The study reported that such reduction in outpatient care varied between 77 percent and 92 percent in a pilot project on ensuring universal health coverage.

Break-up of healthcare expenditure – primary care costing the most:  

One gets a broad understanding on the general break-up of health care expenditure in India from the (NHAE) of October 2017, as follows:

Primary care Secondary care Tertiary care Patient transportation Governance & supervision
45.1% 35.6% 15.6% 4.6% 2.6%

It is worth noting that transportation costs are significant for many patients, just for accessing the existing public or private health care facilities, besides getting important diagnostic tests done, or even to buy many medicines. This expenditure would continue to exist, even if NHPS is put in place. On the other hand, strengthening the low-cost Government HSCs, would help greater patient access to health care, bringing down the OOPE, remarkably.

Currently, a sizeable number of reasonably decent medical treatment points, are located quite far from many villages. Thus, availing any decent health care facility by a large number of rural folks, no longer remains a matter of choice, up until the disease turns into a life-threatening one, due to protracted negligence. One such example is a large number of child deaths occurred at the state-run BRD Medical College hospital in the Gorakhpur city of Uttar Pradesh, in 2017. Most of them were brought in a critical condition from far-off villages.

Highest OOPE expenditure incurred for outpatient treatment:

According to the December 2016 publication titled ‘Household Health Expenditure in India’  of the Union Ministry of Health, one will get an idea of top 3 key consumption areas, out of the total OOPE on health care services, which are as follows:

Outpatient care Inpatient care Preventive care
54.84% 31.96% 4.26%

However, of the total OOPE, 53.46 percent was spent on medicines and 9.95 percent was spent on diagnostics. More importantly, 82.29 percent of the total OOP medicines expenditure and 67 percent of total OOP diagnostic expenditure were in outpatient treatment, the report highlights.

New NHPM excludes two major components of OOPE: 

Based on the above facts, it is interesting to note, while the maximum expenditure for health is incurred towards Primary Care and Outpatient treatment, the brand new NHPM does not cover both. In that case, how will it address the health care crisis in India and significantly reduce OOPE on health?

Does the total cost for AB-NHPM reflect in any budget allocation?

In this context, let me touch upon the other aspect of AB-NHPM, which is giving shape to 150,000 ‘Health and Wellness Centre (HWC)’ in India.On April 14, 2018, the first HWC – under the AB scheme was launched by the Prime Minister of India at Bijapur in Chhattisgarh.But, the fund allocated in the Union Budget 2018-19 for HWCs is just Rs. 120 million, which realistically is expected to support just around 10,000 HWCs. Whereas, 150,000 HWC would cost around Rs. 3 billion. The same issue of abysmal budgetary allocation, both by most of the state governments and the center, has been raised for NHPM, as well.

As we have seen in the chart of ‘who contributes and how much to current health expenditures’, that OOPE stands out, it should in no way be allowed to remain around that number in India, because of continuing low public health expenditure on health care.

Conclusion:

Coming back to what I started from – the issue of ongoing health care crisis in India with incredibly high OOPE expenditure of the households on health. Many health care schemes have come, gone or about to be jettisoned – getting replaced by the tweaked versions of the old ones – of course in a new Avatar, supported by much expected media hypes, virtually terming it as a panacea. But, the key problem of sincere implementation of those schemes still lingers.

Sharp Government focus, backed by adequate budget allocation, on primary health care and bringing down outpatient treatment cost, which contribute to a high proportion of OOPE, remain as elusive as ever. Thus, I reckon, AB-NHPM is unlikely to mitigate the health care crisis in India, at least,in the short to medium term.

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.

 

Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare

Posted on by
Reply

Increasing ‘consumerism’ has already become a strong prime mover to reckon with, even in healthcare, including the pharma industry, across the world. Patients’ longing for better participative treatment experience at an affordable cost, has started gathering momentum as a major disrupting force in the healthcare space of India, as well.

In this article, which discusses a different topic from what I said in my last article that I will write this week, let us try to fathom today’s reality in a fast expanding area, primarily by connecting the emerging dots, both globally and locally. However, before doing so, it won’t be a bad idea to recapitulate, in the general term, what exactly is ‘consumerism’ – and then looking at it in context of healthcare.

What it really means?

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘consumerism’ as: ‘The protection or promotion of the interests of consumers.’ As an example, it says, ‘The impact of consumerism emerges as a factor of stabilization, as do the different understandings of stability and stabilization.’ Whereas, consumerism in healthcare is an assertion of patients’ right to be a key participant in their healthcare decision making process. As aptly put by Healthcare Success: “It is a movement from the ‘doctor says/patient does’ model, to a ‘working partnership’ model.”

Should pharma strategic marketing process, not take care of it?

When the above question is asked differently as: If the pharma strategic marketing process is effective, why is healthcare consumerism increasing across the world, including India? To find an answer to this, let’s go the basic of the definition of ‘marketing’. American Marketing Association (AMA) defines it as: ‘‘Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.’ A more specific definition of pharma marketing (Olszewska A. Strategic management in pharmaceutical marketing. Chemik 2006: S91-4.)is: ‘A management process that serves to identify and meet patients’ needs in a profitable way.’

This prompts the key question, if the above basic process of ‘marketing’ is followed by the pharma industry as it ought to be, why should there be an increasing trend of ‘consumerism’ in Healthcare, in general, and the pharma industry in particular?

The major drivers:

NRC Health through various surveys, has captured the major drivers of consumerism in healthcare. I am listing below a few of those, as I understand, just as examples:

  • Significant increase in health care cost to payers, including the patients.
  • Consumers are the fastest growing payer in the industry.
  • They foot most costs of their health premiums and out-of-pocket co-pays.
  • As consumers have more money at risk, they want to get more engaged with their own treatment decision for the best value for money.
  • One-way monologue for treatment doesn’t not enough for most patients.
  • 3 of 10 patients defer necessary treatment to avoid self-confusion and expense.
  • 4 out of 5 find difficult to compare costs Vs. drug quality.
  • 3 out of 4 feel their health care decisions are the most important and expensive
  • Patients face difficulty to compare cost, quality, and access to physicians.

In my view, sooner than later, the emerging situation in India will also be no different, especially with its increasing digitally empowered population.

Is pharma marketer cognizant of this emerging trend?

It will be unfair to make any sweeping statement that they are not. This is based on what I see and experience around, mostly in the global arena. But locally, although significant publicity of a large number of pharma training programs appear in the social media, most of these are apparently based on the ‘buzz of the time’.

Besides a few sporadic exceptions, generally the Indian pharma marketers still appear to believe in the same age-old model – what the ‘doctor says/patient does’. As a result, increasing consumerism keep haunting the industry – the Government often responds – mostly with sound bites, though, the industry keeps lamenting on the ‘ease of doing business’ or the lack of it, in India. The much avoidable cycle continues.

A prime mover for change in healthcare:

Increasing health care consumerism is a prime mover to usher in significant changes in this space. These changes are mostly unexpected and disruptive, but usually good for the patients. I shall illustrate this point here with just two examples, out of many. The first one comes from three global corporate head honchos of unrelated business, aimed at their own employees. And the other is related to all patients with the initiative coming from within the healthcare industry, including pharma.

The first example of an unexpected move comes from the announcement of three corporate behemoths – Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase, saying they would form an independent health care company for their employees in the United States. This was reported by The New York Times (NYT) on January 30, 2018. The alliance signals how frustrated American businesses are not just with their health care system, but also rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment – the report said. The NYT also quoted Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway as saying:“The ballooning costs of health care act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.”

The initial focus of the new venture, as announced, will be on “technology solutions” that will provide U.S. employees and their families with “simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost.”  They also plan to “bring their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.Nevertheless, it is unclear how extensively the three partners would overhaul their employees’ existing health coverage to reduce healthcare cost and improving outcomes for patients. They may simply help workers find a local doctor, steer employees to online medical advice or use their muscle to negotiate lower prices for drugs and procedures. While the alliance will apply only to their employees, these corporations are so closely watched that whatever successes they have could become models for other businesses – NYT commented.

The second examplecomes from an article, titled ‘Consumerism in Health Care’, published in NEJM Catalyst on January 11, 2018. It says, another important change that is a direct outcome of the consumerism of health care is personalization of care to facilitate health outcomes. However, ultimate personalization, that is, a “one-to-one relationship” between a company and an individual appear increasingly possible with the data and analytics that are now within the reach of many global pharma players, the paper says. However, most Indian pharma players, I reckon, still lack wherewithal that’s required to build capabilities to deliver high degree of personalization for patients.

As a result, pharma industry, in general, is still charting in the primary stages of delivering personalization, although, progress made by some global players in this direction is quite encouraging.

Consumerism in healthcare to gather momentum in India:

A September 2016 paper, titled ‘Re-engineering Indian health care’, published jointly by FICCI and EY points to this direction. The results of their survey done as a part of this study indicates, the aspirations of the middle and upper classes are evolving and their demands for convenience, participation and transparency in the health care delivery process are indicative of the shift from being a docile patient to an informed “health consumer.”

Thus, it is irrefutable today that digitally empowered patients are fast increasing, even in India. This is fueled by rapid expansion of broadband Internet in the country – a bottomless source of information. In this scenario, would the general pharma marketing assumption in India - what the ‘doctor says/patient does’, still yield results? Indian pharma marketers may need to possibly do some crystal gazing in this area – sooner the better.

Conclusion:

Accepting the reality of increasing consumerism in the healthcare space, both globally and locally, pharma players, especially in India, need to clear all clutter in the pathway to reach out and directly interact with their end-customers – the patients, aiming at improving clinical outcomes, the way patients would want – individually or in a cluster.

In a nutshell, what do patients want through increasing consumerism: Personal and meaningful involvement in their healthcare decision making process, based on requisite credible information from independent expert sources. Thus, what pharma the players should gear up to be: Cultivating a truly patient-centric approach in their business. And, there lies the real challenge for many in the industry, as it will mean all marketing and related organizational decisions will revolve around in-depth understanding of the patient’s mindset, along with their associated needs, want and health aspirations.

While moving towards this direction, providing personalized care by leveraging optimally selected modern technological platforms, will be a cutting-edge tool for pharma business excellence and achieving sustainable all-round growth – over a long period of time. As I see it, increasing consumerism will continue to remain a prime mover for unexpected, but welcoming changes in the healthcare space, at least for a medium term. It is to be taken rather seriously, with as much care as it deserves.

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 Innovation and Pharma M&As: A Recent Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

The 21st CEO Survey 2018 of PwC highlights a curious contradiction. This is based on what the Global Pharma Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) had articulated regarding their business outlook for 2018 and beyond. The report says: Despite highly publicized hand wringing over geopolitical uncertainty, corporate misbehavior, and the job-killing potential of artificial intelligence, the CEOs expressed surprising faith and optimism in the economic and business environment worldwide, at least over the next 12 months.

As the survey highlights, beyond 2018, CEO sentiment turns more cautious. They expressed more confidence in revenue growth prospects over the longer term than the immediate future. In the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), acquisitions appeared to be the core part of the 2018 growth playbook for the CEOs. More of them plan to drive growth with new Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) for this year. The US CEOs intent in this area came out to be more than their peers globally.

Thus, in this year we may expect to witness several M&A deals, at least by the pharma majors based in the US. As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the success of any strategic M&A process should get clearly reflected in its revenue, profit and cost synergies over a period of time, consistently.

In this article, I shall try to look back, and attempt to fathom the net outcome of M&As in the pharma sector. Its key drivers for the global and Indian pharma players are somewhat different, though. In this piece, I shall focus on the M&A activities of the global companies, and my next article will focus on the Indian players in this area.

2018 – best start to a year of healthcare deal making:

The finding of the 21st CEO Survey 2018 that more global pharma CEOs plan to drive growth with new M&A for this year, has been reiterated in the January 22, 2018 issue of the Financial Times (FT). The article titled “Big Pharma makes strongest start to M&A for a decade” writes: “Healthcare companies have announced almost $30bn of acquisitions since the beginning of the year in the sector’s strongest start for deal making in more than a decade, as Big Pharma scrambles to replace ageing blockbusters by paying top dollar for new medicines.”

Big names involved and the reasons:

On February 18, 2018, an article published by the BSIC wrote, the M&A value in the healthcare sector recorded its strongest start to a year in more than a decade, excluding 2000, with almost USD32bn of global deals announced since the start of January 2018. Of these USD32bn, Sanofi SA and Celgene Corporation performed almost a combined USD26bn value of acquisitions for the American Bioverativ Inc. the cell therapy provider Juno Therapeutics, respectively.

As many would know, the FT also wrote in the above piece that Sanofi is trying to offset declining sales of its top-selling insulin – Lantus, which has lost market share following the introduction of cheaper biosimilar versions. Celgene is preparing for the loss of patent protection on its top cancer medicine, Revlimid, which will face generic competition from 2022 at the latest.

Is new drug innovation a key driver of M&A?

The core intent of M&A is undoubtedly creating greater value for all the stakeholders of the merged entity. Nevertheless, such value creation predominantly involving the following two goals, revolve around new drug innovation activities, as follows:

  • New value creation and risk minimization in R&D initiatives
  • Acquisition of blockbuster or potential blockbuster drugs to improve market share and market access, besides expanding the consumer base.

There could be a few other factors, as well, that may drive a pharma player to go for a similar buying spree, which we shall discuss later in this article.

However, in the international scenario, with gradually drying up of R&D pipeline, and the cost of drug innovation arguably exceeding well over USD 2 billion, many companies try to find easier access to a pipeline of new drug compounds, generally at the later stage of development, through M&A.

Thus, I reckon, one sees relatively higher number of big ticket M&As in the pharmaceutical industry than most other industrial sectors and that too, very often at a hefty price.

At a hefty price?

To give an example, the year 2018 has just begun and the pharma acquirers have agreed to pay an average premium of 81 percent – a number that is well above the 42 percent paid on average in 2017, according to Dealogic. The examples are the 63.78 percent bid premium paid by Sanofi SA on Bioverativ Inc. and the 78.46 percent premium paid by Celgene Corporation to acquire Juno Therapeutics.

A key reason of paying this kind of high premium, obviously indicate an intent of the acquirer to have a significant synergy in drug innovation activities of the merged company.

Do drug innovation activities rise, or decline post M&A?

A paper titled “Research: Innovation Suffers When Drug Companies Merge”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on August 03, 2016 answers this question. This research involves, pre and post M&A detailed analysis of 65 pharma companies. After detailed scrutiny of the data, the authors wrote: “Our results very clearly show that R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.”

Having also analyzed companies that were developing drugs in similar therapeutic areas, but hadn’t merged, the paper recorded: “We applied a market analysis, the same one used by the European Union in its models, to analyze how the rivals of the merging firms change their innovation activities afterward. On average, patenting and R&D expenditures of non-merging competitors also fell – by more than 20% – within four years after a merger. Therefore, pharmaceutical mergers seem to substantially reduce innovation activities in the relevant market as a whole.”

‘Other critical objectives’ may also drive pharma M&A:

As I had indicated before, besides attaining synergy in innovation activities at an optimum cost through M&A, there may also be other important drivers for a company to initiate this process. One such example is available from Sanofi-Aventis merger in 2004.

Just to recapitulate, Sanofi was formed in 2004 when Sanofi-Synthélabo (created from the 1999 merger of Sanofi and Synthélabo) acquired Aventis (the result of the 1999 merger of Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc).

A June 2016 case study of the Sanofi-Aventis merger titled ‘Does M&A create value in the pharmaceutical sector?’, and published by HEC Paris – considered a leading academic institution in Europe and worldwide, brings out the ‘other factors’ driving pharma M&A.

The research paper says that Sanofi-Aventis deal ‘is the perfect example of the paramount importance that external factors have on M&A activity, which sometimes are more critical than the amount of value created from a particular deal.’ It further says, ‘facing a changing pharmaceutical industry (heightened competition and consolidation trend), Sanofi-Synthélabo decided to merge with Aventis as a defense strategy.’

This strategy ensured, even if the merger had not ended being a successful one, it would achieve the following two ‘other critical factors’:

  • Manage to save Sanofi-Synthélabo from being acquired and disappearing.
  • Comply with the French government pressure to create a national champion in the pharma industry, to ultimately benefit the French population.

Conclusion:

In the pharma business, M&A has now become a desirable strategic model for shareholder value creation. In the global perspective, one of the most important drivers for this initiative is, greater and less expensive access to new drug innovation or innovative new drugs, beside a few others, as discussed above.

In-depth expert analysis has also shown that “R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.”  Moreover, as other independent researchers have established that inside the merged companies, there’s a great deal of disruption in many areas, including people, besides the global drug market getting less competitive with declining number of players.

Pharma M&As may well be any stock market’s dream and could a boost the merged company’s performance in short to medium term. But the important points to ponder are:  Does it help improve drug innovation or its cost related issues over a reasonably long time-frame? Does it not ultimately invite even more problems of different nature, creating a vicious cycle, as it were, putting the sustainable performance of the company in a jeopardy?

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.