Disruptive Digital Innovation To Reduce Medication Need?

Posted on by
Reply

Application of digital technology in various spheres of not just business, but in our individual day to life also, promises a disruptive change for the better, from the traditional way of doing things and achieving goals – freeing a lot of precious time for us to do much more, and even faster. An impending tsunami of this digital revolution, as it were, is now all pervasive, with various digital application platforms becoming increasingly more cost effective, quite in tandem with the fast pace of cutting-edge innovation. This is so different from what is generally witnessed in the pharma business.

Interestingly, despite high demand for cost effective health care from all over the world, not much progress in this area is still visible within this industry, in general, and particularly in the pharma business. Various reasons may be attributed to this apathy, which I shall not venture to go into, today.

On the other hand, sniffing a huge opportunity in this largely vacant space, many tech giants and startups are investing heavily to make health care of people easier, and at the same time reap a rich harvest, far outpacing the big pharma players.

As I connect the different dots on world-class digital initiatives in the health space, a clear trend emerges on the global scenario. The way Internet revolution, to start with, followed by smartphones and many other wireless digital services is changing the rhythm of life for many making it much easier, is just amazing. These include a plethora of everyday ‘must-do’ and several other functions, such as, precise need-based information gathering, online banking, tax-filing, shopping, payment, social networking, cloud computing and storage, besides a gamut of other digital services.

Similar disruptive digital innovations are expected in the health care space too, involving many long-awaited patient-centric areas, such as, significant reduction in the cost of medication. I discussed a similar issue in one of my earlier articles, published in this blog. However, today, I shall focus on this specific area, in view of its possible huge impact on the traditional pharma business model.

May reduce need of medication:

That tech startups are developing digital tools that reduce the need of medication, was very recently reported in an article titled, ‘Digital disruptors take big pharma beyond the pill’ published in the Financial Times on April 24, 2017. For example, a California-based startup, has reportedly come out with a digital device, smaller than an iPhone and fitted with a cellular chip, that can keep instant and accurate track of blood sugar levels. If the readings fall in the danger zone, an appropriate text message will be automatically generated for the person, such as – “drink two glasses of water and walk for 15 minutes”. The individual can also seek further help over the telephone from a trained coach – a highly-qualified dietitian for further guidance, the article highlights.

The whiz kid developers of wearable digital devices and apps are now intently working on many innovative health care solutions. Many of these can help early disease detection, and chart the risk profile of persons prone to various ailments, based on an enormous amount of well researched scientific data, significantly reducing the need of medication through effective disease prevention and management protocols. For example, there are umpteen evidences, demonstrating that specific moderate physical exercises help control diabetes just as well as medication, when detected early.

Thus, I reckon, such wearable digital devices and apps carry a huge promise to detect many diseases like, diabetes at its very onset or even before, and influence the person to take the necessary measures. In case of diabetes, it could be like, walking a certain distance every day, along with regular dietary advices from a remote center. Won’t such digital interventions work out far cheaper and convenient than lifelong visits to physicians and administration of anti-diabetic drugs?

The notes of the pharma business playbook need to be rewritten?

Let me quickly elaborate this point with an example of a common chronic ailment, say, diabetes. For effective management of this disease, global pharma players prefer to focus on better and better antidiabetic drug development, and after that spend a fortune towards their effective sales and marketing for generating enough prescription demand. Branded generic manufacturers are no different. This is important for all of them as most patients will have to administer the medicines for chronic ailments for a lifetime, incurring significant recurrent expenses for effective disease control. The first access point of such disease management has always been a doctor, initially for diagnosis and then for lifelong treatment.

Disruptive digital innovation could change the first point of intervention from the doctors to various digital apps or devices. These digital tools would be able to check and capture the person concerned predisposition to chronic diseases like, hypertension and diabetes, besides many other serious ailments, including possible cancer. When detected early, primary disease management advice would be available to patients from the app or the device itself, such as, the above-mentioned device for diabetes. If the preventive practices can manage the disease, and keep it under control, there won’t be any serious need to visit a doctor or pop a pill, thus, avoiding any need of active medication.

In that sense, as the above FT article has articulated, ‘rather than buying a pill, people might buy an overall solution for diabetes’ can’t be more relevant. When it happens, it will have a multiplier effect, possibly impacting the volume of consumption of medicines, just as what disease prevention initiatives do. Consequently, the notes of the pharma business playbook may have to be rewritten with right proactive measures.

As reported, the good news is, at least a couple of global pharma players have started fathoming its impact. This is apparent from Sanofi’s collaboration on digital devices and patient support for diabetics, and to some extent with Pfizer on immuno-oncology, using expertise in data analytics to identify new drug targets.

The key players in this ‘healthcare value chain’:

When the digital health care revolution will invade the current space of traditional-health care, it will create both the winners and losers. This was clearly highlighted in an article titled, ‘A digital revolution in healthcare is speeding up’, published by ‘The Economist’ on March 02, 2017.

From this article, it appears, when viewed in the Indian context that primarily two groups of players are currently ‘fighting a war for control’ of this ‘healthcare value chain’, as follows:

  • Traditional innovators: These are pharma companies, hospitals and medical-technology companies, such as, Siemens, GE and Phillips.
  • Technology insurgents: These include Microsoft, Apple, Google, and a host of hungry digital entrepreneurs and startups – creating apps, predictive-diagnostics systems and new devices.

Where is the threat to traditional pharma innovators?

This emerging trend could pose a threat to traditional innovators as the individual and collective knowledge base gets wider and wider – the above article envisages. With the medical records getting increasingly digitized with new kinds of patient data available from genomic sequencing, sensors and even from social media, the Government, including many individuals and groups, can now get a much better insight into which treatments work better with avoidable costs, on a value-based yardstick. For example, if digital apps and wearable devices are found even equally effective as drugs, with the least cost, to effectively manage the menace of diabetes in the country, notwithstanding any strong ‘fear arising’ counter propaganda, as we often read and here and there, those will increasingly gain better acceptance from all concerned.

The moot question, therefore, arises, would the drug companies lose significantly to the emerging digital players in the health care arena, such as, Microsoft, Apple and Google?

Tech giants are moving faster:

In several disease areas like, cancer and diabetes, the tech giants are taking longer and bigger strides than the traditional pharma innovators. For example:

  • Microsoft has vowed to “solve the problem of cancer” within a decade by using groundbreaking computer science to crack the code of diseased cells so that they can be reprogrammed back to a healthy state.
  • Apple has a secret team working on the holy grail for treating diabetes. The Company has a secret group of biomedical engineers developing sensors to monitor blood sugar levels. This initiative was initially envisioned by Steve Jobs before his death. If successful, the advance could help millions of diabetes patients and turn devices, like Apple Watch, into a must-have.
  • Verily – the life sciences arm of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has been working on a “smart” glucose-sensing contact lens with Novartis for several years, to detect blood glucose levels through tears, without drawing any blood. However, Novartis has since, reportedly, abandoned its 2016 goal to start testing the autofocus contact lens on people, though it said the groundbreaking product it is “progressing steadily.” It has been widely reported that this could probably be due to the reason that Novartis is possibly mulling to sale its eye care division Alcon.
  • Calico, which is also owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, has US$ 1.5 billion in funding to carry out studies in mice, yeast, worms and African naked mole rats for understanding the ageing process, and how to slow it, reports MIT Technology Review.

No wonder, why an article published in Forbes magazine, published on April 15, 2017 considered these tech giants as ‘The Next Big Pharma’. It said, ‘if the innovations of Google and Apple are another wake-up call for the life science industry, which oftentimes has relied on the snooze function of line extensions and extended-release drugs as the source of income and innovation.’

In conclusion:

An effective disease treatment solution based on different digital platforms has a key financial advantage, as well. This is because the process of generation of huge amounts of credible scientific data, through large pre-clinical and clinical trials, establishing the efficacy and safety of new drugs on humans for regulatory approval, is immensely expensive, as compared to the digital ones.  Intriguingly, no global pharma player does not seem to have launched any significant digital health care solution for patients to reduce the overall cost of disease burden, be it prevention or management.

In that context, it’s encouraging to note the profound comment of the Chief Operating Officer – Jeff Williams of Apple Inc., made during a radio show – ‘Conversations on Health Care’, as reported by ‘appleinsider.com’ on January 06, 2016. During the interaction, Williams reiterated that the rapid progress of technology in this direction is very real, as ‘Apple’ and other smartphone health app developers are stretching the commoditization of computer technology to serve health sciences. In not so distant future, with relatively inexpensive smartphones and supporting health apps – the doctors and researchers can deliver better standards of living, even in severely under-served areas like Africa, where there are only 55 trained specialists in autism.

Thus, it now looks reasonably certain to me that disruptive digital innovation on various chronic health care solutions is ultimately going to reduce the need of medication for many patients, across the world, including India, significantly.

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.

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Would prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India?

Yes, that’s what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted at on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. To facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, the PM assured without any ambiguity whatsoever.

“In our country doctors are less, hospitals are less and medicines are expensive. If one person falls ill in a middle-class family, then the financial health of the family gets wrecked. He cannot buy a house, cannot conduct the marriage of a daughter,” he reiterated.

“It is the government’s responsibility that everybody should get health services at a minimal price,” the Prime Minister further reinforced, as he referred to the National Health Policy 2017. His clear assurance on this much-debated issue is indeed music to many ears.

Some eyebrows have already been raised on this decision of the Prime Minister, which primarily include the pharma industry, and its traditional torch bearers. Understandably, a distinct echo of the same one can also be sensed in some English business dailies. Keeping aside these expected naysayers, in this article, after giving a brief backdrop on the subject, I shall argue for the relevance of this critical issue, in today’s perspective.

Anything wrong with generic drugs sans brand names?

At the very outset, let me submit, there aren’t enough credible data to claim so. On the contrary, there are enough reports vindicating that generic drugs without brand names are generally as good as their branded equivalents. For example, a 2017 study on this subject and also in the Indian context reported, ‘93 percent of generic and 87 percent branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments.’

Thus, in my view, all generic medicines without any brand names, approved by the drug regulatory authorities can’t be inferred as inferior to equivalent branded generics – formulated with the same molecules, in the same strength and in the same dosage form; and vice versa. Both these varieties have undergone similar efficacy, safety and quality checks, if either of these are not spurious. There isn’t enough evidence either that more of generic drugs sans brand names are spurious.

However, turning the point that generic drugs without brand name cost much less to patients than their branded generic equivalents on its head, an ongoing concerted effort of vested interests is systematically trying to malign the minds of many, projecting that those cheaper drugs are inferior in quality. Many medical practitioners are also not excluded from nurturing this possible spoon-fed and make-believe perception, including a section of the media. This reminds me of the famous quote of Joseph Goebbels – the German politician and Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany till 1945: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The lower prices of generic drugs without brand names are primarily because their manufacturers don’t need to incur huge expenditure towards marketing and sales promotion, including contentious activities, such as, so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ for the doctors in exotic locales, and several others of its ilk.

Thus, Prime Minister Modi’s concern, I reckon, is genuine to the core. If any doctor prescribes an expensive branded generic medicine, the concerned patient should have the legal option available to ask the retailer for its substitution with a less expensive generic or even any other branded generic equivalent, which is supposed to work just as well as the prescribed branded generic. For this drug prescriptions in INN is critical.

Provide Unique Identification Code to all drug manufacturers:

When in India, we can have a digitally coded unique identification number, issued by the Government for every individual resident, in the form of ‘Aadhaar’, why can’t each drug manufacturer be also provided with a similar digitally coded number for their easy traceability and also to decipher the trail of manufacturing and sales transactions. If it’s not possible, any other effective digital ‘track and trace’ mechanism for all drugs would help bringing the wrongdoers, including those manufacturing and selling spurious and substandard drugs to justice, sooner. In case a GST system can help ferret out these details, then nothing else in this regard may probably be necessary.

Past initiatives:

In India, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure’ as a percentage of total health care expenses being around 70 percent, is one of the highest in the world. A study by the World Bank conducted in May 2001 titled, “India – Raising the Sights: Better Health Systems for India’s Poor” indicates that out-of-pocket medical costs alone may push 2.2 percent of the population below the poverty line in one year. This situation hasn’t improved much even today, as the Prime Minister said.

Although, ‘prescribe drugs by generic names’ initiative was reported in July 2015, in the current context, I shall focus only on the recent past. Just in the last year, several initiatives were taken by the current Government to help patients reduce the OoP expenses on medicines, which constitute over 60 percent of around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. Regrettably, none of these steps have been working effectively. I shall cite hereunder, just three examples:

  • On February 29, 2016, during the Union Budget presentation for the financial year 2016-17 before the Parliament, the Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’ to open 3,000 Stores under PMJAY during 2016-17.
  • On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported that a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, would be launched on August 29, 2016. According to NPPA, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price.”
  • In October 2016, a circular of the Medical Council of India (MCI), clearly directed the medical practitioners that: “Every physician should prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”

A critical hurdle to overcome:

Besides, stark inefficiency of the MCI to implement its own directive for generic prescriptions, there is a key legal hurdle too, as I see it.

For example, in the current situation, the only way the JAS can sell more of essential generic drugs for greater patient access, is by allowing the store pharmacists substituting high price branded generics with their exact generic equivalents available in the JAS. However, such substitution would be grossly illegal in India, because the section 65 (11) (c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20 [(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21 [Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]”

A move that faltered:

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

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

The focus should now move beyond affordability:

In my view, the Government focus now should move beyond just drug affordability, because affordability is a highly relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines or health care, in general.

Moreover, affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even easy access to medicines. Thus, in my view, there are five key factors, which could ensure smooth access to medicines to the common man, across the country; affordable price being one of these factors:

1. A robust healthcare infrastructure
2. Affordable health care costs, including, doctors’ fees, drugs and diagnostics
3. Rational selection and usage of drugs by all concerned
4. Availability of health care financing system like, health insurance
5. Efficient logistics and supply chain support throughout the country

In this scenario, just putting in place a legal framework for drug prescription in generic names, as the Prime Minister has articulated, may bring some temporary relief, but won’t be a long-term solution for public health care needs. There arises a crying need to put in place an appropriate Universal Health Care (UHC) model in India, soon, as detailed in the National Health Policy 2017.

Brand names aren’t going to disappear:

Prime Minister Modi’s assertion to bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, probably will also legally empower the retailers for substitution of high priced branded generics with low priced generic or branded generic equivalents.

This promise of the Prime Minister, when fulfilled, will facilitate making a larger quantum of lower price and high quality generic drugs available to patients, improving overall access to essential medicines. Hopefully, similar substitution will be authorized not just for the JAS outlets, but by all retail drug stores, as well.

Brand names for generic drugs will continue to exist, but with much lesser relevance. the Drugs & Cosmetic Rules of India has already made it mandatory to mention the ‘generic names or INN’ of Drugs on all packing labels in a more conspicuous manner than the trade (brand) name, if any. Hence, if a doctor prescribes in generic names, it will be easier for all retail pharmacists and even the patients, to choose cheaper alternatives from different available price-bands.

Possible changes in the sales and marketing strategies:

If it really happens, the strategic marketing focus should shift – from primarily product-brand marketing and stakeholders’ engagement for the same, to intensive corporate-brand marketing with more intense stakeholder engagement strategies, for better top of mind recall as a patient friendly and caring corporation.

Similarly, the sales promotion strategy for branded generics would possibly shift from – primarily the doctors to also the top retailers. It won’t be unlikely to know that the major retailers are participating in pharma company sponsored ‘Continuing Pharmacy Education (CPE)’ in similar or even more exotic places than the doctor!

There are many more.

International examples:

There are enough international examples on what Prime Minister Modi has since proposed in his speech on this issue. All these are working quite well. To illustrate the point with a few examples, I shall underscore that prescribing in generic name or in other words “International Nonproprietary Name (INN)’ is permitted in two-thirds of OECD countries like the United States, and is mandatory in several other nations, such as, France, Spain, Portugal and Estonia. Similarly, pharmacists can legally substitute brand-name drugs with generic equivalents in most OECD countries, while such substitution has been mandatory in countries, such as, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy. Further, in several different countries, pharmacists have also the obligation to inform patients about the availability of a cheaper alternative.

However, the naysayers would continue saying: ‘But India is different.’

Impact on the pharma industry:

The March 2017 report of ‘India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)’ states that Indian pharmaceutical sector accounts for about 2.4 per cent of the global pharmaceutical industry in value terms, 10 per cent in volume terms and is expected to expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.92 per cent to US$ 55 billion by 2020 from US$ 20 billion in 2015. With 70 per cent market share (in terms of value), generic drugs constitute its largest segment. Over the Counter (OTC) medicines and patented drugs constitute the balance 21 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Branded generics constitute around 90 percent of the generic market. In my view, if the above decision of the Prime Minister is implemented the way I deliberated here in this article, we are likely to witness perceptible changes in the market dynamics and individual company’s performance outlook. A few of my top of mind examples are as follows:

  • No long-term overall adverse market impact is envisaged, as ‘the prices of 700 essential medicines have already been capped by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). However, some short-term market adjustments are possible, because of several other factors.
  • There could be a significant impact on the (brand) market shares of various companies. Some will have greater exposure and some lesser, depending on their current sales and marketing models and business outlook.
  • Valuation of those companies, which had acquired mega branded generics, such as Piramal brands by Abbott Healthcare, or Ranbaxy brands by Sun pharma, may undergo considerable changes, unless timely, innovative and proactive measures are taken forthwith, as I had deliberated before in this blog.
  • Together with much awaited implementation of the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) sooner than later, the sales and marketing expenditure of the branded generic players could come down significantly, improving the bottom-line.
  • Pharma marketing ballgame in this segment would undergo a metamorphosis, with brighter creative minds scoring higher, aided by the cutting-edge strategies, and digital marketing playing a much greater role than what it does today.
  • A significant reduction in the number of field forces is also possible, as the sales promotion focus gets sharper on the retailers and digitally enabled patient engagement initiatives.

The above examples are just illustrative. I hasten to add that at this stage it should not be considered as any more than an educates guess. We all need to wait, and watch how these promises get translated into reality, of course, without underestimating the quiet lobbying power of the powerful pharma industry. That said, the long-term macro picture of the Indian pharma industry continues to remain as bright, if appropriate and timely strategic interventions are put well in place, as I see it.

In conclusion:

It is an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals, and catering to the needs of 20 percent of the global requirements for generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to many modern medicines to a large section of its population.

Despite this situation in India, Prime Minister Modi’s encouraging words on this issue have reportedly attracted the wrath of some section of the pharma industry, which, incidentally, he is aware of it, as evident from his speech.

Some have expressed serious concern that it would shift the decision of choosing a specific generic formulation of the same molecule for the patients from doctors to chemists. My counter question is, so what? The drug regulator of the country ensures, and has also repeatedly affirmed that there is no difference in efficacy, safety and quality profile between any approved branded generic and its generic equivalents. Moreover, by implementing an effective track and trace system for all drugs, such misgiving on spurious generic medicines, both with or without brand names, can be more effectively addressed, if not eliminated. Incidentally, reported incidences of USFDA import bans on drug quality parameters and breach of data integrity, include many large Indian branded generic manufacturers. Thus, can anyone really vouch for high drug quality even from the branded generics in India?

Further, the expensive branding exercise of essential medicines, just for commercial gain, and adversely impacting patients’ access to these drugs, has now been questioned without any ambiguity, none else than the Prime Minster of India. The generic drug manufacturers will need to quickly adapt to ‘low margin – high volume’ business models, leveraging economies of scale, and accepting the stark reality, as was expressed in an article published in Forbes – ‘the age of commodity medicines approaches’. Even otherwise, what’s wrong in the term commodity, either, especially when generic medicines have been officially and legally classified as essential commodities in India?

Overall, the clear signal from Prime Minister Modi that ‘prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India ‘, well supported by appropriate legal and regulatory mechanisms – is indeed a good beginning, while paving the way for a new era of Universal Health Care in India. God willing!

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.

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on by
Reply

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

  • Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.
  • Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug Original treatment Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole Fungal infections Phase I and II
Nelfinavir HIV infections Phase I and II
Digoxin Cardiac diseases Phase I and II
Nitroxoline Urinary Tract Infections Preclinical
Riluzole Amyotropic lateral sclerosis Phase I and II
Disulfram Chronic alcoholism Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of cancer drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom. An interesting video clip from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

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.

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

Max DePree – a much quoted American businessman and author had once said: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”

While defining the reality within the drug industry today, it makes many industry leaders to ponder, despite so much of the good work done by the industry in various fields of pharma business, across the world, including India, why is the public perception on the overall leadership of this sector still so negative, and continue going south? Pharma leaders know the reasons too, but they seem to be still searching for the right set of answers without breaking the traditional mold of business.

Around end 2007, being concerned with this trend, the then Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly expressed publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

On the general apathy of breaking the traditional mold after having defined the business reality, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From A Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published on June 2, 2014 in Forbes, made some interesting observations, which are as relevant to India, just as many other countries of the world.

The article states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn around an adaptive health care business model. Thus, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities. This leads to an important question: Being mostly inward looking, are these leaders failing to properly define reality around them, and therefore, not adapting to the critical external business environmental needs, soon enough?

Is current pharma leadership too inward looking?

From the available details, it appears that today, many inward-looking pharma leaders tend to ignore many serious voices demanding access to high quality medicines at affordable prices, especially for life threatening ailments, such as, cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to push the ball out its court with a barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘drug innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. Notwithstanding that by now, many people are aware of its frequent use, generally by the global pharma players, mostly as a veil, whenever required. Even then, many pharma leaders, instead of accepting the reality, continue to remain insensitive to the concerns not just of most patients, but other stakeholders and their respective governments also. This mindset further reinforces their inward-looking and self-serving image. This brings to the fore the key issue: Is this high time to pass the baton to a new breed of pharma leaders?

In the above backdrop, this article dwells on some intrinsic issues involved with the leadership puzzle of the industry, as it were. Thereafter, it deliberates on the importance of making some easy self-tests available to the young and especially the millennial pharma professionals, to facilitate them to self-discover themselves in this space, and that too at an early stage of their professional career, as they try to understand and define the business and environmental realities facing the industry.

Leadership skills are difficult to find:

Focusing on the pharma industry, I would say, especially in the pharma sector, leadership skill in all its functional areas though is considered as the most important one, but are equally challenging while identifying the right persons.

The 20th Pharma CEO Survey, March 2017 of PwC, vindicates this point. The survey covered 89 pharma CEOs from 37 countries. Nearly all the Pharma CEOs participating in this survey picked out leadership as the most important for their organization, giving it the top spot, closely followed by problem-solving, creativity and innovation, all bracketed in the second, with collaboration and adaptability occupying the equal third rank, as follows:

Relative importance of skills in pharma industry Skill sets Respondents answering somewhat difficult or very difficult to get each one of these
1. Leadership 79
2. Creativity & Innovation 75
3. Emotional intelligence 72
4. Adaptability 63
5. Problem-solving 55

Over two-thirds of the CEOs face difficulty in recruiting people with the requisite skills that they consider most important to their organization, such as, leadership, problem-solving, and creative skills, the report highlighted. For further deliberation hereunder, I shall pick up the top one – the leadership skill for the pharma industry, as I see it.

The age-old question – ‘Are leaders born or made?’

A critical question that is often asked even today – ‘Are leaders born or made?’ The question keeps coming as some enthusiasts continue to argue that successful leaders are born with visible or apparently invisible leadership traits.

Are leaders born?

To answer this question, let me quote an example. The Management Study Guide (MSG), well-articulated an approach to the study of leadership known as the ‘Great Man Theory’, giving examples of the great leaders of the past, such as, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. They all seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects, possessing high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go.

Added to these examples are many top business executives, sports personalities, and even contemporary politicians, who often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. These persons are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Thus, even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born, is not uncommon. Thus, according to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they should certainly have the ‘right stuff’, which is not equally present in all people, MSG highlights.

Even today, some continue to believe in the ‘Great Man Theory’, regardless of many well carried out research studies of the behavioral scientists establishing that it is quite possible for individuals becoming leaders through various processes, such as, self-learning, keenly observing or working with some good leaders, following their advices, training, and practicing the experiences thus gained in one’s real life.

Are leaders made?

Just as above, to answer this question, as well, I would cite another important example.

A September 21, 2016 article titled, “What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review (HBR)’, while answering the question ‘who becomes a leader’, stated as follows:

“Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences, so the answer to this question is ‘both’.  Estimates suggest that leadership is 30%-60% heritable, largely because the character traits that shape leadership - personality and intelligence - are heritable. While this suggests strong biological influences on leadership, it does not imply that nurture is trivial. Even more-heritable traits, such as weight (80%) and height (90%), are affected by environmental factors. Although there is no clear recipe for manipulating the environment in order to boost leadership potential, well-crafted coaching interventions boost critical leadership competencies by about 20%–30%.”

What would a young pharma professional do in this situation?

The current breed of top leaders would continue grooming and promoting mostly those who fit their profile, while in the family owned businesses succession usually takes place from within the family. The situation is no different in the pharma industry. However, various studies indicate that millennial professionals with leadership traits will develop themselves.

Keeping this in mind and, at the same time, going by the above HBR article, I would tend to accept the dictum that, “Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences”. Thus, for identifying and then honing leadership skills in the pharma business, just as many other industries, I would prefer the process of dovetailing the heritable leadership traits with various environmental influences.

An ambitious pharma professional with high aspiration to make a difference in the organization that the individual represents, would obviously wonder what the way forward for him to achieve the goals. In my view, an honest self-test is the first and basic move in this direction.

The self-test:

Taking a cue from the article titled “Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills”, published in the January-February 2013 issue of The Harvard Business Review (HBR), I would suggest that the young professionals may wish to ask themselves the following important questions:

  • Do I have the right networks to help myself see opportunities before competitors do?
  • Am I comfortable challenging my own and others’ assumptions?
  • Can I get a diverse group to buy into a common vision?
  • Do I learn from mistakes?

The answer to each of these ones should be clear and honest, as one doesn’t need to disclose those answers to anyone else. Nonetheless, by following this process, a young professional gets a clear view of where he or she stands in each of these important areas, which cover some of the basic traits of a leader.

The leadership package:

Irrespective of whether an individual has some heritable leadership traits or not, the above self-test would reveal a person’s strengths and weaknesses, help address the deficits and optimize the full portfolio of leadership skills, independently or otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as several research studies have already established, though leadership skills are important and difficult to find, a few other salient skills such as, ability to apply in real life a creative and innovative mindset, supported by high emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ) are also critical. This is because, together these offer the all-important leadership package for an all-round successful leader.

Should pharma leadership be eclectic?

I guess so, as there does not seem to be any better alternative either. Thus, I reckon, traditional pharma leadership needs to be eclectic. It has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. Let me give a relevant example here – to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated: “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a radical, gutsy and an exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern about global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world, even today? Besides sanctimonies, as these appear, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few? For this purpose, pharma organizations would require mettlesome change agents who can break the traditional mold –new leaders of the millennial generation having a different business outlook altogether, could possibly do so.

Becoming a change agent:

Today, more than ever before, the ultimate goal of pharma leaders requires moving beyond making more money to satisfy the shareholders and stock markets. It also needs to include the requirements of society, in general, more than what mandatory CSR demands. This is palpable today, as many stakeholders vehemently questioning the business game plan of many pharma players. Would this situation change? I don’t know, but it should, which prompts a change in the overall quality of pharma leadership, at all levels. I have had reason to believe that a good number of bright, millennial pharma professionals look for empowerment to discover themselves early. Right at that stage, they also need to chart a road map for self-development, which would facilitate attaining their professional goals, quite in sync with the broad societal expectations, as they move on in life.

New pharma leadership would require greater focus on ethics and engagement:

While pharma industry leaders, in general, have been impressive articulators of all right things that need to happen, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ in the frontiers of business ethics, values and shared goals are found wanting in many of them. These articulations are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What else then could possibly be the reason for such perception gap that this great industry has allowed to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that many pharma leaders have not been able to adequately adapt themselves to the demands of the changing healthcare environment and the needs of various stakeholders in this sector? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic and it’s a time for a change?

Thus, unlike the current pharma leadership, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded, and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable processes of governance involving all areas of business. Such leaders may not be know-all individuals in the pharma business, but must possess a clear vision of where they want to lead the company to, and don’t slip back, especially in terms of public image and meeting patients’ expectations.

In conclusion:

Pharma business in modern times faces rapidly changing stakeholder expectations, which are generally difficult to predict well in advance. Thus, today’s pharma leaders require to adapt their strategic approach and the tactical game plans accordingly for business excellence in an inclusive manner, and simultaneously try to shape the environment to the extent possible.

There is a growing expectation from the pharma leaders to do business by imbibing a caring outlook towards the society, where it operates. Spending time and money to transplant the past practices in the changed environment, or continuing with the traditional business approaches, I reckon, is a no-win game today.

Thus, there arises a need to help the young pharma professionals, from the early stages in their professional life, for shaping up as the chief change agent in the organization that they would lead. Even after reaching where they wanted to reach, these leaders should keep studying on a continuous basis, various other successful leadership styles, approaches and visions, to splice them into a more productive strategic approach for the business or functional areas that they lead.

This new breed of leaders would also require defining the reality prevailing in the industry on an ongoing basis, to pave the way for a glorious future for their respective organizations. This effort would call for regular and effective engagement with all the stakeholders through various digital and other platforms. The critical question that the new pharma leadership should never forget to continually ask themselves: “How can my organization provide better access to high quality and effective medicines to most patients along with achieving commercial excellence in business?”

Properly defining and quickly adapting to associated environmental realities with a creative mind, requisite emotional intelligence and ethical business practices, would call for coming out of the zone of comfort with promptness. These, I reckon, would be the two pivotal success factors for new pharma leaders for inclusive and sustainable success in business, as the industry moves on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

MDGs Break Ground For SDGs: Is India Poised To Achieve The Health Goals?

Posted on by
Reply

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were placed in the pages of history amid several other remarkable global initiatives of the United Nations (UN), as the timeframe for achievement of these targets got over in 2015.

In 2000, the leaders of 189 countries signed this historic millennium declaration at the United Nations Millennium Summit for improving the lives of the world’s poorest people. Eight MDGs, were agreed upon by its members, each one supported by 21 specific, measurable targets and more than 60 indicators with clear deadlines, as a concerted global movement in this direction. The eight goals spanned across the areas of poverty alleviation, providing universal primary education, ensuring gender equality, preventing child mortality, meeting maternal health needs, protecting the environment and entering various global partnerships, with a target achievement date of 2015.

Did the glass remain ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’?

At the end of 2015 the UN reportedly called the MDGs ‘the most successful anti-poverty movement in history’. However, it could probably be a matter of looking at this glass either as ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’.

An interesting article published in the international daily ‘The Guardian’ on July 06, 2015, highlighted some hits and misses of MDGs from the global perspective.

Globally, several goals of the MDGs have not been made for various reasons. Focusing on health-related areas, I find, though the child mortality rate has reduced by more than half over the past two and a half decades from 90 to 43 deaths per 1,000 live births, its MDG target of an expected decline by two thirds could not be achieved.  Similarly, the global maternal mortality ratio despite falling by nearly half, was far short of its aim of a two-thirds reduction. Likewise, despite the reduction of the number of new HIV infections by around 40 percent between 2000 and 2013, its MDG goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/Aids by 2015 has not been met.

The overall status in India:

According to the United Nations in India, in the above focus areas, the country has made some progress in reducing its under-five mortality rate, which declined from 125 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 49 per 1,000 live births in 2013; maternal mortality rate also declined from 437 per 100,000 live births in 1990-91 to 167 in 2009.

India recorded significant progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV and AIDS across different types of high-risk categories, with adult prevalence reducing from 0.45 percent in 2002 to 0.27 percent in 2011. However, a quarter of global TB cases still occur in India with nearly 2.2 million people are diagnosed with the disease annually, and an estimated 220,000 die as a result.

MDGs and India’s achievements:

Coming now to target versus achievements, the Millennium Development Goals India Country Report 2015 released by the Ministry of Statistics & Program Implementation (MoSPI) in February 2015, states that India had put considerable emphasis on all the MDGs with significant progress. Although the nation could meet targets of some of these well ahead of the 2015 deadline, overall, only six of the 18 targets adopted as part of the eight goals in 2000 have been fully met. However, according to another report brought out by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, India has met only four of the eight MDGs.

As per Sample Registration System 2013, though the overall reduction of Under 5 Child Mortality Rate (U5MR) was nearly 60 percent happened during 1990 to 2013, India had missed this target.

Similar were the performances for a reduction in the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and the proportion of one year old children immunized against measles and improving the Maternal Morality Ratio (MMR). However, the prevalence of HIV among pregnant women aged 15-24 years showed a declining trend and incidence of Malaria also came down. Thus, it appears that the progress made and the achievements recorded in India against MDG targets are indeed a mixed bag.

The same question, therefore, logically follows for India too: Has the glass become ‘half-full’, or remained half-empty post MDG efforts?

MDGs break ground for ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’:

The MDGs comprising of eight goals to eradicate extreme poverty, were indeed a laudable concerted global initiative of the United Nations. It could reportedly bring over a billion people out of extreme poverty. According to ‘United Nations (2015): The Millennium Development Goals Report’, during the period of 1990 to 2015, extreme poverty fell in developing countries from 47 to 14 percent. Similarly, the proportion of undernourished people fell by almost half, with almost similar decline in the child and maternal mortality rate. Nevertheless, communicable diseases, gender/income inequalities and striking disparities between rural and urban areas continued to persist with the world’s poor remaining overwhelmingly concentrated in several areas.

Thus, learning valuable lessons and significantly benefitting from them, MDGs broke ground for the next logical global initiative in this genre. As the time-frame for implementation of MDGs got over in 2015, the global leaders on the same platform of the United Nations followed it through with the newly developed ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’ in the same year.

While aiming to make the outcomes of the new drive more sustainable with a focus on the environmental goals, SDGs did not altogether jettison some of the unfinished agenda of MDGs – mainly for continuity. Unlike MDGs, SDGs are targeted primarily to the developing, least developed and poorest countries. Nevertheless, all member countries of the UN require participating, fund and actively contribute in achieving SDGs targets, no matter how developed they are.

While MDGs had only 8 goals, 21 targets and 63 indicators, SDGs are a set of 17 goals and 169 targets that all 193 UN Member States, including India have committed to achieve between 2016 and 2030. Importantly, though MDG targets were adopted in 2002 and got over in 2015, its effective time span for achievement was of 25 years, as the baseline data used were for the year 1990 with some subsequent revisions. Whereas the baseline for SDGs starts from 2015 estimates, which may be revised to actual figures as and when these are made available.

Health goals in SDG:

Health has a central place in SDG 3 to ‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, of all ages’. Briefly speaking, it commits itself to a global effort to eradicate epidemics of both communicable and non-communicable disease and strengthen health systems’ capacity, ensuring Universal Health Coverage (UHC), along with making medicines and vaccines affordable to all. In addition, SDG 3 clearly focuses on mental health issues with suicide being the second leading cause of death globally between the ages of 19 to 25. It also aims at reducing the numbers of deaths and illnesses caused by air, water, and soil pollution and contamination, significantly.

Towards further enhancing public policy efforts, SDG 3 emphasizes on strengthening the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; supporting the research and development of vaccines and medicines; substantially increasing health financing; the recruitment, development, training, and retention of the health workforce; and strengthen early warning, risk reduction, and management of health risks. Besides, a few targets falling under other different goals are also linked to the health goal of SDG 3, in various ways.

SDG 3 targets:

According to the ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015’ on ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, SDG 3 lays down nine key targets, as follows, though a few of which overlap with the MDGs:

  • Reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to below 70/100,000.
  • Reduce neonatal mortality to below 12/1,000 and U5MR to below 25/1,000.
  • End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, waterborne diseases, and other communicable diseases.
  • Reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases.
  • Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
  • Halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents (by 2020).
  • Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services.
  • Achieve universal health coverage.
  • Reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Is India poised for it now?

This is indeed a critical question. I guess, no one can just yet vouch, with a great degree of certainty, what exactly would India ultimately achieve against the SDG 3 targets. That said, I reckon, India has now all its success ingredients in place. Let me deliberate on just a few broad but very important ones out of all those, as hereunder:

  • With the announcement of the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) and commitment to the same by none other than Prime Minister Modi himself, focusing on public health has now been recognized as one of the critical ingredients for the future economic prosperity of India. Hence, there is a fair chance now that the nation’s public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP would be gradually raised from around 1.2 percent to 2.5 percent – expectedly by 2020, bringing health in the core development agenda of both the Central and the State Governments.
  • The unfinished task of achieving MDGs needs to be completed faster, driven by its ongoing momentum. The national and the respective States-specific goals, along with a clear roadmap to achieve the targets within the specified time-frame, outlining the success indicators for each deliverable, assigning accountability to designated individuals with a periodic review system for the same, needs to be put in place, soon, actively encouraged by the current national development oriented Union Government, if not initiated already.
  • The process of implementation of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), as enunciated in the NHP 2017 should be hastened. This is necessary to bring the entire population, without any discrimination whatsoever, as the beneficiary of this movement.
  • Scaling up the capacity building process at a much faster pace for the entire public health infrastructure and service delivery systems, along with skill development programs need to be placed at the center stage of the public health agenda of India, to bring SDG 3 to fruition.
  • Strategic involvement of private players and the credible NGOs to achieve SDG 3 targets would help move faster to ultimately experience the sense of a great public health related achievement for all concerned within, and probably outside the country, as well.

In conclusion:

As MDGs break ground for SDGs, India seems to me quite poised to achieving its health goals.

Moving towards this direction will invite a sharp focus on addressing the  non-communicable diseases, as well, while accelerating the ongoing efforts on maternal and child health, and nutrition.

It goes without saying that meeting SDG 3 targets will require adequate public investments for health, besides a well-crafted and time-bound public health policy, charting a clear roadmap for the same. The current Union Government now appears to have committed to both, putting its National Health Policy 2017 in place.

Once these goals are attained, it will enable India to clearly ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, at all ages’. In that process, a new India will be created where all essential public health related needs and demands of all, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, will be expeditiously taken care of, delivering with precision high quality of products and services.

Hopefully, the transformed India would then demonstrate to the world, as someone had said before, it’s just not a matter of ‘more money for health, but also more health for money’.

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.

National Health Policy 2017: Some Silver Linings, Some Trepidation

Posted on by
Reply

In September 2016, the Supreme Court directed the Indian Government to finalize the ‘National Health Policy (NHP)’ guaranteeing ‘assured health services to all’, a draft version of which was already made available to the public on December 30, 2014.

In its order the Apex Court had said: “In case the Union of India thinks it worthwhile to have a National Health Policy, it should take steps to announce it at the earliest and keep issues of gender equity in mind.”

After a wait of over two years, on March 16, 2017, the Union Cabinet approved the final version of the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) for implementation. The tough socioeconomic distress of the general population related to health care, fueled by near collapsing public health care delivery system when private health care providers are becoming more and more expensive, prompted the current Government to initiate drafting yet another new ‘Health Policy’, with a gap of around 15 years.

NHP 2017 covers a gamut of subjects while articulating its primary aim, which is to inform, clarify, strengthen and prioritize the role of the Government in shaping health systems in all its dimensions. These are investments in health, organization of health care services, prevention of diseases and promotion of good health through cross sectoral actions, access to technologies, developing human resources, encouraging medical pluralism, building a knowledge base, developing better financial protection strategies, strengthening regulation and health assurance.

In this article, primarily for greater clarity in understanding by the readers, I shall start with the reasons of my trepidation and then focus on the silver linings of the NHP 2017.

Some trepidation:

While explaining the reasons for my trepidation, I shall go back to what I said even before. Over several decades, many of us have tried to ferret out the reasons of giving low national priority to provide access to reasonably affordable, quality public health care to all its citizens by the successive Governments in India but in vain. The quest to know its rationale becomes more intense, as we get to know, even some developing countries in Asia, Africa and Middle East are taking rapid strides to catch up with the health care standards of the developed countries of the world.

In the last few years, many such countries, such as, Thailand, Turkey, Rwanda and Ghana, besides China, have successfully ensured access to quality and affordable health care to their citizens through well-structured national initiatives. The Governments of economically poorer countries, such as, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too are making rapid progress in this direction, protecting the most vulnerable populations in their respective countries from getting sucked into extreme poverty.

In this context, it will be worthwhile recapping that the NHP 1983, which was revised in 2002, also recommended an increase in public health expenditure to 2.0 percent of GDP in 2010. Not too long ago, in October 2010, the then Government in power constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known international medical expert Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians. The HLEG Report defined UHC as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

That said, the reality is, even in the Union budget for 2017-18, the public spending on health keeps hovering around abysmal 1 percent of the GDP. The Union Budget Allocations for several critical health related programs have either remained just around the same as before, or have declined, in real terms. Almost similar trend is noticed in the States, as well. For example, according to the latest Maharashtra State Budget for 2017-18, the State has decided to spend much less on its medical and public health sector schemes in the forthcoming financial year.

Thus, leaving aside implementation of the most critical 1983 NHP goal of providing “Health for all by the year 2000 A.D”, even in 2017 India continues to grapple with the same sets of challenges for ensuring adequate availability, accessibility, affordability, and high quality of comprehensive health care for all.

Some silver linings:

Let bygones be bygones. Let me now focus on the silver linings of the NHP 2017.

Besides gradually raising public expenditure for health care from the current around 1.2 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP, following are examples of some silver linings as I see enshrined in several key objectives of the new health policy, besides several others:

  • Progressively achieve Universal Health Coverage: Assuring availability of free, comprehensive primary health care services; ensuring improved access and affordability, of quality secondary and tertiary care services through a combination of public hospitals and the strategic purchasing of services in health care deficit areas, from private care providers, especially the not-for profit providers; achieving a significant reduction in out of pocket expenditure due to health care costs with reduction in proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures and consequent impoverishment.
  • Reinforcing trust in Public Health Care System: Strengthening the trust of the common man in the public health care system by making it predictable, efficient, patient centric, affordable and effective, with a comprehensive package of services and products that meet immediate health care needs of most people.
  • Align the growth of the private health care sector with public health goals: Influence the operation and growth of the private health care sector and medical technologies to ensure alignment with public health goals.
  • Achieve specific quantitative goals and objectives: These are outlined under three broad components viz. (a) health status and program impact, (b) health systems’ performance and (c) health system strengthening. These goals and objectives are aligned to achieve sustainable development in the health sector in keeping with the policy thrust.

I was encouraged to note a few more silver linings, especially the following ones, from various different areas of the NHP 2017, which:

  • Intends to achieve the highest possible level of good health and well-being, through a preventive and promotive health care orientation, besides its emphasis on allocating up to two-thirds or more of resources to primary care followed by secondary and tertiary care.
  • Plans creation of Public Health Management Cadre in all States to optimize health outcomes and National Health Care Standards Organization to maintain adequate standards in public and private sector.
  • Advocates extensive use of digital tools for improving the efficiency and outcome of the health care system by creating a National Digital Health Authority (NDHA) to regulate, develop and deploy digital health covering the entire process of health care, besides encouraging the application of the ‘Health Card’ for access to a primary health care facility and services anytime, anywhere.
  • States that Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is an important tool to ensure that technology choice is not only participatory, but also guided by considerations of scientific evidence, safety, cost effectiveness, social values; and commits to the development of an institutional framework and required capacity for HTA’s quick adoption.
  • Assures timely revision of the National List of Essential Medicines along with the appropriate price control.
  • Promotes compliance to right of patients to access information on condition and treatment.

The high and low points in NHP 2017:

As I see it, following are - just one each - the most critical high and low points in NHP 2017:

A high point:

NHP 2017 making a categorical promise to increase public health spending to 2.5 percent of GDP in a time-bound manner, guaranteeing Universal Health Care (UHC), is indeed not just encouraging, but also a high point in its silver linings. This is because, without adequate Government spending in this area, it’s just not possible to give shape to UHC, however robust a national health policy is on paper.

A low point:

The draft version of the NHP 2017 had proposed making health a fundamental right for Indian citizens – quite like denial of health is an offence, and reiterated on enactment of this law as follows:

“Many industrialized nations have laws that do so. Many of the developing nations that have made significant progress towards universal health coverage, such as Brazil and Thailand, have done so, and … such a law is a major contributory factor. A number of international covenants to which we [India] are joint signatories give us such a mandate – and this could be used to make a national law. Courts have also rulings that, in effect, see health care as a fundamental right — and a constitutional obligation flowing out of the right to life.”

The draft NHP 2015 also assured, “The Centre shall enact, after due discussion and at the request of three or more states a National Health Rights Act, which will ensure health as a fundamental right, whose denial will be justiciable.”

Thus, one of the lowest points or most disappointing aspects of the NHP 2017, as compared to its draft version, is the absence of the intent of having a National Health Rights Act. This change makes UHC yet another promise, just as before, without any strong legal backing. As many experts believe, when legal rights and mechanisms institutionalize collaborative goals, methods, and service delivery, they create legally binding duties. Government agencies, patient advocates, and the public can invoke such laws to urge collaboration and seek required public health care services, as promised, always.

The reason behind general expectations for the National Health Rights Act, is mainly because previous National Health Policies also assured ‘health for all’ within a given time-frame. The same promise was also carried through by various successive Governments in the past, but did not come to fruition. Nothing has changed significantly on the ground related to public health care, not just yet. Hence, exclusion of the proposed section of this Act in the final version of the NHP 2017 is a low point for me.

The trepidation lingers. Will it be or won’t it be, yet another repetition of the Government promises made through NHPs or otherwise, is the moot question now.

In conclusion:

Specific time frame for achieving most of these policy objectives and intents are still awaited.

Nonetheless, while a robust health policy for a new India, and a commensurate increase in Government spending on public health is much warranted, building a well integrate, comprehensive and accountable health infrastructure that will be sensitive to public health care needs of the country, should assume top priority today.

There exists an 83 percent shortage of specialist medical professionals in the Community Health Centers (CHCs) of India, according to the Rural Health Statistics 2015 released by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which was reported by IndiaSpend on September 21, 2015. Again, on February 27, 2016, quoting similar Government Data, IndiaSpend reported that public-health centers across India’s rural areas – 25,308 in 29 states and seven union territories – are short of more than 3,000 doctors, the scarcity rose by 200 percent (or tripling) over 10 years.

Other sets of similar data on the grossly inadequate number of doctors, nurses, paramedics and hospital beds per thousand population in India, coupled with frugal rapid transportation facilities in the vast and remote areas of the country, send a clear signal that capacity building in these areas can’t wait any longer. It has been always essential, but did not feature in the ‘to-do’ list of the Government, until now. In that sense, silver linings in the NHP 2017 open the door of great expectations, especially for UHC, despite some trepidation.

Reasonably well-crafted and robust NHP 2017, needs to be integrated with similar initiatives of the States, soon. Effective implementation of a comprehensive, well-integrated and time-bound health care strategic plan, with requisite budgetary allocations having a periodic review process and assigning specific accountabilities to individuals, are the needs of the hour. Otherwise, the social and economic consequences of the status quo in the health care space of India, would impede the sustainable growth of the nation, seriously.

To progress in this direction, the prevailing status-quo must be disrupted, now – decisively and with a great sense of urgency. It is imperative for the Government to make each one of us not only to believe it, but also experience the same in our everyday life. It is important for all concerned to remember what none other than Prime Minister Modi tweeted on March 16, 2017: “National Health Policy marks a historic moment in our endeavor to create a healthy India where everyone has access to quality health care.”

The National Health Policy 2017 is in place now, this is the time to walk the talk!

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.

Patient Services Aren’t Optional Any More For Pharma Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

In the modern world of abundance of information through various sources and platforms, patients are increasingly looking for greater engagement in their healthcare decision-making process with the doctors, slowly but steadily, and in that process seeking better services from different service providers in this area, including the pharmaceutical companies.

This trend has now been well-captured, globally. Various research studies have conclusively established that greater patient’s engagement in health care contributes to improved health outcomes. The obvious question that surfaces in this context is what is this patient engagement?

Patient engagement:

It broadly means a process that realizes the importance of providing adequate knowledge, skills and related services to people effectively, making them understand various disease management and alternative treatment measures, and thereby facilitating them to be an integral part of their health care related interventions, for better health outcomes.

When patients, physicians, other related constituents, including the pharma companies share both the process and goal of disease management or treatment processes, a win-win situation evolves to everybody’s full satisfaction. This has immense commercial relevance too.

Deserves to be a part of the grand design:

In that sense, pharmaceutical companies, especially those operating in India, would need to roll up sleeves and pull up socks to play a greater role in delivering a better experience for patients through effective engagement and offering relevant high quality services. This exercise now deserves to be an integral part of a grand design and planning of any sales and marketing strategy. A recent survey by Accenture Consulting also concluded that patient services from pharma companies are most important to patients.

Key patient service providers:

Besides several others, especially the following two important constituents can play defining roles as patient service providers by directly engaging with patients, to achieve this objective:

  • Patient advocacy groups or organizations (PAO): These entities provide a special attention to patient care and protection of their rights, and engage them accordingly. Patient advocates of these groups are a liaison between patients and various healthcare providers to improve or maintain a high quality of health care for the former. Some global drug players also recognize that these groups possess a highly influential voice in the healthcare system.
  • Pharmaceutical, biotech or device companies: Some of these companies, mostly in the developed world have established strategic patient advocacy functions within their corporate structure to foster relationships with patients, their caregivers, and the disease-specific nonprofit advocacy groups usually support them. These interactions should ideally ensure that the voice of patients is understood across every function within the company, from R&D to commercialization, as articulated in a recent Whitepaper of BioNJ on this subject.

There is a need to strengthen this approach within the Indian pharma industry, as well, for the benefit of local patients, of course, by scrupulously avoiding any possible serious controversy, which I shall discuss below.

A recent study:

A 2016 report by Accenture concludes that patient services are no longer optional for pharma companies, as they are gradually becoming a cutting edge competitive driver. In a situation like this, the question isn’t whether they should really gear up to offer such services, the immediate need, instead, is to put their ears on the ground to carefully decide which ones would be most appropriate for the individual players, and how best to offer them.

For this study, Accenture surveyed more than 200 patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism and cancer. The respondents agreed that much work and greater resources need to be invested in this area to gain a competitive edge in business.

This is further evident from the trend that around 84 percent of pharma companies in the United States plans to invest more in patient-centric services, such as adherence, remote monitoring and medication delivery – over the next 18 months, as the report highlights.

For marketing patient services alone to facilitate direct communications to patients, the digital platforms are most preferred with social media and web page usages being 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

A serious concern:

Providing various health related services useful to patients, by the PAOs or by pharma, biotech or device companies separately, without any form of financial relationship or influence of any kind to one another, would probably earn a great appreciation from all stakeholders.

Nevertheless, serious concerns are often expressed on the core intent of various pharma company’s generous funding to various patient advocacy organizations, including the eminent ones involved with patients suffering from cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Several of them don’t even report such contributions, besides providing justifiable explanations on the objectives and actual use of such financial contributions.

If one wants to draw a simile, this is what exactly allegedly happening today, because of such type relationship, between pharma, biotech or device companies on the one hand, and doctors, many other health care providers, including retail chemists, on the other. In the Indian context, as well, it holds good. A paper from ‘CUTS International’, aptly drives home this point. Another September 17, 2016 article published in ‘The New York Times’, reiterates the same.

What’s wrong in funding PAOs?

Some may argue, what’s wrong with pharma industry’s funding the PAOs. On the face of it, there may not appear to be anything wrong either. However, scholarly articles still express serious concern on such practices, mainly for conflicts of interest. For example, a September 2013 article titled, “Patient Advocacy Organizations: Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Trust, and Trustworthiness”, published in The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics unambiguously states as follows:

“Numerous studies have found that even established and respected researchers and physicians are influenced by drug company money and gifts, which can bias study conclusions and encourage increased prescribing of potentially harmful medications. There is no reason to believe that PAOs are any less susceptible to such influence. In fact, there is little oversight of relations between PAOs and their for-profit donors, which in itself increases the potential for undue influence. Similar concerns regarding the lack of oversight have been raised regarding the physician professional groups that develop clinical care guidelines.”

Why is it a potential conflict of interest?

Many construe such financial relationships as potential conflicts of interest, because pharma players appear to be more interested in earning maximum possible profit through high drug pricing, while PAOs advocate for highly efficacious, safer and more affordable medicines for all, besides some other interests and rights of patients. Moreover, some large constituents of patient advocacy groups aren’t even seen lending their voices to the concerted protests of other stakeholders, including the political leaders – irrespective of their affiliations, against the sharp increase in prices of many life-saving drugs, covering both patented and generic medicines.

Several studies on this concern: 

A March 02, 2017 report titled, “Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations”,

published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’, probably vindicates this point. This is mainly because, if pharma funding gets reciprocated through their remaining quiet, passive or even indirectly supporting any possible bias in the physicians prescribing decisions for high cost drugs – having other cheaper alternatives, that may not be in the best health and economic interest of many patients.

After examining and analyzing 104 large patient-advocacy organizations with an annual revenue of minimum USD 7.5 million, the researchers of the above study found that 83 percent of PAOs receive significant financial support from drug, device and biotechnology companies; and more interestingly, industry executives often serve on these groups’ governing boards.

Another article on this report commented though, that this study may have some limitations as the most organizations examined in this study did not provide exact figures for their reported donations, besides only 10 percent of patient-advocacy organizations revealed how they used the industry donations.

This NEJM study is not just one of its kind, another January 2017 report published in JAMA Internal Medicine, also concluded that there is a need to improve this conflict of interest issue of the patient advocacy groups or PAOs on their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

In conclusion:

Keeping aside altogether the contentious issue of funding PACs by the pharma, biotech or device companies, I would submit that it’s about time that the pharma industry in India realizes that patients have started perceiving themselves as consumers of health care. This perception is increasing by a manifold with improving access to not just the Internet, but consequent word of mouth sharing of such information with even those who do not have digital or health literacy.

The quest of many patients to ride the crest of this wave by gaining relevant information, especially through numerous digital platforms, besides word of mouth, is increasing. A lot more would eventually seek a wide range of relevant information on various disease treatment options and their effective management processes. Facilitated by this knowledge, many patients would opt only for those ones offering the best value within their respective economic means. Some enlightened individuals have already started expressing their preference to take part in the treatment and prescribing decision making process with the doctors. This visibly ascending trend is unstoppable now, as patients increasingly perceive themselves as consumers of health care.

Consequently, the pharma, biotech or device players in India would require to deeply understand the patients’ needs on the ground, not what they think those are, and treat patients as the key partner for business excellence – at least, as much as what they consider for other stakeholders, such as doctors and hospitals, if not even much more than that. Some companies are trying to make it happen through doctors, which don’t seem to be working as much as these should, according to another Accenture study.

Currently, several global pharma, biotech or device players claim that they follow ‘patient-centered’ approaches, and try to drive home this point through advocacy campaigns. However, many stakeholders don’t buy it any more. This is because such an approach must always lead to a win-win outcome. It, therefore, requires passing the acid test of conformance to the very definition of a ‘patient-centered’ approach, which requires establishing a partnership to ensure that all related decisions would respect patients’ wants, needs and preferences and solicit patients’ input on the education and support they need to make decisions.’

Thus, respective players in this arena need to shift gears fast, as the ball game is fast changing with its traditional version unlikely to yield the desired business results any longer. The name of the new version of this game is ‘direct engagement with patients’ to impart high quality of meaningful services in the therapy areas that the respective companies are in, by charting clear, innovative and well integrated strategies, and not just through single minded focus on sales and marketing. It’s important for all of us to realize that providing patient services aren’t optional any more for pharma business 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.

Digital Divide And Indian Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last one and half decades of this new millennium, despite making significant headway in digital literacy, fueled by consistent progress in the penetration of broadband Internet and availability of more affordable smartphones, a large section of Indian population is still not digitally literate, not even in its importance and awareness, creating a sharp digital divide in the country.

This populace with inadequate or no digital literacy spans across a large section of our society, such as those who are generally poor, many living in rural areas, or lacking in adequate digital awareness, or exhibiting strong preferences in adhering to traditional approaches of doing things, or differently abled individuals, and many elderly persons.

In the health care arena, this citizenry constitutes one of the most vulnerable segments of the society often posing serious health risks, and mostly unable to make use of various digital tools while availing several social sector benefits of the government, as and when required.

However, more concerning is the fact that this gap is not just quite significant, there does not seem to be any near-term possibility of bridging it, either, as all accompanying responsibilities now lying on the government alone. Effective measures to bridging this gap do not depend on just technology, as the issue is multidimensional in nature, necessitating participation of all the stakeholders, pharma included – for a quantum leap in the business growth too.

This should not go unnoticed and unappreciated. Addressing this scenario effectively would call for a different strategic approach – not the usual run of the mill type ad hoc measures, both by the government, and in healthcare, also by the pharma marketers. In this article, I shall dwell in this area.

What it means?

In the modern era, the term ‘digital divide’ broadly refers to the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and those who don’t or have restricted access to it. Post late 1990s, this terminology is primarily used to describe the split between those with and without Internet access, particularly broadband.

In the global perspective, according to ‘Tech Target’ – the global network of technology-specific websites, the ‘digital divide’ typically exists between those in cities and those in rural areas; between the educated and the uneducated; between socioeconomic groups; and between the more and less industrially developed nations. Even among populations with some access to technology, the digital divide can be evident in the form of lower-performance computers, lower speed wireless connections, lower-priced connections, such as dial-up, and limited access to subscription-based content. The report also points out, while adoption of smartphones is growing, even among relatively lower-income groups, the cost of various data plans and the difficulty of performing tasks and transactions on smartphones continue to inhibit the closing of the gap.

To a large extent, this is applicable to India, as well.

It’s not just a technological issue:

Bridging the ‘digital divide’ in health care is not just a technological issue. It’s rather a complex one with many dimensions. It also depends on the health literacy of individuals, or a society, or the location where they live in. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health literacy as: ‘The cognitive and social skills which determine the motivation and ability of individuals to gain access to, understand, and use information in ways which promote and maintain good health.’

This is not just the ability of a person to understand the health messages, it also involves the individual’s ability to look for the required information, and taking further action accordingly. As a December 2016 study of Michigan State University Extension concludes, those who are more likely to experience low health literacy are, older adults, racial and ethnic minorities, people with less than a high school diploma, people with low income levels, facing language issue for communication and those with compromised health status, such as chronic health conditions. Culture and access to resources also affect people’s health literacy. Another October 2016 study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, establishes the connection between low health literacy and the skepticism on health technologies.

Effectively bridging ‘digital divide’ alone, may not resolve the issue of health literacy. Neither, just addressing the health literacy can bridge the gap of ‘digital divide’, effectively. Thus, there isn’t any ‘one size fits all’ type of solution, to address both these issues, for a synergistic outcome in improving affordable access to quality health care for all.

Bridging the ‘Digital Divide’:

That said, bridging the digital divide, especially in the healthcare segment, has immense relevance in the modern days. As PwC’s Global Digital IQ Survey report of May 2016 observes, health care is arguably one of the world’s most information-intensive sectors, and the opportunities to improve quality, encourage affordability and enhance the consumer experience are vast. Wider application of digital technology can help this sector tackle many of these pressing challenges, effectively. However, the sector is currently behind the curve, the report highlights.

According to another 2016 report by PwC on Indian healthcare, the digital connectivity of the country is expected to grow from 15 percent access in 2014 to 80 percent access in 2034, with rural Internet users increasing by 58 percent annually, which presents a great potential for telemedicine and remote diagnosis in the country. This is indeed encouraging.

Can pharma industry hasten the process?

As I said before, bridging the ‘digital divide’ and improving health literacy, may be construed by many as a primary responsibility of the Indian government, through various robust initiatives backed by allocated budgetary provisions. Nonetheless, in the realm of healthcare, I reckon, pharmaceutical and other related industries can significantly help hastening the process, not just as a social responsibility, but for significant growth in businesses, simultaneously creating a win-win situation for all.

Just to cite an example out of many, various pharma companies can set up ‘digital health information kiosks’ especially in those areas where awareness and participation of the local population related to healthcare issues are poor or suboptimal. These ‘digital health information kiosks’, providing various diseases or treatment related information that a pharma company may be interested in, can be set up at convenient locations, of course, with the approval of local authorities. Such information, should encourage people to seek more and more health information digitally, explaining the whole process, and at the same time persuading them to take available disease prevention measures. and advising them to visit doctors, to initiate early treatment, wherever necessary.

I repeat, this is just an illustration, there could several other ways of achieving the same result.

Increasing relevance:

For healthcare, the above trend would mean empowering most of the population to have unfettered access to knowledge in various health related fields, especially in prevention, management and available treatment options, for various diseases, encompassing both acute and chronic conditions. Thus, this process has the potential to create a significant snowballing effect, not just on

deeper penetration of telemedicine, but also on remote diagnosis in India. In tandem, leveraging this trend early enough and in innovative ways, is likely to enable the pharma players to provide a much-needed boost to their respective business ventures.

Advantage pharma:

Rapid transformation in the complex market dynamics, coupled with increasing challenges in making productive face to face interaction with important doctors for prescription generation and consequent fast decline in the economic outcome of traditional product detailing, is likely to hasten this metamorphosis. On the other hand, this change also brings a blessing in disguise for the pharma players, by opening many new doors of opportunity based on digital platforms, and thereby paving the way for reaping a rich harvest, for all those who will choose to be early adopters.

In the above context, intimate business involvement with the digital world in many areas, such as ‘digital sales and marketing’ assumes a high priority for Indian pharma players, just as it’s being imbibed by some global players, including many in other industries. The speed of its becoming the centerpiece in pharma sales and marketing strategy formulation process ought to be directly linked to the increasing speed of broadband Internet penetration, smart phone and other digital platform usages by people of all ages with enquiring mindsets. Thus, the destiny’s call is clearly ‘Advantage Pharma’.

Key benefits:

According to a paper of April 16, 2014, published by Salford Business School, Manchester, UK, the major benefits of ‘Digital Marketing’ are as follows:

  • It helps businesses to develop a wider customer base as it does not rely on physical presence or interaction.
  • It encourages customers to interact directly with businesses.
  • It is not limited by conventional opening times – customers can interact at a time and place convenient for them

Calibrated increase in usage of digital platforms:

It is worth noting, traditional methods of sales and marketing, barring a few exceptions, are currently prevailing in the Indian pharma industry. In this scenario, each pharma player, must carefully evaluate its current and future product-mix, along with customer types and base, as they would decide, first to initiate, and then to scale up their sales and marketing operations in the digital space in a well-calibrated manner.

In this new ball game, the fresh entrants would need to consider only the credible research-based data, on the rapidly changing aspirational mindset of young Indians, including doctors and patients, with smart phones being a key enabler, on the one hand. While on the other, these should provide optimal digital penetration in different geographical regions or areas, together with the usage of platforms and related demographic configurations.

For example, if a region shows high smartphone usage for community or group chat within the general population, a pharma company may explore the possibility of creatively designing a smart phone based ‘digital patient chat group’ as a part of its patient engagement initiative. In this ‘digital patient chat group’, the members suffering from chronic or even acute ailments can discuss with each other the issues for which one is seeking a solution, where even the pharma companies can intervene, wherever they can add value and is legally permissible.

The effectiveness in working out a game changing crafty blend of both brand and patient-centric communication package with digital tools would separate the men from the boys. It would demand top quality cerebral inputs from the pharma marketers – a requirement that is not so easily available in the current space of pharmaceutical marketing, dominated by a wide variety of freebies.

In conclusion:

Humongous digital divide in India is a fall out, predominantly of disparate availability and access to ICT, not just between those living in rural and urban areas, but spans across several other areas such as, between educated and uneducated people, demographic and economic classes, to name a few. Nonetheless, especially, since the last one and a half decades, the country has made significant headway in gradually reducing this gap, though a lot more ground is yet to be covered in this direction.

Today in India, we witness even various political parties, which used to be very traditional in their approaches have started using a wide variety of digital marketing tools successfully by deploying astute domain experts, to achieve their goals.

For the healthcare sector, including the pharma industry, this progress throws open many doors of opportunities, both for the public, as well as for the industry. Notwithstanding this digital divide and general prevalence of an overarching traditional behavior and response patterns, displaying visible apathy or inability to embrace the promises of the emerging cyber era, several doctors and patients have already started reaping the benefits offered by various digital platforms, tools and media. The regulators governing this sector, are also not lagging far behind, with their presence visible in the digital space too, including social media.

This challenge of change should be effectively leveraged by all stakeholders in healthcare, reaping a rich harvest. Like many other constituents in this intricate, yet interesting ball game, pharma industry too needs to assume an active, pragmatic and proactive role in several innovative ways.

Flooring the gas pedal to move into the digital space of healthcare, would provide significant competitive and commercial advantages to the early movers, more than ever before. When political narratives can be made more productive by embracing the digital platforms, why not the business narratives of the pharma industry in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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