On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.  

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc  while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible. 

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.  

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

  • Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.
  • Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’  The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’.  It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power 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.

 

Honing Patient Outcomes With WHDs

Posted on by
Reply

On November 01, 2019, San Francisco-based Fitbit, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Google LLC for approximately US$ 2.1 billion. Many believe, though, the value of Fitbit lies in the health data that its wearables capture for its large base of users.

According to the CEO of Fitbit, currently the Fitbit brand supports more than 28 million active users around the globe who rely on these wearable products ‘to live a healthier, more active life.’ With Google’s resources and global platform, Fitbit will be able to accelerate innovation in the wearables category, scale faster, and make health even more accessible to everyone, he added.

The article – ‘The Real Reason Google Is Buying Fitbit,’ published in the Time magazine on November 04, 2019 makes some interesting points, such as the following:

  • The fast-growing healthcare tech space could be worth US$24 billion by 2020, says an estimate from Statista.
  • Although, Google has been working on cardiovascular health, diabetes and more, it hasn’t been publicly pushing healthcare as a business proposition, just yet.
  • Whereas, Google’s rivals, most notably Apple, have embraced healthcare as the next big battleground in the tech world, attracted by the promises of big profits for those who can help simplify a byzantine healthcare system.

Nonetheless, the Fitbit acquisition would facilitate Google’s entry into the Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) market in a big way, alongside other big players, such as, Apple and Samsung.

Driven by the most likely scenario of increasing usage and usefulness of WHDs, several pharma players are sniffing huge underlying commercial opportunity in this space, alongside being demonstrably patient-centric. Thus, my today’ article will deliberate whether or not WHDs will be able to offer a cutting edge to innovative drug marketers, by continually honing patient outcomes. Let me initiate this discussion by fathoming the importance of WHDs in the fast transforming digital world.

The importance of WHDs in the digital world:

‘Mary Meeker‘s 2019 Internet Trends Report’ highlights, about 51 percent of the global population is now connected to the internet, with the majority of users based in China, India and the United States. However, global internet user growth has slowed down by 6 percent and it’s becoming increasingly harder to get the rest of the world online.

In this background, especially - ‘As patients become more involved in making decisions about their health care, research shows, the result is increased satisfaction and improved health outcomes.’Consequently, the report spotlights healthcare digitization where consumer adoption of digital health tools is increasing rapidly. Some of the top areas, in terms of their speed of adoption, were listed as follows:

  • Online Health Information
  • Online Provider Reviews
  • Mobile Tracking
  • Wearables
  • Live Video Telemedicine

This gives a sense of how fast the WHDs are gaining importance for the consumers. Interestingly, Intouch Group also points out that wearables are now being used more to manage a diagnosis rather than just fitness trackers. Adding further, it pointed out – ‘Apple’s ResearchKit is an example of what CEO Tim Cook calls the “democratization of healthcare,” in that it provides health data directly to consumers so they can manage their health.’

A recent study on the scope of wearables: 

The scope of WHDs was aptly corroborated in a recent article – ‘The Rise of Wearable Technology in Health Care,’ published in the JAMA Network Open on February 01, 2019. The paper concludes, the general principle of commercially available ubiquitous wearable computers bodes well for our future ability to measure, track, and understand patient physiological data and behavior both in the hospital and at home.

The ability to capture such data, then applying machine learning to get the evolving health trends and sending alerts to patient accordingly – nurses, and physicians are instantaneously getting empowered to deliver patient outcomes. The fact that the alert can come easily via the patients’ smartphones that a significant part of the global population now carries with them, leading to further democratization of health care.

The Economist  also predicted, by 2020 – 80 percent of the adult population of the world would have a smartphone in their pocket. Therefore, this development opens up an entirely new world of real-time data acquisition, monitoring, and intervention, the paper underscored.

Giving a relevant example, it highlighted: ‘On December 6, 2018, Apple rolled out a software upgrade that turns the Apple Watch Series 4 into a personal electrocardiogram.’ The researchers further added, while WHDs’ fidelity may not yet exactly match medical-grade monitors and devices, these are “good enough” coupled with around-the-clock capabilities, real-time data capture, storage, and analytics and seem likely to provide real value.

The opportunities with WHDs:

Both from the health and business perspectives, WHDs are opening new vistas of opportunities for all stakeholders in the healthcare space, such as, patients, doctors, care providers and also pharma companies. This was enunciated in several studies, such as one, titled ‘Wearable Health Devices – Vital Sign Monitoring, Systems and Technologies,’ published by Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) on July 25, 2018.

This paper also reiterated: ‘Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) are increasingly helping people to better monitor their health status both at an activity/fitness level for self-health tracking and at a medical level providing more data to clinicians with a potential for earlier diagnosis and guidance of treatment. The technology revolution in the miniaturization of electronic devices is enabling to design more reliable and adaptable wearables, contributing to a world-wide change in the health monitoring approach.’

Thus, a big excitement is currently palpable around the technology related to WHDs. Many more opportunities are expected to unfold for continuation of the ascending trend. With the entry of big global tech giants such as, Apple and now Google, besides scores of small startups, WHDs of many types have started entering into the healthcare, carrying a promise to improving outcomes and creating a unique patient experience in the disease treatment process.

Improves outcomes, creates a unique disease treatment experience:

Echoing many other experts in this area, I also believe that WHDs have covered a lot of ground by now – expanding its usage from fitness trackers to diagnosis of disease and then monitoring the progress both during and after treatment. Current usages of WHDs are mostly for non-infectious chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, sleeping disorders, obesity and treatment compliance, besides others. The list is gradually expected to expand.

Apparently, encouraged by this trend, more pharma players are now moving into this area for significant brand value for augmentation through better patient outcomes – apace with providing a unique disease treatment experience for suffering individuals.

The scope in India:

As WHDs have a close link with both Internet and Smartphone penetration, let me try to weigh the potential of the wearables, in view of the current status of both in the country.

According to the India Internet 2019 Report by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the following three points are indeed noteworthy, besides others:

  • With 451 million monthly active internet users at the end of financial year 2019, India is now second only to China in this regard.
  • Urban India with 192 million users had almost the same number of users as rural India. However, in terms of percentages or penetration, given the disparity of population distribution in urban and rural India, urban India had a considerably higher penetration level.
  • In rural India, a sizable portion does not have access to the Internet, and provides a huge opportunity for growth which will contribute to an increase in the overall Internet population over the next few years, it said.

Similarly, according to the Statista report, for 2017, the number of smartphone users in India was estimated to reach 299.24 million, with the number of smartphone users worldwide forecast to exceed 2.3 billion users by that time, and was projected to be nearly 2.7 billion by 2019.

These numbers speak for themselves on the underlying opportunities of WHDs – both globally and locally. Accordingly, large pharma players have already started teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes, leveraging the value of WHDs.

Pharma players teaming up to deliver better patient outcomes with WHD:

There are several such examples. Nevertheless, to illustrate the point, let me cite one such recent instance of Abbott Laboratories announcing a deal on February 20, 2019 with Novo Nordisk to make diabetes management easier by linking technologies of the two companies. The deal will allow integration of insulin dose data for Novo Nordisk’s pre-filled and connected pens with its ‘FreeStyle’ Libre mobile app and cloud-based system.

‘Abbott’s ‘FreeStyle’ Libre Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) system will read glucose levels through a sensor that can be worn on the back of the upper arm eliminating the need for routine finger pricks. Through the FreeStyle LibreLink app users can capture and view their real-time glucose levels, their eight-hour glucose history, and how their glucose is currently changing on their smartphone.’

Yet another report highlighted, ‘Google sister-company Verily is teaming with big pharma on clinical trials.’ On May 21, 2019, the company announced strategic alliances with the pharmaceutical companies Novartis, Sanofi, Otsuka and Pfizer to help it move more deeply into the medical studies market. The goals for Verily, and its pharma partners, are to reach patients in new ways, make it easier to enroll and participate in trials, and aggregate data across a variety of sources, including the electronic medical record or health-tracking wearable devices,’ the report emphasized.

Conclusion:

It seems clear that in the rapidly transforming digital world, many drug companies are realizing the criticality of making their business operations sine qua non with the evolving trend is essential. This is not just for the organization progress, but also for long-term survival of the business. In the midst of this exciting technological environment, the potential value of WHDs to deliver better patient outcomes is being brought to the fore, primarily by the pure tech companies.

Figuring out the magnitude of the new opportunity, several pharma companies have thrown their hats in the ring, primarily in the form of collaborative deals. This ushers in a new phase in the healthcare space. Mostly because, such initiatives will have to be patient-centric for providing a unique patient experience with the drugs, in the disease treatment process. As India too, is taking rapid strides for penetration of digital technology in its ‘Health for All’ initiatives, the use of WHDs for better and cost-effective patient outcomes isn’t a pipe dream, any longer.

The evolving scenario, therefore, opens yet another door for the pharma players to grow their business, not just with drugs offering differential value, but also by making even a ‘me-too’ drug perform better, leveraging the potential of WHDs, effectively. From this perspective, continuously honing patient outcomes with WHDs, appears to be a unique tool for pharma marketers to make use of – in search of excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

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

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

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

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a positive brand bias:

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

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

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

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

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

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

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

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Are Pharma Business Ethics And Performance Interlinked?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

‘Business Ethics’:

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

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

What is happening today in this area?

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

Ultimate ethical goals and consumer perceptions of ethical behavior:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even patients expect pharma to demonstrate ethical business practices:

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

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

How is this virus invading a corporate system?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reputation is an economic multiplier:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Cyber-threat in the digitalized business:    

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

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

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

Rapid digitalization in pharma may attract more cyber criminals:

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

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

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

Evidences of Cyber-attacks on pharma across the world:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key reasons:

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

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

Where does India stand?

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Would ‘Complex Generics’ Attract More ‘Authorized Generics’?

Posted on by
Reply

Despite increasing numbers of alleged scams involving generic drugs, both in the United States and also in India, even involving many large generic drug manufacturers, the traditional generic drug market, keeps growing globally. Although, the current growth is in mid-single digit, the market can’t be ignored, either.

That apart, enormous pricing pressure, squeezing bottom line and cutthroat competition, are prompting many companies, including Big Pharma, to craft different strategies to excel in this market. One such involves a shift in business focus from relatively low priced traditional generic drugs to comparatively higher priced complex or specialty generic medicines with a few competitors.

In this emerging situation, a lurking apprehension does surface for many. If the margin is good and the prices of these complex or specialty generics, are much higher than traditional ones, won’t it prompt more ‘Authorized Generics’ coming into the market? Won’t that jeopardize the interest of other generic drug makers? In this article, I shall explore this area, along with its possible consequences. Before doing that, it will be worthwhile to give an overview of the generic market, before recapitulating what are ‘Authorized’ and ‘Complex’ generics.

How lucrative is the generic drugs market now?

According to the latest report by IMARC Group, the global generic drug market size reached US$ 340 Billion in 2018 and is expected to be at US$ 475 Billion by 2024, growing at a CAGR of 5.3 percent during 2019-2024 period.

The key market growth drivers remain, increasing number of product patent expiration, higher prevalence of chronic diseases and different government initiatives to encourage faster generic launch, including the United States. The pace of increase is faster in the emerging markets, like India. However, unlike India, non-branded generic drugs, rather than branded generics, are dominating most the markets.

Although, Central Nervous System (CNS), cardiovascular, dermatology, oncology and respiratory are among the dominant segments in the market, CNS and Cardiovascular segments are the two largest ones in this market. North America holds the largest market share, with more than 88 percent of total prescriptions being written for generic drugs in the U.S., as the report highlights. Despite this scenario, to mitigate huge pricing pressure, cutthroat competition and low margin, many drug players are preparing to move into specialty or complex generics.

The size and growth of complex or specialty generics market: 

The April 2019 report by Research and Markets- “Specialty Generics Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2019-2024″ states, the global specialty generics market reached a value of US$ 44.8 Billion in 2018. By 2014, its value is expected to reach US$ 88.9 Billion with a much higher CAGR of 11.9 percent, in 2019-2024 period.

Which drugs would belong to this market?

According to the ‘White Paper’ titled, ‘Complex Generics: Maximizing FDA Approval Prospects’ of Parexel, the following are some examples of complex generics; the list continues to grow as more products are being added in this category every day:

  • Complex Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), examples being Enoxaparin, Low Molecular Weight Heparin, Glatiramoids, Iron Carbohydrate Complexes etc.
  • Complex Formulations, examples being Liposomes, abuse-deterrent generics, parenteral microspheres.
  • Complex Route of Delivery, such as topical ointments and locally acting GI drugs.
  • Complex Drug-Device Combinations, such as DPI, MDI, nasal sprays, and transdermal systems.

These types of complex and high-cost generics, besides some off-patent biologic products and even Biosimilar drugs, are often used to treat complex and life-threatening diseases, such as, cancer, Hepatitis C, and many others. Complex generics are expected to eventually own a significant percentage of the total generic drugs market, as a number of big-ticket specialty drug molecules will go off patent in the ensuing years.

The major advantages of complex generics:

Some of the major advantages of the complex generics market over traditional generics are as follows:

  • Complex manufacturing requirements with higher capital costs – thus, higher price, better margin, fewer players, lesser competition.
  • Increasing prevalence of life-threatening diseases, besides, cost containment measures from the government and healthcare providers, are pushing the demand of these drugs.

Indian companies are also entering the fray: 

As the share of specialty medicines in global spending in 2017 increased to 32 percent from 19 percent in 2007, Indian drug players also could sniff the opportunity in this space. Just as Sun Pharma, reportedly shifted its focus from once lucrative traditional generics medicines to specialty drugs, amid continued price erosion in its biggest market – the US, many others are also joining the fray.  The Indian players who are, reportedly, investing in complex generics include, Aurobindo Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark and Cadila.

More specifically, with the contribution of specialty medicines to overall pharmaceutical spend in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Spain – almost doubling over the last 10 years, this trend is likely to gather momentum, as the above report indicated. Accordingly, commensurate strategic actions aimed at this segment by many companies, both global and local, are clearly now visible.

Some strategic initiatives:

In preparation of a major shift in the strategic focus on complex generics, key examples of some of the important initiatives of different companies will include the following:

  • Big generic players wanted to be bigger in the global market through M&A, such as Teva acquired Allergan’s generic business, Mylan bought Abbott Laboratories’ generics businessAbbott Laboratories’ non-U.S. developed markets specialty and branded generics business. Similarly, Endo International acquired Par Pharmaceuticals. In India the mega deal of Sun Pharma acquiring Ranbaxy in 2015. In the same year, Lupin acquired New Jersey-based generic drugs firm GAVIS to boost its presence in the US.
  • Novartis sold its 300 ‘troubled’ U.S. generics to India’s Aurobindo for US$ 1B, as the entire generics industry faced unrelenting pricing pressure in the U.S.’ Whereas, Novartis’ wants to focus higher-margin assets like Biosimilars and complex generics.
  • Pfizer is set to combine its off-patent drug unit Upjohn with Mylan, to create a new business with its own off-patent branded and generic drug lines. The merger will bring together Pfizer medications such as Lipitor and Viagra with Mylan’s EpiPen, used to halt life-threatening allergic reactions.
  • Owing to margin pressure and other reasons, some of the Indian drug players also decided to enter into higher margin complex generics space, pursuing both organic and inorganic routes. There are several such examples, such as: In January 2017, Zydus Cadila announced acquisition of Sentynl Therapeutics Inc., a US based specialty pharma company specialized in marketing of products in the pain management segment. And in October 2017, Lupin acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics LLC to expand Lupin’s US women’s health specialty business in the highly complementary gynecological infection sector.

Any flip side of complex generics business for the Indian players? 

Although, driven by mainly higher profit margins and tough entry barriers, many generic players with the requisite wherewithal, find complex generics business more attractive to focus on, there’s a flip side to it, as well. This is, post patent expiry, innovator companies may be encouraged to introduce more ‘Authorized Generics’, creating a tough competitive environment for other generic players to compete with them. This brings us to the question of what are ‘Authorized Generics?’

Authorized Generics:

According to the USFDA, the term ‘Authorized generic’ is used to describe an approved brand name drug that is marketed without any brand name on its label. It is exactly the same product as the branded one, and may also be marketed by another company with the innovator company’s permission. Generally, an ‘Authorized Generic’ is launched at a lower price than the brand name drug.

Moreover, ‘Authorized Generics’, despite being the generic version of patented molecule, are mostly marketed by the patent holders themselves, both pre and post patent expiry. While a separate NDA is not required for marketing an ‘Authorized Generic’, USFDA requires that the NDA holder notify the FDA, if it markets an ‘Authorized Generic. The NDA holder may market both the ‘Authorized Generic’ and the brand-name product at the same time. Interestingly, the USFDA has approved around 1215 ‘Authorized Generics’ as of September 30, 2019.

Advantages of ‘Authorized Generics’ over ‘Traditional Generics’:

The key advantage of ‘Authorized Generics’ over traditional generic drugs is, while traditional generic drugs can be marketed only after patent expiry of the innovator drug, ‘Authorized Generics’ can be marketed even before patent expiry. In other words, innovator companies or their authorized collaborators can make lower priced ‘Authorized Generic’ versions available on their behalf, under their own new drug application (NDA). ‘Authorized Generics’ may be made available to patients even before patent expiry to out-maneuver the conventional generic drug makers, in advance, on price, quality and doctors’ confidence in the original drug.

According to several reports, over the past years, ‘many innovator drugs companies have been launching Authorized Generics, simultaneously with the first Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) filer’s launch of its generic drug product.’ However, the question remains how do the stakeholders perceive the ‘Authorized Generics’?

Perception of ‘Authorized Generics’:

Studies are available analyzing the impact of ‘Authorized Generics’ on the pharma market and also on the stakeholders. In this article, I shall refer to a comprehensive research study, titled ‘Authorized Generics: Effect on Pharmaceutical Market,’ published in the International Journal of Novel Trends in Pharmaceutical Sciences (IJNPTS), on February 29, 2012, which came out with the some notable findings.

Generally, there isn’t any doubt, either on the fact that ‘Authorized Generics’ provide the identical experience that the patient receives from the brand drug but at a lower price. Nor is there any question over greater confidence of doctors while prescribing these drugs. However, the researchers wrapped up the discussion by stating: It is difficult to conclude that the ‘Authorized Generics’ practice should be continued or banned. Though Indian pharmaceutical companies are dealing with generic drugs – 42 percent of the respondents were in favor of ‘Authorized Generics’ practice, whereas 58 percent opposed it. Thus, the overall perception of ‘Authorized Generics’, appears to be a mixed bag.

Conclusion:

There are free flowing arguments both in favor and against the ‘Authorized Generics.’ The article titled, ‘Drugmakers Master Rolling Out Their Own Generics to Stifle Competition,’ published in the Kaiser Health News (KHN) on August 05, 2019, captures it well.

It quoted the spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, a powerful pharma lobby group saying, an Authorized Generic drug “reduces prices and results in significant cost savings.” Whereas the critics say, “Authorized Generics hurt long-term competition and often perversely increase costs, even in the short term.”

The detractors further expressed, ‘Authorized Generics’ don’t just steal sales from existing generic rivals, they erode incentives to make generic drugs. A professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who studies pharma was also quoted in this article saying, this practice can “stave off generic competition and make sure that generics can’t get much of a foothold when they do get to market.” Adding further he said: “That’s the game. And drug companies have become masters at this.”

As the Kaiser Health News highlighted, Eli Lilly announced launch of the ‘Authorized Generic’ version of Humalog insulin in March 2019 for US$137 a vial, at half the price of its brand name version costing US$237. This was reasoned by the company as a considerate move to address the need of those patients who can’t afford the price of the brand – Humalog. Curiously, even some analysts believe that ‘Authorized Generics’ may help explain why relatively few true generics are reaching the market despite a surge in approvals, especially in the United States.

Against the above backdrop, the drug policy makers need to ponder, would ‘complex generics’ of different companies face greater challenges from ‘Authorized Generics,’ playing a spoilsport for the rest in this ball game?

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.

 

 

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

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.

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

  • Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.
  • Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.
  • Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.
  • New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

  • When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.
  • Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’
  • Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’
  • When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.
  • Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.
  • While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet. 

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work? 

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

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.