Drugs & Devices: Chasing Never-Enough Profit And Price Control

Posted on July 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On July 20, 2016, the Union Ministry of Health of India announced the addition of Coronary Stents to the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2015 with immediate effect, bringing them under the Drug Price Control Order.

Reacting sharply to this development, the medical device industry commented, with an undertone of threat, that this price cap could stop manufacturers from introducing technologically advanced stents in India.

However, without contributing to any further knee-jerk reaction, let me try to analyze in this article, whether the never-enough profit motive of the imported stent manufacturer prompted the Government to resort to price control for these life saving devices.

The use of stent:

In the treatment of coronary artery diseases, cardiac stents are now widely preferred in India, just as many other countries of the world. These are small expandable tubes, usually made of metal mesh, and are used to treat narrowed or weakened arteries in the body.

One of its most extensive usages is in patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), caused by the buildup of plaque, where stents are used to open narrowed arteries and help reduce the symptoms, such as, chest pain or angina, or to help treat a heart attack. This procedure of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is called angioplasty.

According to the report of an experts’ sub-committee formed by the Government in October 2015, around 25 percent of deaths in India is attributed to Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD). Coronary Artery disease (CAD) is the commonest CVD accounting for 90-95 percent of all CVD cases and related deaths.

However, for a large majority of the Indian population, the cost of angioplasty is prohibitively high. A patient may have to shell out anywhere between around Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 150,000 for a stent coated with drugs, called Drug Eluting Stent (DES), to curb restenosis, according to published reports.

Even for most Government staff, the cost of angioplasty could well be several times more than their maximum reimbursable limit fixed for angioplasty. Thus, only around 3 out of 1000 needy coronary heart disease patients are treated with angioplasty in India, as compared to 32 in the United States.

An opportunity to shape up:

Despite DES being notified as drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the coronary stents did not feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) prior to the above notification, and therefore, were not covered by the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), so far.

For a long time, this situation offered an important opportunity to the imported stent manufacturers to shape up with responsible pricing…but did they?

Why is angioplasty cost so high?

While trying to find out a credible answer to the above question, the following details on DES of Abbott Healthcare are worth looking at. This information was sourced from a Maharashtra FDA report, and referenced by Rema Nagarajan in her article published in the Times of India on September 25, 2014 to highlight why is DES so expensive for patients in India.

Although, pricing details are of 2014, nevertheless, it gives a flavor of the prevailing situation:

Cost Break-Up/Unit	Cost per Unit (Rs.)
DES imported into India at	40,710
Sold to Distributor Sinocare at	73,440
Distributor Sold to Hinduja Hospital	1,10,000
Patient charged	1,20,000 (threefold increase of import price)

(Source: Maharashtra FDA report)

The saga of ‘Market driven pricing’:

Both the drug and the device companies apparently make valiant efforts to package such ‘arbitrary’ pricing as so called ‘Market Driven’ ones, though such price tags keep crippling many cardiac patients financially too. Ironically, the saga still continues.

Taking advantage of the free-pricing environment in India for Coronary Stents, to attain market dominance many global majors, possibly believe that they can print any Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on their import cost. It was happening even when the Government does not levy any customs duty on stents. Do these companies ignore its optics too? Who knows?

Like most drugs, market forces do not play any significant role in the medical device pricing too, globally.

In June 2013, a research study published in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’, compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents (BMS), Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that Medical Representative (MR) presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced with the use of DES, and resulted in the higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

The situation is not terribly different in India too, where also the medical choices are often influenced by the drugs and device makers through, much discussed, dubious means.

The market:

According to a market research report of ‘Future Market Insights (FMI)’ dated May 09, 2016, the coronary stent market of India was of US$ 481 million in 2015, and by the end of 2016 is expected to reach at US$ 531 growing at a CAGR of 14.0 percent over the forecast period of 2016 – 2026.

This study segmented the market on the basis of the following product types:

Drug Eluting Stent (DES)
Bare Metal Stent (BMS)
Bioresorbable stent (BVS)

DES segment is expected to exhibit the highest growth and the BMS segment a stable growth, during the forecast period. This is mainly attributed to the emergence of new and more effective stents in the market, the report highlights.

The market is dominated by the imported stents. Abbott, Medtronics, Meril Lifesciences and Boston Scientific, hold together around 60 percent share of the Indian market.

In India, nine of the 11 domestic stent manufacturers are located in Surat and Vapi of Gujarat. These stents are picking up the market share currently hovering around 30 percent, costing even less than half, as compared to the imported ones.

The Government stepped in:

When the industry did not seem to shape up, despite the regulatory opportunity available to keep the stents out of the NLEM, the media started writing about it, strongly and quite frequently. These were intended to bring some sanity into the imported and advanced Coronary Stent pricing system. Still nothing changed, and the Government had to step in.

Ultimately, in October 2015, the Union Ministry of Health constituted a sub-committee of expert cardiologists under the chairmanship of Prof. Y.K. Gupta, Head of the department of pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The mandate of this sub-committee was to examine the issues relating to the essentiality of coronary stents, and recommend whether the coronary stents should be included in the NLEM.

Accordingly, after a series of in-depth discussion with various stakeholders, which included stent manufacturers and the patient groups, the sub-committee recommended the inclusion of two categories of coronary stents, namely the DES and BMS in the NLEM. This suggestion was in response to “the enormous need of percutaneous coronary intervention, or angioplasty with stent.”

By a notification on July 20, 2016, the Ministry of Health announced that the sub-committee has submitted its report to the Government, and after thorough examination of the report, its recommendations have been accepted for implementation with immediate effect.

This decision of the Government is expected to set the stage for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to work out ceiling prices, which are expected to be 40 percent to 70 percent less than the current prices for these stents.

Conclusion:

For the last several years, many stakeholders, including the media and the Government, have been expressing grave concern over the exorbitant prices of the Coronary Stents.

Earlier in 2015, following a petition, even the Delhi High Court directed the Government to monitor the prices of stents in the market.

Indian drug price regulator, the NPPA, and some state FDAs too flagged the point that although locally manufactured stents are much cheaper, doctors and hospitals continue to use the imported ones, for various commercial and other reasons. As a result, the situation remained the same, adversely affecting the health of a large number of cardiovascular patients in India.

The last week’s decision of the Indian Government for inclusion of coronary stents in the NLEM, needs to be viewed under the backdrop of steep increase in the incidence of CHD in India. It clearly poses a significant public health hazard, where the cost of stents becomes a key treatment barrier for the majority of the patients incurring out-of-pocket health expenditure.

Price control of drugs and devices may not be the best way to improve their access to the most of the Indian population. Nevertheless, considering the high out-of-pocket expenditure for health care in the country, instead of behaving responsibly, doesn’t the drug and the device makers’ mindless chase after ‘never-enough profit’ objectives, often prompt the imposition of regulatory price control?

The fact that many global drug and device manufacturers, even after posting over 30 percent standalone net profit growth in India, continue cribbing incessantly about the stifling Regulatory and Intellectual Property Right (IPR) environment in the country, vindicates the above point well, possibly beyond any reasonable doubt.

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.

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on July 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones.

Hurdle creation and the core intent:

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry.

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether.

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry.

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar.

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics.

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever.

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Health, Human Capital, Human Development And GDP Growth – A Discord in India

Posted on July 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Is sustainable growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) intertwined with public health, human capital and human development, or each one of these deserves to be seen and analyzed in isolation? Or, is there a discord between India’s GDP growth rate, and various published indices of its public health, human capital and human development?

This important issue, which has various facets and dimensions, such as, social, economic, education and health, needs to be debated widely. However, in this article, I shall try to address this question only from the public health perspective.

It is a generally accepted fact that GDP growth rate, at any given point of time, is just one of the primary indicators, and not the sole indicator, to gauge the real health of any country’s economic ground realities. Nevertheless, considering its time-tested importance, one can well understand why India’s key focus is now primarily on boosting the rate of GDP growth of the nation.

To translate this core objective into reality, the Government in power, almost single-mindedly and quite commendably, is actively engaged in various well publicized campaigns, such as, ‘Make in India’, several basic infrastructure developments, and attracting more Foreign Direst Investments (FDI) into the country.

High GDP growth and the general well-being of a nation:

The above initiatives are indeed praiseworthy. However, according to experts’ reports, though GDP growth presents a good first approximation of economic well being of a country for international comparisons, it ignores many basic and critical factors of the general well-being of a nation.

For that reason, there is a need to deliberate whether the pursuit of achieving a sustainable high GDP growth of India is in sync with a commensurate improvement in the indices of human development and human capital, where health stands out as one of the most critical common factors.

Some key parameters to assess the ground reality:

To properly assess the ground reality of the general well being of a country, such as India, at least, the following important parameters should be looked at together, and not in isolation:

GDP growth: It’s a rate at which a nation’s Gross Domestic product (GDP) changes/grows from one year to another.

Human Development Index (HDI): It is a tool developed by the United Nations to measure and rank countries’ levels of social and economic development based on the health of people, their level of education attainment and standard of living.

Human Capital Index (HCI): It measures countries’ ability to nurture, develop and deploy talent for economic growth. One of the most significant parameters, that is effective in human capital performance, is the role of individual health, and its related indices in enhancing the economic level of a country, besides the investment in individuals’ education. Among health features of a society, high life expectancy, low death rate in children, healthy nutrition, degree of medical advancements, the costs that the government or the family incur for the health sector and low-cost services before birth, are considered most important.

It is worth noting, both in HDI and HCI, public health stands out as one of the most critical common factors.

A discord in India:

Keeping this in perspective, in my view, a huge discord does exist in India between HDI, HCI and the GDP growth.

High GDP growth:

All Government initiatives backed by favorable international prices of, especially, crude oil and commodities have enabled India to record the highest GDP growth of around 7.5% in 2015, as against estimated 0.5% of Brazil, -3.8% of Russia, 6.8% of China and around 1% of South Africa among the BRICS countries, in the same period.

However, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), India has the lowest per capita GDP of US$ 5,238 among the other members of the bloc and is also lagging behind the other BRICS economies in terms of quality of life.

It is a different matter though, many experts, including a prominent member of the ruling party, are not quite convinced with India’s high GDP growth numbers.

Low Human Development Index (HDI):

According to the 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) report, recently released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), India occupies 130th position among 188 countries.

Among BRICS nations, Russia ranks 50, Brazil 75, China 90, South Africa 116. While among India’s neighboring countries, Sri Lanka occupies rank 73, China 90, Bhutan 132, Bangladesh 142, Nepal 145, Pakistan 147 and Afghanistan 171.

Low Human Capital Index (HCI):

According to the 2015 HCI report released by Geneva based World Economic Forum (WEF) earlier this month, India occupies105th rank out of the total 130 countries included in the index.

Among the BRICS countries, India ranks at the bottom, as against Russia’s 28th, China’s 71st, Brazil’s 83rd and South Africa’s 88th. Among the neighboring countries, even Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are also placed higher on the index, besides China.

Public health is the common denominator:

As I said before, for all the three – GDP growth, HDI and HCI, the health of the population is the common denominator, which no nation can possibly afford to ignore for a sustainable and high rate of GDP growth.

An article titled, “Health and the economy: A vital relationship”, published in the ‘OECD Observer’ also underscored that health care performance is strongly dependent on the economy, but also on the health systems themselves. This link should not be underestimated.

Such expert recommendations, by all means, create a high priority situation, which needs to be addressed with commensurate well thought-out policy measures, backed by adequate budgetary support.

India is still a laggard in public health standards:

Leave aside the developing nation or BRICS countries, even some much smaller neighboring nations continue performing far better on some critical health indicators than India.

In fact, the World Bank health indicators’ data show that even Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam, with much lesser per capita GDP are ahead of India in several key health indicators, as shown in the following table:

Some Key Indicators		India	Bangladesh	Nepal	Vietnam
GDP Per capita(PPP) (Constant at 2011 US$) 2014	5445		2981	2261	5370
Life Expectancy At Birth (Female) 2013	68		71	70	80
Survival to Age 65 (% of Cohort) 2013	63		72	69	72
Public Health Expenditure (% of GDP) 2013	1.3		1.3	2.6	2.5
Infant Female Mortality Rate/1000 of Live Birth 2015	38		28	27	15
Mortality Rate (Under 5 year of Live Births) 2015	48		38	36	22
Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 1000 Live Births) 2013	190		170	190	49
Rural Population With Improved Access to Sanitation Facilities (%) 2015	29		62	44	70
Vitamin A Supplementation Coverage Rate (% of Children 6-59 months) 2013	53		97	99	98
Immunization DPT (% of Children 12-23 month) 2014	83		95	92	95
(Source: Live Mint, October 28,2015)

Similarly, another 2011 study published in the ‘The Lancet’ reported that Out of Pocket expenditure on health in India is the highest, as compared to its much smaller neighbors, as follows:

Country	Out of Pocket expenditure on health (%)
Maldives	14
Bhutan	29
Sri Lanka	53
India	78

Intriguingly, this overall dismal public health situation continues to remain unchanged even today, despite well hyped high GDP growth rate of India.

Conclusion:

For a sustainable and high economic growth, if public health also becomes one of the top priority areas of the country, it would get reflected in India’s commensurate higher ranking in both HDI and HCI, as well, highlighting the general well-being of the nation.

Thus, just a single minded valiant chase in pursuit of registering high GDP growth, in isolation, may not necessarily mean significantly more job creation, and attaining world-class public health standards in India.

To ensure all-round well being of the general population of India, a well integrated and comprehensive strategic roadmap, with public health included in it, I reckon, would prove to be more meaningful.

This approach would also help resolve the prevailing discord between high GDP growth, low Human Development Index (HDI) and low Human Capital Index (HCI), where public health clearly emerges as the common denominator.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does Healthcare Feature In Raisina Hill’s To-Do List?

Posted on June 27, 2016 by Tapan Ray

At the Capitol Hill, while addressing the joint session of the United States Congress, on June 08, 2016, our Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi well articulated the following, in his inimitable style:

“My to-do list is long and ambitious. It includes a vibrant rural economy with robust farm sector; a roof over each head and electricity to all households; to skill millions of our youth; build 100 smart cities; have a broadband for a billion, and connect our villages to the digital world; and create a 21st century rail, road and port infrastructure.”

This ambitious list is indeed praiseworthy. However, as the Prime Minister did not mention anything about health care infrastructure, while referring to rapid infrastructure development in India, it is not abundantly clear, just yet, whether this critical area finds a place in his ‘to-do’ list, as well, for ‘We The People of India’.

This apprehension is primarily because, no large scale, visible and concrete reform measures are taking place in this area, even during the last two years. It of course includes, any significant escalation in the public expenditure for health.

Ongoing economic cost of significant loss in productive years:

“The disease burden of non-communicable diseases has increased to 60 per cent. India is estimated to lose US$ 4.8 Trillion between 2012 and 2030 due to non-communicable disorders. It is therefore critical for India to transform its healthcare sector,” – says a 2015 KPMG report titled, ‘Healthcare: The neglected GDP driver.’

This significant and ongoing loss in productive years continues even today in India, handicapped by suboptimal health care infrastructure, and its delivery mechanisms. Such a situation can’t possibly be taken for granted for too long. Today’s aspiring general public wants the new political leadership at the helm of affairs in the country to address it, sooner. A larger dosage of hope, and assurances may not cut much ice, any longer.

Transparent, comprehensive, and game changing health reforms, supported by the requisite financial and other resources, should now be translated into reality. A sharp increase in public investments, in the budgetary provision, for healthy lives of a vast majority of Indian population, would send an appropriate signal to all.

As the above KPMG report also suggests: “It is high time that we realize the significance of healthcare as an economic development opportunity for national as well as state level.”

Pump-priming public health investments:

With a meager public expenditure of just around 1.2 percent of the GDP on health even during the last two years, instead of rubbing shoulders with the global big brothers in the health care area too, India would continue to rank at the very bottom.

Consequently, the gaping hole within the healthcare space of the country would stand out, even more visibly, as a sore thumb, escaping the notice, and the agony of possibly none.

With around 68 percent of the country’s population living in the rural areas, having frugal or even no immediate emergency healthcare facilities, India seems to be heading towards a major socioeconomic imbalance, with its possible consequences, despite the country’s natural demographic dividend.

According to published reports, there is still a shortage of 32 and 23 percent of the Community Health Centers (CHC) and the Primary Health Centers (PHC), respectively, in India. To meet the standard of the World Health Organization (WHO), India would need minimum another 500,000 hospital beds, requiring an investment of US$ 50 Billion.

Moreover, to date, mostly the private healthcare institutions, and medical professionals are engaged in the delivery of the secondary and tertiary care, concentrated mostly in metro cities and larger towns. This makes rural healthcare further challenging. Pump-priming public investments, together with transparent incentive provisions for both global and local healthcare investors, would help augmenting the process.

Help propel GDP growth:

As the above KPMG report says, the healthcare sector has the ability to propel GDP growth via multiple spokes, directly and indirectly. It offers a chance to create millions of job opportunities that can not only support the Indian GDP growth, but also support other sectors of the economy by improving both demand and supply of a productive healthy workforce.

Three key areas of healthcare:

Healthcare, irrespective of whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary, has three major components, as follows:

Prevention
Diagnosis
Treatment

Leveraging digital technology:

As it appears, leveraging digital technology effectively, would help to bridge the health care gap and inequality considerably, especially in the first two of the above three areas.

A June 06, 2016 paper titled, ‘Promoting Rural Health Care: Role of telemedicine,’ published by the multi-industry trade organization -The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) said: “With limited resources and a large rural population telemedicine has the potential to revolutionize the delivery of healthcare in India.”

As the report highlighted, it would help faster diagnosis of ailments, partly address the issues of inadequacy of health care providers in rural areas, and also the huge amount of time that is now being spent in physically reaching the urban health facilities. Maintenance of the status quo, would continue making the rural populace more vulnerable in the health care space, than their urban counterparts.

The study forecasted that India’s telemedicine market, which has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of over 20 per cent, holds the potential to cross US$32 million mark in turnover by 2020, from the current level of over US$15 million.

According to another report, currently, with around 70 percent overall use of smartphones, it is quite possible to give a major technology enabled thrust for disease prevention, together with emergency care, to a large section of the society.

However, to demonstrate the real technology leveraged progress in this area, the Government would require to actively help fixing the requisite hardware, software, bandwidth and connectivity related critical issues, effectively. These will also facilitate keeping mobile, and other electronic health records.

Disease treatment with medicines:

To make quality drugs available at affordable prices, the Indian Government announced a new scheme (Yojana) named as ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, effective July 2015, with private participation. This is a renamed scheme of the earlier version, which was launched in 2008. Under the new ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, about 500 generic medicines will be made available at affordable prices. For that purpose, the government is expected to open 3000 ‘Jan Aushadhi’ stores across the country in the next one year i.e. 2016-17.

The question now is what purpose would this much hyped scheme serve?

What purpose would ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’ serve?

Since the generic drugs available from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ retail outlets are predominantly prescription medicines, patients would necessarily require a doctor’s physical prescription to buy those products.

In India, as the doctors prescribe mostly branded generics, including those from a large number of the Government hospitals, the only way to make ‘Jan Aushadhi’ drugs available to patients, is to legally allow the retailers substituting the higher priced branded generic molecules with their lower priced equivalents, sans any brand name.

Moving towards this direction, the Ministry of Health had reportedly submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration. Wherein, the Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

For this reason, the ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, appears to be not so well thought out, and a one-off ‘making feel good’ type of a scheme. It is still unclear how would the needy patients derive any benefit from this announcement.

Conclusion:

On June 20, 2016, while maintaining the old policy of 100 per cent FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, Prime Minister Modi announced his Government’s decision to allow foreign investors to pick up to 74 per cent equity in domestic pharma companies through the automatic route.

This announcement, although is intended to brighten the prospects for higher foreign portfolio and overseas company investment in the Indian drug firms, is unlikely to have any significant impact, if at all, on the prevailing abysmal health care environment of the country.

Hopefully, with the development of 100 ‘smart cities’ in India, with 24×7 broadband, Wi-Fi connectivity, telemedicine would be a reality in improving access to affordable healthcare, at least, for the population residing in and around those areas.

Still the fundamental question remains: What happens to the remaining vast majority of the rural population of India? What about their health care? Poorly thought out, and apparently superficial ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’ won’t be able to help this population, either.

With the National Health Policy 2015 draft still to see the light of the day in its final form, the path ahead for healthcare in India is still rather hazy, if not worrying.

As stated before, in the Prime Minister’s recent speech delivered at the ‘Capitol Hill’ of the United States earlier this month, development of a robust healthcare infrastructure in the country did not find any mention in his ‘to-do’ list.

Leaving aside the ‘Capitol Hill’ for now, considering the grave impact of health care on the economic progress of India, shouldn’t the ‘Raisina Hill’ start pushing the envelope, placing it in one of the top positions of the national ‘to-do’ list, only to protect the health interest of ‘We The People of India’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Recomposing Notes of Pharma Marketing Playbook

Posted on June 20, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The global management guru Peter Drucker, in one of his management classics – “The Practice of Management”, published in 1954, that created the discipline of modern management practices, had underscored the following:

“As the core purpose of any business is to create a customer, a business has two, and only two functions, marketing and innovation. Only these two produce business results. All the rest are costs.”

The Harvard Business Review also had rated ‘The Practice of Management’ as Drucker’s best book on the managerial profession. Far more crisp than the larger compendium on Management, nicely balanced between precept and example, this book is eminently practical yet of genuine intellectual breadth. If Drucker’s work holds anything of immediate value for you, you will most likely find it here…”

Thus, Peter Drucker’s above concept is so fundamental that the pharmaceutical business can’t be any exception to it, in any way. That the old customers need to be retained, and the new customers are to be created on an ongoing basis, even in the modern times, still remain a basic requirement.

Nevertheless, the marketing process of doing so needs to change, according to the changing market dynamics. Continuation of playing the same notes from the grand old marketing playbook, with minor alterations here or there, would no longer suffice to keep pace with the changing market, and to effectively address the new stakeholders’ needs and wants.

Need to recompose notes of the playbook:

Both the current processes of pharma marketing and the patent claim for any type of drug innovation that the majority of the global pharma companies is currently following, have become highly contentious over a period of time, to say the least.

Even otherwise, in my view, both these processes have already hit the ceiling of the famous ‘law of diminishing returns’, where very simply put, the level of profits or benefits gained is less than the amount of money or energy invested.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Are the notes of the pharma marketing and innovation playbook fair, right, inclusive, and sustainable? However, in this article, I shall focus only on contemporary pharma marketing, and the opportunities that are coming up along with waves of changes in the business environment.

An example of ‘Change the logo’ saga:

Going by my personal experience, I have worked with many pharma marketing professionals, some of whom are still working in the industry. Post recruitment in the new company, having gone through a rigorous screening process, most of them would probably give a similar feedback that an anonymous quote captures as follows:

“The optimist says, ‘the glass is half full’; The pessimist says, ‘The glass is half empty.’ The marketing consultant says, ‘The glass needs resizing and a different logo.”

On a lighter vein, I am using below an example of one ‘change the logo’ approach. This is just one of many of my real life experiences. This may give you a panoramic view of how things generally are. The stretching of the same old marketing paradigm beyond its elastic limit is rather common, of course, with some sporadic digital tweaking. Nonetheless, the notes in the marketing playbook remain almost the same, producing the same tunes for some, and noise for many others.

This ‘logo change’ saga may sound quite familiar to many of my ex-colleagues of not so distant past. This approach exemplifies the limitations of a new recruit for a senior position to identify the core issues that would lead to the organization’s performance improvement.

It does not surprise me at all, when I find some top managements, who were an integral part of that selection process, promptly buying these shallow, and at the most peripheral ideas. It is quite evident that some of these top management members also suffer from similar analytical and management myopia. It is needless to mention that such things usually happen during the ‘honeymoon’ period’ of the new recruits.

Accordingly, the ‘logo change’ takes place in no time, paying a huge sum to the creative agency. Commensurate hype is simultaneously created around the new logo, backed by massive efforts to communicate its ‘ethereal design’ to as many targets as possible, often with no tangible outcome. Alongside, attempts are also made to change as many old things as possible, generating a multitude of seemingly high-voltage activities, though the performance on the ground remains unchanged, or rather deteriorates.

I fully understand, there is nothing wrong in changing anything, including a logo, that is not working or has outlived its time. However, when this assumes the top priority of a new and a top recruit, immediately after assuming office with a new responsibility, it somewhat doesn’t gel, and very often does not achieve the desired purpose.

Pharma marketing over-dependent on the likes of ‘Surrogate CMEs’?

Today, when there is a need to hear more from all the major stakeholders, one sided ‘telling my story’ mostly to the doctors continues to occupy a major part of pharma marketing, besides company sponsored or allegedly surrogate ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ even for old branded generics.

The preparation of a canned brand communication in India is a routine pharma marketing process, with a plethora of avoidable and unproductive activities. This canned message is delivered to the doctors, usually through the Medical Representatives, conforming to a structured ‘tool-kit’, and heavily backed by free samples and gifts.

A large number of doctors too, continue to take this process, particularly in India, as an unavoidable routine, and also an integral part of their professional activities. It is widely believed, and frequently reported that the ‘magic wand’ for large scale prescription generation for pharma brands lies somewhere else.

Apparently, it is where the financial relationship between the doctors’ and pharma players is usually built and strengthened. One allegation is, in the garb of so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generic or as some folks call these as ‘classic’ brands, this financial relationship continues to thrive.

This gives rise to a suspicion in many, as to why pharma marketing is so over-dependent on the so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generics in India.

The vicious circle continues:

When the financial relationship of various hues, between the drug players and the doctors take the center stage, which pharma company has a deeper pocket counts. More expenses incurred in such relationship building process, may consequently drive the drug prices higher. In this situation, the patients get literally caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, where the Governments are compelled to intervene, as has started happening now in many countries.

In tandem, the pressure on performance keeps mounting on the marketers from the same top management, ultimately repeating the old vicious circle, where it may not be the ‘logo change’ that time, but another different sets of the same genre of hectic activities would commence, in pursuit of the illusive sweet smell of business success.

Recompose notes of the marketing playbook:

Even today, the marketing communication in the pharma industry remains primarily a monologue. Many training programs are currently sold to the industry to make this process a dialogue, as the Medical Representatives detail their products to the doctors.

However, on the ground, as I witnessed even in the last month while seating incognito in the clinics of some doctor friends, that the practice of monologue continues reflecting a great visible hurry in the product communicators’ end. Some from large pharma companies were using electronic gadgets, instead of a usual spirally bound product detailing folder, but their overall communication approaches were monologue too.

Thus, the modern age pharma marketers need to recompose the notes of their marketing playbook, soon. Some of the areas of active consideration may include the following:

A. Brand messages to be “pulled” by doctors, not “pushed” by marketers:

An interesting worldwide survey of 228 senior global marketing executives was conducted in February 2006 by the Economist Intelligence Unit, in co-operation with Google. The study highlights the need to transform the marketing communication platforms from a monologue to a more intense process of engagement, through effective dialogue with the stakeholders.

In this new environment, the relevance is more important than repetition, and marketing messages should be “pulled” by the consumer rather than “pushed” by the marketer. This calls for a transformation of the internal marketing organization. All the deliverables of pharma marketers’ must have a relevance to time, and measurable, with total accountability for top and bottom line growth in the areas of responsibility.

In the consumer products’ industry, the last decade has witnessed several innovative two-way marketing “conversations” between the customers and some of the world’s leading consumer brands. Driven by a confluence of innovation, competition and big shifts in consumer behavior, the dialogue between brands and their customers is replacing the traditional marketing monologue, the study observes.

Some recent developments:

In this regard, on Jun 2016, an IBM News Release announced that ‘The Weather Company’, an IBM Business has developed an industry-first capability in which consumers will be able to interact with IBM Watson through advertising, by being able to ask questions via voice or text and receive relevant information about the product or offering. It can create a one-to-one connection with the consumer, that can be personal, relevant and valuable; and can scale across millions of interactions and touch points. This digital tool can also help the marketers uncover consumer and product insights faster than ever before, revealing connections previously invisible to human data scientists, IBM claims.

For example, an anti-allergy brand could enable visitors to Weather.com to ask questions about whether the product is appropriate for children or what sort of side effects it might cause, as WSJ mentioned in its news item of the same date.

However, only the FMCG companies, such as, Unilever, Campbell Soup Co. and GSK Healthcare have, so far, reportedly signed on with Weather Co. to start running Watson-powered ads on both desktop and mobile devices this year.

According to another 2014 report of IMS Health on Social Media, among the top 50 pharmaceutical companies, more than half do not engage with consumers or patients through social media on healthcare-related topics. The top 3 pharma companies in this regard are: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithkline (GSK), and Novo Nordisk.

Thus, in the pharma industry, the old tradition, by and large, prevails. This scenario, I reckon, signals a pressing need to recompose the notes of the pharma marketing playbook, in general, and very soon.

B. Studying the future digital trends and customize:

To find out about what digital trends to expect in future, the February 2006 survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit had asked survey takers and executives about the online trends they learned during the previous 12 months from their children or other young people. The top three new trends came out as follows:

Social networking,
Podcasting
Multi-player video games

These are just examples, individual pharma marketers would need to take calls about the relevance of specific digital tools and trends relevant to their business and customize them accordingly.

C. Two important marketing tactics proposed:

It is becoming quite evident now, across the world, that with the stakeholders-mix and the traditional doctor-focused “push” messaging delivered mainly through a large sales force coverage, are not generating commensurate a return on investments.

While this approach still remains somewhat relevant for the doctors, one needs to find out what is happening to effectively engage the other important stakeholders. For example, what is happening to those patients who are seeking meaningful engagement through various digital platforms for healthcare?

Recently, the Wharton School, Google and McKinsey & Company teamed up to write a new e-book entitled ‘Pharma 3D’, which proposes the following two important marketing tactics:

To reach patients, pharma companies need to leverage broader engagement models through alternative digital channels (including wearable, online, and social media).

Pharma companies can no longer rely solely on their relationships with physicians; they also need to engage with other influencers, like online communities and social networks.

D. Pharma marketing organizations may consider doing 3 things for success:

The authors of ‘Pharma 3D’ suggested that the pharma marketing organizations may consider doing the following three things really well, for success:

They Discover the behaviors, beliefs and needs of the people they are marketing to.
They Design experiences relevant to the people they are marketing to.
They Deliver those experiences consistently, superbly, and efficiently.

Conclusion:

Though Peter Drucker had said long ago that marketing and innovation are two most critical functions of any business and only these two produce business results, in the overall pharma marketing activities a wide gap between the modern marketing realities and the current marketing practices still exist, rather glaringly.

It is true that digital tools are now being selectively used by some pharma companies, these largely fall in the area of digitizing the manual functions, with some add on gimmickry, and glamor quotient built into it.

In my view, pharma companies, especially in India, should no longer rely solely on building relationships with the physicians. Their top marketers also need to directly engage with all other crucial influencers, including the expert groups, online communities, and the social media, whenever required, leveraging the broader stakeholder engagement models.

The old pharma marketing playbook is slowly, but surely going out of sync with the stark market realities of date. So are the mindsets of a large section of the pharma marketers. It is now high time for the top management to create an appropriate marketing organization, and then encourage it composing the new notes for a contemporary, and a more relevant marketing playbook, jettisoning the old one, for good.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer”

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked:

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too.

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general.

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives.

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies.

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be.

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical:

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach. In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples.

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012. It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC):

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

Posted on June 6, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Today, although a number of new and state of the art drugs is regularly being developed, and brought to the market at a reasonably rapid pace, their access to the majority of the global population has still remained a huge challenge. One of the key access barriers continue to remain exorbitant prices of these drugs.

Keeping commensurate pace with gradual improvement in the pinpointed diagnosis of various diseases with modern diagnostics, processes, devices and techniques, fueled by increasing health awareness within a sizeable section of the population, more patients are now aspiring for access to a better quality of life, and greater productivity at work. This is happening all over the world, though with varying degree and magnitude.

Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for healthcare, which has caused a huge bottleneck in the overall healthcare delivery process, for various reasons. The huge gap between the availability of high-tech drugs/healthcare services, and their access to the general population, mostly due to affordability reasons, is going north at a rapid pace.

Two-pronged cost containment pressure:

This unfettered ascending trend is creating primarily the following two types of cost containment pressure:

Being driven purely by the economical reasons, the Governments and other payers have started taking stringent cost-containment measures, bringing huge pricing pressure, especially on the drugs and medical device manufacturers.

In countries, such as, India, where the ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on healthcare in general, and the medicines in particular, is hovering around 70 percent, the patients, several Governments have started announcing drug price control policy to protect the health interest of patients.

However, currently, only some piecemeal measures are being initiated, including in India, where a holistic approach for all, such as, Universal Health Care (UHC) and several other similar options, are long overdue.

Three different remedial measures:

In my view, consideration of either of these three following approaches, or an innovative blend of these, would enable the Governments to address this pressing issue, remove the existing bottle neck, and thereby bridge the healthcare access gap, holistically:

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC).

B. Closer look at the entire Pharmaceutical Value Chain with a resolve to work out innovative, game-changing solutions to reduce cost of each of its critical components, significantly.

C. Effectively addressing the emerging need of Patient-Centricity.

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC):

I have already discussed UHC in one of my articles titled, “Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?”, published in this Blog on November 9, 2015.

B. Cost containment with 3D printing:

A report of IMS Health, published on November 18, 2015, forecasts the increase of total global spend for pharmaceuticals by US$ 349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with US$182 billion during the past five years. It also indicated, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where the use of medicine will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020, up from 31 percent in 2005, as the “medicine use gap” between the developed and the emerging markets narrows.

This steep ascending trend would eventually affect the pharma ‘Value Chain’ in a significant way, throwing open several path-breaking high-technology based options, with impressive favorable impact on the general costs of medicines. 3D-printing technology is expected to play a significant role in this initiative.

Before proceeding further, let me zero-in on a few critical components, as follows, of the pharma ‘Value Chain’, as I see visualize these:

Drug innovation (R&D)
Manufacturing
Marketing
Supply Chain

According to my understanding, at least in 3 of the above 4 ‘Value Chain’ components, there is an immense potential of leveraging 3D printing technology effectively, and in a big way.

In my article of January 11, 2016, published in this Blog, titled “3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business”, I have already discussed the game changing impact of 3D Printing technology on the drug discovery process, drug manufacturing strategy, and supply Chain effectiveness in the pharma business.

Hence, I prefer not to dwell on those areas, yet again, here. Instead, I shall briefly deliberate on the application of 3D Printing technology to effectively address the emerging need of ‘Patient-Centricity’ with an interesting and a very recent example.

C. Improving ‘Patient-Centricity’ with 3D printing:

At this stage, there is a need to understand what exactly is the ‘’Patient-Centricity’. It seems to be a popular buzzword now with the health care related companies, primarily to give an impression that they are really focusing on ‘Patient-Centricity’.

However, there does not seem to exist any universally accepted definition of this terminology, just yet. Nevertheless, one appropriate definition could well be: “A focused and transparent approach to providing maximum possible benefits to a patient from a drug, device, technology, or health care services.”

I briefly focused on a part of this basic issue in my article titled, “‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’- An evolving trend’, published in this Blog on January 7, 2013.

As I said before, in this article, to explain ‘Patient-Centric’ approaches with 3D printing, I would quote from a very recent, and a path-breaking work in this area.

On May 25, 2016, ‘The Straits Times’ reported, the researchers at the National University of Singapore have found a way to use 3D printers to create low-cost tablets. With the help of this technology a tablet can be so personalized to respond to individual patient’s needs that the drug can be customized to take on different release profiles, such as, constant release, pulsed release, increasing or decreasing release, and any arbitrary interval as required by the patient. However, the most striking is, different drugs with different release profiles can also be combined in a single pill.

Once administered, the tablet dissolves layer by layer over a period of time, releasing the drug at a controlled rate. The duration can be altered by changing the chemical composition of the liquid.

It is worth noting here that the conventional tablets are only capable of a constant rate of release, requiring the patient to manually control the dosage and release rate, by taking doses according to a prescribed schedule, given by the doctor. In this scenario, if a patient requires different drugs with different dosages and intervals, it can become inconvenient to keep track and potentially dangerous, especially when the patient misses a dose, the report highlighted.

The commercially available printer used in the project costs just S$2,000.

The Assistant Professor Soh Siow Ling, who leads the project, reportedly, expects that the low cost will allow it to be used in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. He further explained, “Every single person is different, based on many factors such as genetics, age, body mass and so on. Different people also have different activity levels and consumption habits, which affect their needs. It is, (therefore), not desirable to use the same drug to treat different illnesses which have similar apparent symptoms.”

The report indicated that in October, 2015, these findings were published in an issue of Advanced Materials, which is a peer-reviewed materials science journal.

A patent for the tablets was filed last year, and they are currently in talks with multinational corporations, and medical professionals to identify potential applications, the article highlighted.

Changing role of doctors:

From the above developments, it appears that unleashing the full potential of 3D printing technology in the pharma industry, would also enable the medical profession to move further towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in its true sense.

This technology would empower them offering to each patient, the right drug or drug combinations, with most suitable drug delivery system, and exactly the way individual patients would prefer, with a very high degree of precision.

Thus, from overall disease treatment perspective, especially with medicines, this approach offers a great potential to be significantly more effective, and convenient to individual patients, as compared to the conventional approaches.

I reckon, over a period of time, professional competitiveness would drive the doctors further honing their effectiveness in the disease treatment process, and that too with a high degree of precision. In that situation, many doctors may decide to setup on-demand 3D drug-printing facilities even at their clinics.

The gradual embodiment of this brilliant technology by the doctors, is expected to throw open new vistas of opportunity, also to personalize the shapes, colors and flavors of any medicine, according to individual patient’s choice. This, in turn, would improve patient compliance, ensure a predictable relief from the disease, and demonstrate ‘Patient-Centricity’ of a high order by the medical profession, in general.

Conclusion:

For the first time ever, with Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States getting approval of the US-FDA on August 3, 2015 for the market launch of a 3D printed prescription drug for oral use by the epilepsy patients, dawns a new paradigm in the global pharma business horizon.

Effective application of this ‘disruptive innovation’ could well be a game changer not just in the ‘value chain’ of conventional pharma business models, across the world, but also for taking a giant leap towards ‘Patient-Centricity’. The doctors are also expected to be very much an integral part of this process.

Besides all the above benefits, 3D printing can also encourage low-volume production, whenever required, and a wide variety of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, to meet any immediate demand, mostly for use in research and developmental work.

Thus, noting the ongoing significant progress in this area, I reckon, leveraging 3D printing technology in pharma, not just to address the cost containment pressure, effectively, but also to ensure a tangible and visible move towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in true sense. All-round success in the innovative application of this cutting-edge technology in the global pharma industry, would eventually separate men from boys in pursuit of business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Category Archives: Pharma

Drugs & Devices: Chasing Never-Enough Profit And Price Control

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Health, Human Capital, Human Development And GDP Growth – A Discord in India

Does Healthcare Feature In Raisina Hill’s To-Do List?

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity