Category Archives: Pharma

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

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.

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Posted on by
Reply

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business,” said the management guru of all times – Peter Drucker, decades ago. He further added, “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.” What needs to be underscored in this visionary articulation of Drucker is, effective marketing should create such a strong pull for a product or service that renders hard selling less relevant.

The word ‘innovation’ is used frequently within the pharma industry, and more by the multi-national players on a specific context. The purpose is mainly to douse stakeholder concern on high prices of innovative drugs – building a narrative around expensive, complex and time-intensive drug innovation process. That said, just as creativity is necessary to discover new drugs, creative minds also help in effectively reducing the cost of innovation – creating more customers for the company.

Curiously, in this debate the other key business function – ‘marketing’, often takes a back seat, with its usage getting generally restricted to product features and benefits, including ‘freebies’ of various kinds. Neither is there any palpable effort to make the culture of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ prevail across the organization, for overcoming several critical growth barriers that keep looming over all functional areas.

Is it happening because of a hubris, as it were, within the pharma and biotech industry? This article will try to figure out why this has been happening over decades and would also ponder whether the time is ripe for changing the charted path of the business model. For a clear understanding of all, let me start with the difference between creativity and innovation from the business perspective.

Creativity – a fundamental requirement in a business, is different from innovation:  

This was examined in the article titled, ‘The Importance of Creativity in Business,’ published by Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 09, 2017. It emphasized, although “creativity” and “innovation” are often used interchangeably, these are two separate concepts. “Creativity is different because it is a mechanism to being innovative. You can have great ideas, but not be innovative,” the paper underscored. It brought to the fore that ‘creativity’ – being the fundamental ingredient for being ‘innovative’, is essential in the highly competitive business environment. It fuels big ideas, challenges the employees’ way of thinking, and opens the door to new business opportunities.

The IBM study also confirms this fact:

The study titled, ‘‘Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study,’ led by the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change, also confirmed the above fact. The study is the fourth edition of IBM’s biennial Global CEO Study series, involving more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide.

The study reported, CEOs selected creativity as the most important leadership attribute and the number one factor for future business success. It added: ‘Creative leaders invite disruptive innovation, encourage others to drop outdated approaches and take balanced risks. They are open-minded and inventive in expanding their management and communication styles, particularly to engage with a new generation of employees, partners and customers.’ Importantly, ‘creativity’ ranked higher than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision, as each of these will require creativity. According to the study, successfully navigating through an increasing complex world of ‘accelerated industry transformation, growing volumes of data, rapidly evolving customer preferences, can be overcome by instilling ‘creativity’ throughout an organization.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ – does it apply to pharma, as well?  

In today’s complex business environment, pharma’s business challenges are spreading rapidly across many areas. Besides innovation of new drugs, following are four broad, but critical areas, where fostering of creativity, innovative thinking and invention of game changing ideas, across the organization, I reckon, can fetch a sustainable return, in a win-win way:

  • Intense ‘pricing pressure’ to make innovative drugs affordable for greater access to patients: Just as innovative ideas are of fundamental importance to develop new drugs; disruptive innovative ideas in this area, can help resolve this issue, effectively – not any incremental measure.
  • Declining corporate image and eroding public trust: Placing patients’ interest at the center of the business model, and then effective marketing of the same, can reverse this trend, with better business outcomes.
  • Lack of business transparency: Make business processes, including pricing, sales and marketing more transparent, by leveraging the power of data with modern technology.
  • Declining per dollar marketing productivity: Move away from the old and traditional business models to find a new pathway for success, using the process of simulation, on an ongoing basis.

While above are some of the pressing needs for steering the course of pharma and biotech industry, the business keeps charting the same patch, with a bit of tweaking, here or there. Thus, the good old saying – ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ still doesn’t work in pharma.  The question, therefore, is why? We shall discuss it in just a bit. Before that, let me explore how creative the pharma industry, joining some critical dots.

How creative is pharma and biotech industry?

To explore this area, I shall try to touch upon the following two points:

  • Is there any perceptible financial impact on pharma sales revenue, net profit and gross operating margin, for not creatively resolving some critical growth barriers, as stated above?
  • Where does pharma and biotech industry stand in global ‘creativity ranking’?

For this purpose, when I look at the following four major areas, some interesting findings emerge:

  • Top 10 in sales revenue.
  • Top 10 in net profit
  • Average Gross and Operating Margin
  • Creativity ranking of some major pharma and biotech companies

Top 10 in sales revenue:

The overall sales revenue of the pharma/biotech companies remains healthy. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any storm signal.  According to Market Research Reports, Inc. the top 10 companies on 2018 sales revenue, are as follows:

  1. Pfizer Inc.: USD 53.647 Billion
  2. Novartis AG: USD 51.90 Billion
  3. Roche Holding AG: USD 45.5896 Billion
  4. Johnson & Johnson: USD 40.734 Billion
  5. Sanofi S.A: USD 39.288 Billion
  6. Merck & Co., Inc.: USD 37.689 Billion
  7. AbbVie Inc.: USD 32.753 Billion
  8. Amgen: USD 23.7 Billion
  9. GSK: USD 22.968 Billion
  10. Bristol-Myers Squibb: USD 22.600 Billion 

Top 10 in net profit:

There isn’t any storm signal visible in this area, either, as it is seen in isolation. According to Statista, the 2018 ranking of the top 10 biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based on net income, as appeared in the Financial Times 2018 equity screener database, is as follows:

Rank

Company

Net income ($ Billion)

1.

Johnson & Johnson (USA)

15

2.

Novartis (Switzerland)

13.8

3.

Pfizer (USA)

11.9

4.

Roche (Switzerland)

10.5

5.

Amgen (USA)

8.5

6.

Gilead (USA)

7.7

7.

AbbVie USA)

6.8

8.

Novo Nordisk (Denmark)

6.0

9.

Bayer (Germany)

4.3

10.

Biogen (USA)

4.1

Let’s now look at the average gross and operating margin in the pharma and biotech industry.

Average Gross and operating Margin – still the best:  

This also looks healthy, as compared to others. According to the January 2018 study by New York University’s Stern School of Business, average gross margin of 481 biotech and 237 pharma and biotech companies was reported at 70.71 percent and 68.60 percent, respectively. And their operating margins were at 25.45 percent and 24.89 percent, severally – against 12.32 percent of all the 7209 companies surveyed.

Creativity ranking of some commonly known pharma and biotech companies:

Here there seems to be an issue. When I look at the 2018 Forbes list of ‘The World’s Most Innovative Companies,’ it will be challenging to find any of the above top names of the pharma and biotech companies within the Top 100 ranking. Just to illustrate the point, let me reproduce below some commonly known names of our industry:

Rank Company Country 12-month sales growth% Innovation Premium%
#7. Incyte USA 38.93 70.59
#14. Celltrion S. Korea 45.25 62.3
#16. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals USA 20.82 61.11
#17. Vertex Pharmaceuticals USA 46.2 60.93
#22. Alexion Pharmaceuticals USA 17.32 58.04
#82. Allergan Ireland 9.4 37.59

Some interesting possibilities:

The above data, points towards some interesting possibilities:

  • Because of its sales and profit margin remaining generally lucrative, the focus on innovation of most pharma and biotech companies, get restricted to new drug discovery and development processes.
  • Top management’s encouragement of creativity across all functions of the organization appears inadequate, to successfully navigate through the key growth barriers, to maintain future business sustainability.

But, some critical signals do indicate: ‘shape up or ship out’:

But the real picture isn’t as rosy. Analysis of some key trends does capture several critical storm signals for the industry According to the July 09, 2018 study of EY (Ernst and Young): ‘Margins of pharmaceutical companies are continuing to decline – the future lies in new ecosystems.’ It further indicated: Although the margins of the 21 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are declining, the businesses ‘are still growing, thanks to blockbuster drugs and new active ingredients against cancer. 40 per cent of the active ingredients that are currently being developed worldwide are cancer drugs.’

The paper concluded, the future lies in designing completely new types of ecosystems and business models. With the aim of providing comprehensive support for healthcare customers, including patients. “Data-driven business models will permanently change the pharmaceutical industry,” the paper articulated. The study forecasted, ‘life Science startups will take over between 30 and 45 per cent of the market by 2030.’ Isn’t this a clear signal, especially for large and longtime pharma players to ‘shape up or ship out?’

Conclusion: 

Let me now revert to what Peter Drucker said on two basic functions of a business – Innovation and Marking. None can question pharma on its consistently bringing to market innovative drugs to effectively tackle many diseases, including complex and life-threatening ones. Given, that ongoing new drug development is the lifeblood of growth of pharma business. Nevertheless, that aspect of innovation is mostly perceived as an exclusive internal business value for most companies. The majority of stakeholders perceives the value of drug innovation as inclusive, when it is made accessible to a large population of patients at an affordable price, along with a decent Return on Investment (ROI) for the corporation. This expectation cannot be wished away. Instead, its core concept should drive the other basic function of business – marketing

This stage can be attained by building an innovative organization, fostering the culture and process of ‘creativity’ – across its functions. It is now a fundamental requirement for pharma and biotech companies. Beyond new product development, innovation immensely helps organizations navigating through strong headwinds to achieve its financial goals and objectives, in an inclusive manner. When IT – another knowledge industry, can reduce the cost of innovation through creative processes, across all functions, making its product and services affordable to a large population, e.g. Reliance Jio, why not Pharma? In that sense, I reckon, pharma and biotech companies are yet to become creative – in a holistic way.

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.

Would ‘Connected Healthcare’ Catch Pharma Players Off-Guard?

Posted on by
Reply

Rapid advancement of medical science is making several life-threatening diseases easily preventable, curable and manageable. For some conditions, such as, peptic ulcer even surgical interventions are no longer necessary. This results in the expansion of preventive and primary-care segments, with equal speed. Simultaneously, increasing complexity of many diseases, late stage disease detection, and better identification of rare diseases, are broadening the specialty hospital segment, as well.

On the other hand, the general mindset of people is also changing as fast. They dare to chart in the cyberspace, seek for more health-information, prefer participative care, expect a speedy treatment process – delivering better outcomes.

The cumulative impact of these are creating some brilliant sparks, confirming evolution of some disruptive health care business models. These are quite different from what we generally experience today.One such model is termed ‘connected healthcare.’ This is a unique business model, having potential to break the decades old status-quo – for the benefit of patients – closely involving doctors, pharma – medical device/diagnostic companies and of course the hospitals. In this article, I shall deliberate on ‘connected healthcare’ looking at its various aspects and examining whether pharma industry is ready for this change. Let me start this discussion with the role of Internet of Things (IoT), as an enabler for this process.

Internet of Things (IoT) – A great enabler for ‘connected health’:

‘Internet of Things (IoT)’ has opened new vistas of opportunities for providing healthcare with significantly better outcomes. According to Ecoconsultancy, by leveraging the IoT network, medical devices of everyday use can be made to collect, store and share invaluable medical data, providing a ‘connected healthcare’ system. Consequently, doctors, along with patients, can get speedy and deeper insights into symptoms and trends of diseases for prompt interventions, even from remote locations. The question that follows: what really is ‘connected health?’

‘Connected Health (cHealth)’ and a teething problem:

‘Connected health or (cHealth)’ refers to the process of empowering healthcare delivery through a system of connected and interrelated computing devices, mechanical and digital machines on an IoT network platform. It provides the ability for seamless data transfer and access between patients and providers, without requiring human-to-human interactions to improve both quality and outcomes of healthcare.

Two more articles, one titled ‘Connected health: How digital technology is transforming health and social care,’ and the other ‘Accelerating the adoption of connected health’, both published by Deloitte Center for Health Solutions also described ‘Connected health (cHealth)’quite eloquently.

One of the papers highlighted, being a technology driven network system, cHealth has its own teething problems. Some of its key reasons include: Many physicians ‘are often reluctant to engage with technology, partly due to the scale and pace of changes, and partly through lack of education and training, and concerns over liability and funding.’

Precise value offerings of a ‘Connected Health’ system:

The Accenture study titled, ‘Making the Case for Connected Health,’ established that ‘connected health’ approach creates value at three different levels, as follows:

  • Clinical efficacy and safety - Eliminating duplicate lab and radiology tests; improving patient safety through 24/7 access to comprehensive, legible medical records; and speeding up access to patient medical histories and vital information – the cost of treatment can be reduced, significantly.
  • Shared knowledge - Improves care quality, benefits with prompt safety alerts, such as drug interaction, enhances clinical decision-making through sophisticated tools along with evidence-based care protocols, and helps acquiring new capabilities in health care.
  • Care transformation - Advanced analytics help sharing clinical decision-making process, population health management, and facilitate building new care delivery models.

‘Connected health’ in managing chronic diseases:

‘Connected health’ is being practiced at different levels in many countries. These are particularly useful in treating or managing chronic ailments, such as cardiovascular (hypertension), metabolic (diabetes) disorders and COPD (Asthma).  Some examples are as follows:

Many hypertensive patients monitor their blood pressure and other related parameters, through self-operating digital instruments and devices. If the auto-flagged readings get transferred to the treating physicians through IoT system, physicians can promptly adjust the drug doses and offer other required advices over the same system online, and as and when required or periodically. This could avoid periodic personal visits to doctors for the similar purpose, saving time and money. At the same time, it ensures better quality of life through the desired level of disease management, always.

Similar results have been reported in the management of diabetes and Asthma with ‘connected health’ system.

 ‘Connected health’ in treating life-threatening diseases, like cancer:

The paper titled, ‘Smart technology helps improve outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer,’ published by the News Medical on May 17, 2018, which was also read at the June 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), highlights some interesting developments in this area. This federally funded, randomized clinical trial on 357 people receiving radiation for head and neck cancer, using mobile and sensor technology to remotely monitor patient symptoms, resulted in less severe symptoms related to both the cancer and its treatment.

It also noted: ‘Patients who used the technology – which included a Bluetooth-enabled weighing scale, Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure cuff, and mobile tablet with a symptom-tracking app that sent information directly to their physician each weekday – had lower symptom severity than participants who had standard weekly visits with their doctors. In addition, daily remote tracking of patient wellbeing, according to the researchers, enabled physicians to detect concerning symptoms early and respond more rapidly, compared to usual care.’

While treating serious ailments, medical images, such as computed axial tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), digital mammography and positron emission tomography (PET), can be connected, stored and shared with cloud-based connectivity and online sharing platforms, as confirmed by several studies. This would enable physicians to build better and deeper referral networks, for better diagnosis and speedier treatment inventions to patients.

‘Connected healthcare’ is fast growing:

As the above Accenture study indicates, many countries have started implementing  ‘connected healthcare’ systems to deliver cost-effective, high-quality and speedy healthcare services to the population with better outcomes. Some of these nations are, Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the United States.

According to the New Market Research report titled, “Connected Healthcare Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends, Growth and Forecast 2018 – 2022,” published by Wise Guy Research: ‘Globally, Asia-Pacific region is one of the fastest growing markets for ‘connected healthcare’. It was valued at USD 2.65 billion in 2015, and is expected to reach USD 23.8 billion by 2022, at the rate of 30.6% during the forecast period.’ During this span, ‘The global connected healthcare market is expected to reach $105,337.5 Million by 2022 at a CAGR of 30.27%,’ with North America commanding largest market share of 36.7%, the report highlights.

‘Connected health’ shows a high potential in India:

The above report also indicates, ‘mobile-health services’ accounts for the largest market segment in the UK, Italy, Japan, China and India. E-prescribing is the fastest growing segment in Asia Pacific and is expected to grow at the rate of 31.27% CAGR during the forecast-period.

E-Health initiative of the Government of India, which is aimed at using of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in health signals a good potential for ‘connected health’ in India. Fast penetration of mobile technologies even at the hinterland of India will facilitate this process.

Another article titled, ‘Why Connected health is the key to reducing waste and increasing efficiency,’ published in Healthcare India on July 25, 2017, brings to the fore some key benefits of ‘connected healthcare’ in the country. It says, ‘connected healthcare’, can bring path-breaking changes in the country. Following are a few examples:

  • Today when almost 70 percent of the medical expenses are borne by the patient, a ‘connected health’ ecosystem, would reduce admissions by early intervention and potentially deter surgeries.
  • Having access to a patient’s entire medical record, physicians’ will be able to minimize ‘over diagnosis’, amounting to multiple tests, over-medication and avoidable prescriptions, thereby reducing out of pocket health expenditure of patients.
  • When patients are referred from one doctor to the other, or from the rural medical centers to district hospitals, they often need to repeat all the tests, as there is no connected health ecosystem. In doing so, they lose time and sometimes don’t show up for follow up treatments and consultations with their treatment remains incomplete.

Leading private players in ‘connected health’ area:

Some of the leading market players in the global ‘connected healthcare’ market, reportedly, include Agamatrix Inc. (USA), Airstrips Technology (San Antonio), AliveCore Inc. (Australia), Apple Inc. (USA), Athenahealth Inc. (USA), Boston Scientific Co. (USA), GE Healthcare (UK), Honeywell Life care Solutions (UK), Medtronics (Ireland) and Philips Innovation Campus (Bengaluru, India).

Would ‘Connected healthcare’ disrupt pharma’s legacy commercial model:

McKinsey Digital’s March 2012 paper titled, “Biopharma in the coming era of connected health” explains, how ‘connected healthcare’ has started disrupting the legacy commercial models of pharma and Biopharma industry. One of the related examples cited in the article is, pharma’s less emphasis on large sales forces “selling” to physicians.

As this new system gathers wind on its sail, information transparency will allow customers, regulators, and competitors to understand and independently assess the performance of various drugs, often better than what the manufacturers present. These powerful new data sources would reveal true efficacy of medicines, in the real-world settings. No doubt, it will be a significant patient empowerment.

Would pharma be caught off-guard?

Despite such clear signs of changes, the way the pharma industry continues to operate, which as perceived by a majority of the population, is generally self-serving in nature. It has remained virtually unchanged over several decades. Another strong public perception is, patients often get trapped by a two-way financial interest, existing between doctors, hospitals, pharma, biotech – medical devices/diagnostic companies, in various forms. Notwithstanding, industry lobbyists pooh-poohing it, it remains a robust general perception, nonetheless.

That said, this situation can no longer be allowed to remain frozen in time. Today, time is making many things obsolete, including human behavior and business practices, much faster than ever before. This gets fueled primarily by two catalytic factors – one, rapid progress of technology, and the other, which is even more fundamental – the changing demographic profile and social fabric. Together, these are creating a new, informed, more assertive and expressive mindset of people – signaling their needs, preferred choices and processes, even for a health care solution. It’s for the industry now to shape up, soon.

Conclusion:

Joining all these dots, one gets a clear sign of ‘connected healthcare’ gradually evolving in India. Even if, it still takes some more time for an integrated ICT system to be in place, especially in India, it’s for sure that ‘connected healthcare’ will be a reality, surely.

As and when it happens, it will be a disruptive process. The process of sharing all requisite disease prevention, treatment and management related data, between patients, doctors and other care providers, including pharma companies – over regulatory approved, interconnected IoT enabled devices, machines and applications, will benefit all.

There will, of course, be several barriers to overcome, before this new era ushers in. One such hurdle being, many doctors still don’t express a favorable attitude towards adoption of ICT technology in their everyday practice. Alongside, the government with the help of regulators, should enact the requisite laws, and frame stringent rules to ensure enough privacy and security of confidential medical information of individual patients. In tandem, appropriate authorities must ensure that ‘connected healthcare’ system is effectively implemented by all concerned.

As strong environmental needs will hasten this process, public access to high quality healthcare with better outcomes – and all at an affordable cost, will improve by manifold. Thus, I reckon, days aren’t too far to witness ‘connected health care’ in India. But, the hundred-dollar questions still remain unanswered – Are most pharma players ready for the ‘connected healthcare’ regime, or will it catch them off-guard?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

A New Pharma Marketing Combo Places Patients At The Center Of Business

Posted on by
Reply

As discussed in several of my previous articles, most pharma players need to walk the talk on ‘patient-centricity’, coming out of prevailing high decibel lip-service. This is not an easy task, and far from being every company’s cup of tea.

Effective implementation of patient-centricity by an organization, entails understanding of behavioral science by today’s pharma marketers. Many of them, I am sure, have already studied it in Business Schools. Be that as it may, by harnessing this scientific knowledge, the insights that they will acquire on primary and secondary pharma customers, will be unique. The important cues that will come out of the insights, will help them create well- targeted strategic marketing game plans having a cutting-edge. When implemented on an ongoing basis, this will help catalyze a win-win business environment, for reaping a rich harvest over a long period of time.

In today’s article, I shall dwell on the increasing relevance of an interesting combo of behavioral science – predictive analytics and patient-centricity, for a sustainable business performance. This is especially for the millennial pharma marketers to try and implement. With blessings from the top management, this model will help them jettison – the increasingly counterproductive – ‘gratification model’ of pharma business, imbibing ‘patient-centric ones’ – that patients themselves can feel and will appreciate.

The basic requirements to make it happen:

The basic requirements of the pharma companies to make it happen is to gradually move away from its core strategy of ‘buying prescriptions’ that often happens through contentious means. No doubt, it has the power to create a temporary strong brand push. But is definitely not sustainable, as these usually go against patients’ health and economic interest.

For a sustainable demand for a pharma brand, pharma companies would need to design a strong ‘brand pull’ in the new paradigm. This would prompt drug companies acquiring deep insights on how to leave a cherishing treatment experience with the patients for the brand. This would, consequently, have a strong-positive rub-off effect on the corporate image, as well. Likewise, a doctor would also like to know, how to create similar patient-experience with his treatment, to draw more of them in the future. This is diametrically opposite to generation of demand for a brand through ‘payment to doctors for prescriptions.’

Pharma marketer’s understanding of behavioral science is necessary:

This is because, it helps to get targeted deep-stick studies done on the way pharma customers, such as doctors and patients, behave. The span of the behavioral study should commence from the onset of a patient’s search for a disease treatment process, right up to when the individual gets an ‘after treatment experience’ – good, bad or average. It is, therefore, necessary for a drug company, to become more patient-centric, rather than self-serving, for achieving the desired goals of pharma business, consistently.

This wisdom would enable pharma marketers developing the following five broad insights for being ‘patient-centric’:

  • Understanding the process of thinking of a type or a group of patients about making their treatment choices. It could often mean not going for any treatment at all, or not adhering to prescribed treatment.
  • What makes patients behave the way they do, while undergoing a treatment?
  • Understanding both mental and physical feelings of patients while suffering from certain disease conditions, for effective engagement with them.
  • What type of holistic treatment experience the patients would value most to cherish.
  • What type of treatment experience the doctors would value most to provide to patients to enhance their practice and professional reputation.

While doing so, pharma marketers would need to clearly harmonize the two areas – one pertaining to doctors, and the other involving patients. This is important for the purpose of a clear focus on a comprehensive brand strategy formulation, based on well-analyzed data.

The key point to note, however – a creative blend of behavioral science with new-age pharma marketing tools can bring a sea change in the business performance of a company, along with providing a delightful treatment experience to patients with its drugs.

Generation of a huge pool of customer behavioral data is the starting point:

The first step of making a patient-centric organization is the generation of a huge pool of data on customer-behavior dynamics. That said, making predictions on the company’s customer behavior for future outcomes of the brand performance, from this data pool, would involve the use data analytics, which for this purpose will be ‘predictive data analytics.’

The use of ‘predictive analytics’ in pharma marketing:

In my article titled, ‘Data: The New Magic Wand For Pharma Business Excellence’, published in this Blog on October 01, 2018, I discussed the importance of well targeted data-based decision-making process, across the pharma functional areas. Taking this idea forward, let me explain here the critical role that ‘predictive data analytics’ can play in acquiring insights of the trend of behavior of the customers, especially patients and doctors.

Simply put, ‘predictive analytics’ is a type of advanced analytics, which are used to get deep insights and making well-informed predictions, based on both past and current data feeds. In pharma, especially for the subject that I am discussing, it pertains to insights on doctor and patient behavior related predictions, encompassing the entire span of a disease treatment process. Skillfully executed, this will strengthen, at least, two critical success factors in the pharma business:

  • Acquiring predictable insights on the targeted customers’ behavioral trend and pattern any given time-frame.
  • With such customer insights making the organization ‘patient-centric’ for more effective engagement with its customers.

Combining the above two points, I can well say, by analyzing a huge pool of data from behavioral-science-based information – ‘predictive analytics’ helps acquire deep insights on predictable customer behavior, with high precision. These are so useful, not just for better engagement with doctors, patients and other stakeholders, but also in making the organization patient-centric, in true sense. Nevertheless, many still question - Is ‘patients centricity’ really feasible in the pharma industry?

Is ‘patient centricity’ really feasible in the pharma industry?

This question was also raised in the 2017 paper titled, “Patient Centricity and Pharmaceutical Companies: Is It Feasible?” -  published in Vol. 51(4) of the Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS). The paper captures patient-centricity as integrated measures for listening to and partnering with patients, and placing patients’ well-being at the core of all business initiatives. It represents a holistic approach to the disease management process.

The concept brand-oriented patient-centricity is not too difficult to understand. But, I reckon, the difficulty lies somewhere else. It is to fathom where and how a pharma player can predictably add differentiating value, for those patients who need a right kind of treatment. That’s why, the question of feasibility of ‘patient-centricity’ is being raised.

There is no doubt that such an effort presupposes considerable insights on patients’ behavior, alongside the requisite expertise to predict these, for different time-frames, with a great degree of precision. This not an insurmountable task, either, particularly in today’s paradigm – with state-of-the-art ‘predictive data analytic’ tools. This prompts me to believe, it is very much possible to make a truly patient centric organization, assuming that there will exist a strong will to survive in the business and prosper!

Are ‘predictive data analytics’ different from other analytics?

Yes, the following two key points make ‘predictive data analytics’ quite different from other data analytics:

  • General data analytics usually help acquire insights on the past and present.
  • Whereas, predictive data analytics help looking at near-mid and long-term future, regarding most probable customer behavior pattern and trend, with great accuracy.

Currently, with the ability to generate relevant and real-time big data pool, together with application of machine learning, data-mining and statistical modelling – predictive analytics have the power to help acquire future insights. This insight is totally data-based, sans any gut-feel. Thus, effective use of this process can enable pharma players effectively predict trends and behaviors of doctors and patients for meaningful engagement with them for their chosen brands.

Has potential to create a win-win outcome: 

To ensure a game-changing payback from this process, crafty dovetailing of the following three steps, complementing each other is critical:

  • Generate a huge pool of real-time data on doctors’ and patients’ behavior pattern, for a pre-selected time-frame.
  • With the knowledge of behavioral science, help analyze them with predictive analytics.
  • Understand from the results, the trend of behavioral dynamics of selected customers from the brand perspective.
  • Frame rewarding business strategies to create a win-win situation, involving both – the pharma players and the patients.

Some pharma players are on the ball:

One of the key reasons for imbibing patient-centricity, is the proliferation of ‘me-too’ types of brands – both patented and generics. It has started happening even in the market of high-priced oncology medicines, with not much difference in price between them.

In this situation, predictive data analytic tools can help understand multi-variable relationship between patient’s needs, their interaction with physicians, the oncologist’s prescriptions to them, type of physician-engagement of drug companies and patients’ experience before, during and after the treatment. This is not an easy task, nor all pharma companies have wherewithal of doing this, to gain brand market share, significantly.

With predictive data analytics, many pharma companies are keeping eyes on the ball, using it in different business areas, such as drug discovery. But not many of them, are using this combo-approach to make a patient-centric pharma organization. It is just a matter of time, I reckon, that global pharma will decide to move in this direction – fortified with deep pockets, but with a battered reputation, and facing a hostile pricing environment, across the world.    

Conclusion:

Customer insights, acquired through the crafty application of behavioral science, have immense potential to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. In tandem, it will help create a ‘worth remembering’ treatment experience for the patients with the brand used.

From this perspective, I reckon, skillful application of behavioral science to generate a huge pool of data, and their analysis with ‘predictive analytics’ will go a long way to create a truly ‘patient-centric’ organization.

When executed by a well-integrated expert team of market research, medical affairs and pharma marketing professionals, this new marketing-combo-approach has the potential to fetch a game-changing performance outcome, placing patients at the center of business. The net gain to the organization will be much more than the sum total of what each of these steps can ensue individually – remarkably enhancing corporate reputation, in tandem.

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.

For Affordable Access To Quality Healthcare in India, Invest Where The Mouth Is

Posted on by
Reply

On September 25, 2018, well-hyped Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS), touted as the largest health scheme in the world, was launched in India. Prior to its launch, while announcing the scheme on August 15, 2018 from the Red Fort,Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “The healthcare initiatives of the government will have a positive impact on 50 Crore Indians,” as it aims to provide a coverage of Rs 5 lakh per family annually, benefiting more than 10 Crore poor families.

Before this scheme was introduced, there were several public funded health schemes in India, introduced by different governments, like National Rural and Urban Health Mission (NRHM and NUHM), Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana etc. Reports also capture that since independence efforts were ongoing in this area. But none worked, due to shoddy implementation. Let’s await the outcome of yet another new health scheme, introduced by yet another government – AB-NHPS.

According to the Government Press Release of January 11, 2019: Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) aims to provide health coverage during secondary and tertiary hospitalization of around 50 Crore beneficiaries, allocating a sum of up to Rs. 5 Lakh per family per year. The key words that need to be noted is ‘the health coverage during hospitalization’. It also doesn’t cover primary care. Interestingly, some of the larger states, such as Punjab, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Delhi are, reportedly, yet to come on board, Odisha has refused to be a part of the scheme.

Conceptually, the above new health initiative, aimed at the poor, is praiseworthy.  However, its relevance in reducing a significant chunk of one of the highest, if not the highest, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP’) expenses towards health in India, raises more questions than answers.

This is because, whether annual ‘OoP’ for health, incurred by the country’s poor population, goes more for hospitalization than Primary Health Care (PHC) involving common illnesses, is rather clear today. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, supported by credible published research data.

But ‘the Primary Health Care (PHC) is in shambles’:

Since the focus of (AB-NHPS) on ‘secondary and tertiary hospitalization’, one may get a feeling that the primary public health care system in India is, at least, decent.

But the stark reality is different. The article titled, ‘Five paradoxes of Indian Healthcare,’ published inThe Economic Times on July 27, 2018 describes the situation eloquently. It says: ‘While the Supreme Court has held health care to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution…The fundamental aspect of health care – the primary health care is in shambles. There is only one primary health care center (often manned by one doctor) for more than 51,000 people in the country.’

In addition, the World Bank Report also flags: ‘The tenuous quality of public health assistance is reflected in the observation that 80 percent of health spending is for private health services, and that the poor frequently bypass public facilities to seek private care.’ Although, World Bank underscored this problem sometime back, it persists even today, sans any significant change.

PHC has the potential to address 90 percent of health care needs:

For the better health of citizens, and in tandem to contain disease progression that may require hospitalization for secondary and tertiary care, government focus on effective disease prevention and access to affordable and high quality PHC for all, is necessary. ‘Evidences gathered by the World Bank have also highlighted that primary care is capable of managing 90 percent of health care demand, with only the remaining 10 percent requiring services associated with hospitals.’

Another article titled, ‘Without Primary Health Care, There Is No Universal Health Coverage,’ published in Life – A HuffPost publication on December 14, 2016, also vindicates this point. It emphasized: ‘Primary health care (PHC) has the potential to address 90 percent of health care needs. However, country governments spend, on average, only one third of their health budgets on PHC.’ The situation in India is no different, either.

This basic tenet has been accepted by many countries with ample evidences of great success in this direction. Curiously, in India, despite the public PHC system being in shambles, the government’s primary focus is on something that happens only after a disease is allowed to progress, virtually without much medical intervention, if at all.

Key benefits of a strong PHC system:

As established by several research papers, such as one appeared in the above HuffPost publication, and also by other research studies, I am summarizing below the key benefits of having an affordable and strong PHC network in the country:

  • Can manage around 90 percent of the population’s health care need, patients would require hospitalization for specialists care only 10 percent of the time.
  • Can help people prevent diseases, like malaria or dengue, alongside effectively assist them in managing chronic conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, to avert associated complications that may require secondary or tertiary care.
  • At the country level, a strong PHC system would help detect and screen illnesses early, offering prompt and effective treatment. The system, therefore, will support a healthier population, and would ‘offer much more than simple reduction of the costs of a country’s health.’
  • A country can ensure greater health equity by providing PHC advantages of greater accessibility to the community, and across the social gradient.
  • In short: ‘The continuity and doctor–patient relationships offered by family oriented primary care, alongside the patient education, early intervention and treatment, chronic disease management, counseling and reassurance offered to patients would be impossible to provide in a secondary care setting.’

Thus, establishing a robust network of high-quality public PHC facilities in the country is a necessity. Simultaneously, patients should be made aware of visiting the nearest PHC as their first stop for affordable treatment, when they fall ill.

Annual ‘OoP expenses’ more on ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization’:

For illustration, I shall provide examples from just two studies, among several others, which found, average ‘OoP expenditure’ per family in a year, is more for ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization.’

Since long, ‘OoP expenditure’ on hospitalization was being considered as the most important reason for impoverishment. Probably, this is the reason why various governments in India, had launched various health schemes, covering hospitalization expenses of a large section of the poor population in the country. The most recent one being – Ayushman Bharat-National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS), often termed as ‘Modicare’, launched in September 25, 2018.

That total ‘OoP expenses’ are more on ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization’ was emphasized even in the 2016 research article titled, ‘Out-of-Pocket Spending on Out-Patient Care in India: Assessment and Options Based on Results from a District Level Survey,’ published online by PLoS One on November 18, 2016.

Highlighting that ‘OoP spending’ at ‘Out-Patient Departments (OPD)’ or in clinics by households is relatively less analyzed compared to hospitalization expenses in India, the results indicate:

  • Economically vulnerable population spend more on OPD as a proportion of per capita consumption expenditure.
  • ‘Out-patient care’ remains overwhelmingly private and switches of providers -while not very prevalent – is mostly towards private providers.
  • High quality and affordable public providers tend to lower OPD spending significantly.
  • Improvement in the overall quality and accessibility of government OPD facilities still remains an important tool that should be considered in the context of financial protection.

Let me now cite the second example – analyzing the 60th national morbidity and healthcare survey of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), the study found, ‘outpatient care is more impoverishing than inpatient care in urban and rural areas alike.’

Expert committee’s recommendations for focus on ‘primary care’ went unheeded:

That the government focus on public health care should be on PHC, along with prevention and early management of health problems, was recommended by ‘The High-Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage, for India.’ This committee was instituted by the then ‘Planning Commission’ of the country on November 2011. The report also suggested, such measures would help reduce the need of secondary and tertiary care, significantly. But not much attention seems to have been paid even on these critical recommendations.

Conclusion:

Going by what Indian government says, I believe, its ultimate goal is providing access to affordable Universal Health Care (UHC), for all. That’s indeed commendable. But as various research papers clearly indicates, the country will first ‘need to invest in a ‘primary-care-centered’ health delivery system, if universal access to health care is to be realized, ultimately.

From this perspective, Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS) may be a good initiative. But it does not seem to merit being the primary focus area of the government in public health care. And, not more than establishing high quality and robust ‘primary health care’ infrastructure, across the country, for all. Nor will AB-NHPS be able to address higher average of out-of-pocket ‘outpatient expenses’ of those people who need help in this area, the most.

Considering the critical public health care issue in India holistically, I reckon, for providing affordable access to health care for all, the top most priority of the Government should be to invest first where the mouth is – to create affordable primary healthcare infrastructure of a decent quality, with easy access for all.

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.

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on by
Reply

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

  • Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.
  • By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.
  • In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.
  • These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.
  • Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’: 

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

  • Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”
  • In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.
  • Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

  • The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and
  • Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like India.

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 Marketing: Time For A Disruptive Change with A New Breed of Marketers

Posted on by
Reply

In Today’s fast-changing world, as I indicated in several of my previous articles, more and more people first try to understand the causative factors of their ailments, and options available for effective remedial measures. They strive to get such information, either from the cyberspace or by word of mouth from well informed individuals or other sources. This process starts before treatment, and continues, at times, even after remission of the disease.

Even in the developed countries, a scope exists for self-medication for common ailments with OTC drugs, duly approved by respective country’s drug regulators. A point to ponder, most of these were ‘only prescription’ medicines before going off-patent, and after enjoying 20 years of exclusivity with pricing freedom. During their patent life, self-treatment was illegal with any of these molecules, if not dangerous. The same tradition continues today.

The bottom-line is, many patients are now trying to understand their diseases from sources other than the physician. Good or bad, the reality is, such patients generally prefer to visit a doctor as and when they deem it necessary. While visiting a clinic, they already have, not just some idea of the ailment, but also in what way they would prefer to get themselves treated and approximate cost of each. One should not presume, either, that majority of them are unaware of the risks involved with this approach.

Pharma marketers today can’t just wish away this emerging trend of patients and patient groups getting increasingly more informed. Trying to stop this trend will be a Herculean task, similar to swimming against a very strong current. Managing this situation in a win-win way is now a key task of a pharma marketer. In this article, dwelling on this trend, I shall focus on the need for a disruptive change in pharma marketing and the new breed of drug marketers.

Calls for a fundamental shift in pharma ‘marketing focus’:

Achieving this objective warrants a fundamental, if not a disruptive shift, in the ‘marketing focus’ of pharma companies – from traditional ‘product management’ to modern ‘brand management.’

With patented ‘me-too’ drugs, including ‘Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs)’, as well as generics, now dominating the market, some sort of ‘commoditization’ of drugs are taking place in the pharma industry, whether one likes it or not.

No significant differential advantages oruniqueness exist between such products manufactured by different drug companies. Consequently, doctors or patients have enough choices to prescribe or buy, drugs with comparable efficacy, safety, quality standards and matching price range, from different pharma players.

Shift from product marketing to brand marketing:

One may possibly ask aren’t both quite the same? Is there any meaningful difference between these two? Thus, taking a pause, let us try to understand what’s the difference between these two.

Yes, for many there is not much difference between these two, especially in the pharma industry. Hence, many drug companies name this function as ‘product management’, while others call it ‘brand management’. In fact, these two are often used as interchangeable terminologies in the drug industry. Nonetheless, this understanding is far from being correct.

The key focus in ‘pharma product marketing’ is on the drug itself – its intrinsic value offerings to patients in terms of efficacy, safety, quality and often the cost. Thus, ‘product marketing’ approach may work for breakthrough drugs, but not for ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic ones to achieve the desired goals of the respective companies, consistently.

Whereas, pharma ‘brand marketing’ in its true form, creates much more value than pharma ‘product marketing.’ The former dovetails intrinsic values of the drug with a set of strong feelings and emotions around the brand, purely based on what patients or consumers would want to experience from it. This process makes even a me-too brand stand out, creating a strong personality around it and differentiating itself head and shoulder above competitors. Importantly, the bedrock of conceptualizing these powerful feelings and emotions, must necessarily be robust, relevant and fresh research data. No doubt, the task is a challenging one– and not every marketer’s cup of tea.

Why building personality for pharma brands and services is necessary?

If we look around the healthcare industry, we shall be able to realize the importance of building personality for a medicine, especially generic drugs with a brand name, in the Indian context.

For example, many hospitals offer similar medical treatment facilities, follow similar treatment guidelines and their cost may also not be very different. But why different people prefer different ones among these, and all hospitals don’t get a similar number of patients? Same thing happens during the patients’ selection of doctors from many, having similar qualification, experience and expertise.

This happens mainly due to the attachment of a persona around each that creates a particular feeling and emotion among patients while choosing one of them. The process and reasons of creation of a persona may be different, but it certainly differentiates one from the other for the consumer. The same thing happens with virtually undifferentiated ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic medicines.

Time to create a ‘strong pull’ for a drug, instead of ‘push’ by any means:

To create a ‘strong pull’ successfully, specifically for ‘me-too’ patented molecule or generic drugs, there is an urgent need for a fundamental change in the organization’s marketing approach – a shift in focus from ‘product marketing’ to ‘brand marketing’.

Otherwise, current pharma marketing practices for creating a ‘strong push’ for drugs that often involve alleged serious malpractices’ will continue. But continuation of this approach is not sustainable any longer, for scores of reasons.

The benefits of pharma ‘brand marketing’ in bullet points:

To summarize the key benefits of ‘brand marketing’ in pharma, the following points come at the top of mind:

  • ‘Brand marketing’ of drugs helps escaping avoidable and unsustainable heavy expenditure to create a ‘strong product push,’ often resorting to contentious marketing practices.
  • Proper ‘brand marketing’ of drugs needs high quality cerebral and multi-talented marketing teams, rather than the power of ‘deep pocket’ to buy prescriptions. This creates a snowballing effect of cutting edge talent development within the organization, along with a culture of leading by examples, for a sustainable future success.
  • ‘Brand marketing’ is a better, if not the best way to make a drug most preferred choice in a crowd of similar branded generics or ‘me-too’ patented drugs.
  • Paying doctors for prescribing a drug does not help developing loyal customers, but creating feelings and emotions for a brand among them, helps foster brand allegiance.
  • Creative ‘brand marketing’ of drugs will appreciably boost the image of the organization, as well, but ‘pharma product’ marketing in its present form, will not.

Pharma ‘brand marketing’ and ‘patient-centricity’ to work in tandem:

My article, ‘Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare’, published in this blog on June 11, 2018, deliberated an important point. It was:

If the pharma strategic marketing process is really effective in every way, why is healthcare consumerism increasing across the world, including India?

The focal point of rising consumerism in the pharma industry is unsatisfied, if not anguished or angry patients and patient groups – in other words consumers. There could be various different reasons for the same. But the core point is, contentious marketing practices that pharma players generally follow, is self-serving in nature. These are not patient-centric, and mostly devoid of efforts to create feelings or emotions for the product, among both prescribers and other consumers.

The pharma marketers to keep pace with changing environmental demands:

As I discussed several times in the past, pharma marketers are often found wanting to meet the changing demands of the business environment. This is important, as the general pharma practices of influencing the prescribing decision of the doctors are facing a strong headwind of increasing consumerism, India included. This is slowly but surely gaining momentum. For example, patients in India are realizing:

  • That a vast majority of people pay ‘out of pocket’, almost the total cost of health care, without having even a participatory role in their treatment choice, including drugs.
  • That they no longer should remain unassertive consumers, just as what happens in other industries when a consumer buys a product or service.
  • That they need to involve themselves more and be assertive when a decision about their health is taken by doctors, hospitals, realizing that pharma and medical device companies often ‘unfairly’ influence doctors’ prescribing decisions.

The role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have changed:

Keeping aside ‘one size fits all’ type of strategy, even if I look at so called ‘targeted marketing’ in pharma, it appears somewhat baffling. It is somewhat like, ‘empty your machine gun magazine at the target with a hope to win over competition.’ Whereas, today’s environment requires making healthcare product marketing, including drugs and services, more personal, and in some cases even individual, like latest cancer therapy. The wherewithal for technological support to move towards this direction is also available. State of the art marketing and product research tools and analytics should be put to use to facilitate this process.

Increasing usage of digital marketing, in an integrated or holistic way, is going to make traditional pharma marketing less and less productive, whether we like it or not. To maintain a sharp competitive edge in this new ball game, on an ongoing basis, pharma marketers will need to keep raising the bar.

Consequently, the role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have also changed. The new generation of drug marketers will not just be creative, but their creativity will be guided by a huge pool of credible research-based data, avoiding gut-feel. All guesses in this area must pass the acid test of validation by what the research data reveals. Moreover, pharma marketers will need to possess, at least the working knowledge of various digital platforms and possible usages for each of these.

Conclusion:

There is an urgent need to realize that drug marketing is now at the crossroads, pharma players will have a choice, either to follow the same beaten path or gradually make a course correction to keep pace with changing environmental demands. If a company decides to choose the second one, the role of pharma marketers and the talent required for doing the job effectively, will be significantly different from what it is today.Maintaining the status quo in this area, carries an inherent risk for the future success of pharma companies.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Are Cancer Patients Victims of Pharma’s Payment to Doctors – For Prescriptions?

Posted on by
Reply

In pharma industry, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds have no other choice but to visit doctors, to seek their expert advice for medical treatment. Patients expect them to prescribe the right and most affordable medicines for desired relief. Ironically, it appears to be the general industry practice to favorably influence the prescribing decision of doctors of all kinds of drugs, irrespective of any tangible product superiority, and price. This practice has been a decade old general concern of many that still continues unabated, especially in India.

There is nothing wrong, though, in pharma companies’ influencing doctors with unique product and associated service offerings over others, intended to benefit patients. However, when any marketing activity goes against the general patient interest, or may be construed independently as short-changing patients, must not be condoned, the least by any government.

This article will discuss how this menace is not sparing even those cancer patients who can’t afford expensive drugs but want to survive. I shall start with an overall perspective and sign off with the prevailing situation in India.

Are such practices transparent?

Obviously not, as these take place under several benign names and guise, and is an open secret to almost all stakeholders, including many patients. In several countries, India excluded, the government or the legal systems have intervened to make the drug marketing process more transparent, often with strong punitive measures. Curiously, adequate space is constantly being created by some players to hoodwink all these.

Today, one can, at best put two and two together to get a feel of what could possibly be the reality. It still remains a challenge to exactly quantify as to what extent it is going on, and with what impact on common patients, who mostly pay out of pocket to purchase medicines. But the good news is, studies on this particular subject has commenced, a few examples of which I shall in this article.

Some common influencing tools:

Pharma companies’ influencing tools for favorable doctors’ prescriptions are, apparently, directly proportional to a doctor’s prescription generating capacity. Once a doctor is influenced by such mechanism, high product price becomes irrelevant, even for those who find the drug difficult to afford.

The form of influence varies from gifts carrying different price tags, advertising in specific souvenirs or journals, sponsoring medical symposia of doctors’ choice, to arranging company’s own ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs in exotic places, with travel, boarding and lodging expenses paid by the company, sometimes including their spouses. Hefty speaking, consulting fees and research grants may also be among these influencing tools. All are commonly done through a third party to avoid easy detection.

Some evidences of drug companies’ payment to doctors:

May 02, 2017 edition of the Journal of American Medical Association, published a couple of survey findings that can be summarized, as follows:

  • About half of U.S. doctors received payments from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries in 2015, amounting to USD 2.4 billion
  • Such payments and gifts very likely encourage doctors to prescribe pricey brand-name drugs and devices pushed by sales representatives.
  • Chances of receiving a general payment depended on the doctor’s specialty — 61 percent of surgeons got a payment, compared with 48 percent of primary care doctors.
  • Pharma companies earned more than USD 60 billion in 2010 for brand-name drugs included in the study. Generic drugs are 80 to 85 percent less expensive, which means hospitals can save lots of money, if doctors start prescribing generics instead of brand-name drugs.
  • Doctors at academic medical centers were more likely to prescribe cheaper generic drugs than expensive brand-name drugs after their hospitals adopted rules that restricted pharmaceutical sales visits, the researchers said.
  • “Many doctors would say they can’t be bought for the low amounts we’re talking about, but the amounts actually aren’t that low. Many, many doctors are getting thousands of dollars. It’s hard to imagine that is not influential,” the article underscored.

Quantification of increased prescription:

Another interesting study analyzed the prescription pattern of cardiologists who were taken out for a meal by sales representatives of Pfizer or AstraZeneca– makers of two expensive branded cholesterol-lowering statins, Lipitor and Crestor. They found that payment to physicians increases prescribing of the focal drug by 73 percent.

It is noteworthy,during the time period examined, which was between 2011 and 2012, there were several equivalent, lower-cost generic statin drugs available in the market. The paper’s findings confirm the general belief that drug companies’ business practices do influence doctors prescribing behavior while treating patients, in favor of the high-cost targeted brands.

Any relationship between soaring cancer drug price and pay for prescriptions?

Dr. Peter Bach at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, with the help of a ‘cancer drug price chart from 1965 to 2016 period, established that treatment cost with cancer drugs is soaring. In another article, on the same issue, Dr. Bach commented: ‘Market pricing does not ensure access to new innovation.’ He reiterated:‘Profit maximizing price is not welfare maximizing. This is a policy failure, not a market failure.’

So far so good. However, everybody was surprised when on October 02, 2018, The New York Times reported about the same Memorial Sloan-Kettering that: ‘Dr. Craig B. Thompson, the hospital’s chief executive, resigned in October from the board of Merck. The company, which makes the blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda, had paid him about $300,000 in 2017 for his service.’

The same report further detailed: ‘Dr. Thompson, 65, received $300,000 in compensation from Merck in 2017, according to company financial filings. He was paid $70,000 in cash by Charles River in 2017, plus $215,050 in stock.’ This does not seem to be a solitary example from this hospital, as ‘another article detailed how a hospital vice president held a nearly $1.4 million stake in a newly public company as compensation for representing Memorial Sloan Kettering on its board.’

The question that arises now, how would such behavior of doctors adversely impact cancer patients’ health-interest? This was evaluated in an interesting article, as below.

Evaluation of association between industry payment to doctors and their prescribing practices:

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common. This was analyzed in detail with deft and expertise in yet another very recent research paper titled, ‘Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology,’ published in the ‘The Oncologist’ on February 06, 2019. Two critical findings of the study may interest many, which are:

  • The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year).
  • Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing.

Its implication on cancer patients:

To ascertain its implication on cancer patients by combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, the study identified:

  • The consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors.
  • This is very likely to strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company’s cancer drug.

The outrageous cost of cancer treatment with innovative drugs:

As I said in my previous articles, new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming more innovative with greater efficacy. The fact that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo “for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation,” provides a testimony to the high quality of innovation involved in the discovery and development of cancer therapy.

This progress is excellent, unquestionably! But who is getting benefitted by these innovative cancer medicines? The headline of the article, titled ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ published by the Vox Media Vox Media on October 02, 2018, captures the prevailing reality, succinctly. Articulating, ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ the author further elaborates the point. The paper underscores, for the first time ever, we’re living in a moment when many of our most promising medical advances, such as cancer immunotherapy, are far out of reach for the vast majority of people who could benefit from them.

Innovative cancer drugs are pricey only for the high cost of innovation? 

Let me deliberate this point based on data. Quite expectedly, pharma industry never accepts that prescriptions are bought. But, when get caught, they retort that these are some aberrations, keeping their much-publicized argument unchanged in support of jaw dropping cancer drug prices. They argue, innovative drugs are brought to market after incurring R&D expenditure of over a billion dollars, if not more.

The Vox article quotes the CEO of Novartis, the maker of the immunotherapy drug Kymriah, saying that the R&D costs of the drug were about USD 1 billion. But many experts don’t buy this argument. The article echoed one such expert - Ezekiel Emanuel, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.

The professor countered by saying: ‘That’s certainly a big investment, but it is much less astounding when compared with the drug’s anticipated revenue. Based on Kymriah’s list price, treating just 2,700 patients would allow Novartis to recoup its entire investment. Even with significant discounts for many patients, it wouldn’t take many treatments to turn a considerable profit.’

According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, the total cost for removing, reprogramming and infusing the cells into each patient is less than USD 60,000—just one-sixth of the USD 373,000 price tag. Production costs do not seem to be driving the stratospheric drug prices, the researchers commented.

Has any remedial action been taken by the industry or the doctors?

Except one report, I reckon, this practice continues virtually unabated, even today.

‘The above conflicts at Memorial Sloan Kettering, unearthed by The New York Times and ProPublica, have had a rippling effect on other leading cancer institutions across the country’, commented ProPublica on January 11, 2019. It reported: ‘The cancer center will now bar top officials from sitting on outside boards of for-profit companies and is conducting a wide-scale review of other policies.’

Further, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, both of whose executives sit on corporate boards, are among the institutions reconsidering their policies on financial ties, the article said.

Conclusion:

Although, in many countries, at least, some action has been taken by the governments to curb such practices by framing appropriate laws, in India it is virtually free for all types of situation, as prevailing in this area.

A recent news report aptly summarized the Indian situation. It highlighted: “While Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently mocked doctors in a public interaction in London for going on foreign trips sponsored by pharma companies, his government has been unsuccessful in bringing in a law to punish pharma companies that bribe doctors. The Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), prepared by the pharmaceuticals department (DoP) to control unethical marketing practices in pharma has been in the work since December 2014, six months after the current government came to power. More than three years later, the code is stuck in the Niti Aayog after the law ministry rejected DoP’s draft.”

With the above global and local perspective, I reckon, even if some changes take place in the developed world, India is unlikely to fall in that category, any time soon. Consequently, a large number of Indian patients may continue to fall victims of common pharma practice – pay to doctors for prescriptions. It doesn’t seem to matter even for cancer drugs.

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.