Tag Archives: Drug

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Posted on by
Reply

“Russia and India climb World Bank’s Doing Business rankings”, was a headline in the Financial Times on October 31, 2017. India jumped 30 places – from 130 out of 190. Almost instantly, the domestic media flashed it all across the country, as the prime news item of the day. It brought great satisfaction to many, and very rightly so.

The news is also worth cheering as it ignites the hope of a large section of the society that sometime in the future more business will come into the country, more jobs will be created, and in that process India will emerge as a more healthy and wealthy nation, just as many other countries around the world.

This loud cheer, in tandem, also transcends into a hope for a well-oiled public healthcare system functioning efficiently in India, alongside greater wealth creation. This is because, while expecting a healthier nation, one can’t possibly keep the public healthcare system of the country out of it, altogether. Thus, I reckon, it won’t be quite out of place to have a quick look at India’s current ranking on other healthcare related indices too, such as ‘Healthcare Index’ and ‘Human Development Index’ and ‘Hunger Index’:

Healthcare index:

With that perspective, when go through the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, published in The Lancet on September 16, 2017, it will be difficult to wish away the fact that India ranks 154 among 195 countries in ‘Healthcare Index’. Surprisingly, India ranks much behind Sri Lanka (72.8), Bangladesh (51.7), Bhutan (52.7) and Nepal (50.8) though, of course, above Pakistan (43.1) and Afghanistan (32.5). This is what it is, regardless of the fact that India’s Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index has increased by 14.1 – from 30.7 in 1990 to 44.8 in 2015.

Human Development Index:

The ranking of India in the Human Development Index (HDI) is also not encouraging, either. Many would know, HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income, which are used to rank countries in human development. As life expectancy also depends on the quality of healthcare, HDI has a significant bearing on this count, as well.

The ‘2016 Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in March 2017 shows that India has slipped by one rank from 130 to 131, among 188 countries. According to UNDP, ‘in the past decades, there has been significant gains in human development levels almost in every country, but millions of people have not benefited from this progress. This report highlights who have been left behind and why?’

I shall dwell on the ‘Global Hunger Index Report’ below at an appropriate context.

Why is this comparison between different indices…and now?

The above question is indeed a very valid one. Nonetheless, it is important to do so. I am quoting these rankings to flag the sharp contrast in our mindset to rejoice the good rankings, and lampooning the adverse ones, citing one reason or the other.

It is obvious from the general euphoria witnessed by many on such good news –  highlighted so well by the print, television and social media, with high decibel discussions by experts and politicians. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in any way. However, similar media discussions were not evident for taking effective corrective measures, soon, when ‘global burden of disease rankings’ or ‘Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ or the ‘Global Hunger Index’ rankings were published in September, March and October 2017, respectively.

Does it therefore mean that effectively addressing issues related to crumbling public healthcare infrastructure in the country attracts much lesser importance than ensuring ease of doing business in the country? Do both the politicians and the voters also consider so? Perhaps the answer is yes, as many would envisage in the largest democracy of the world.

What’s happening elsewhere?

In many developed and also the developing countries of the world, general public or voters’ expectations for having an affordable and robust public healthcare delivery system from the respective Governments seem to be high. Consequently, it also directs the focus of the politicians or lawmakers on the same. This scenario includes even the oldest democracy of the world – America. Such expectations on comprehensive healthcare covers the need for affordable drug prices too.

That voters are greatly concerned about healthcare in those countries is supported by many contemporary surveys. Just before the last year’s American Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: September 2016, substantiated this point. It said, besides considering personal characteristics of the candidates, the voters clearly articulated their priority on patient-friendly healthcare laws and affordable drug prices, as follows:

  • Over 66 percent of voters expressed that healthcare law is very important to their vote
  • 77 percent said prescription drug costs are unreasonable, expressing widespread support for a variety of actions in order to keep healthcare costs down

Accordingly, The New York Times on September 17, 2017 reported: “The public is angry about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Surveys have shown that high drug prices rank near the top of consumers’ health care concerns, and politicians in both parties - including President Trump — have vowed to do something about it.”

I haven’t come across such widespread demand from the voters getting captured in any survey, before either any State Assembly or the Parliament elections in India. Hence, public healthcare continues to languish in the country, as various Governments come and go.

What happens post-election in the oldest democracy?

We have enough examples that post-election, the oldest democracy of the world tries to satisfy the well-articulated healthcare needs of the voters, on priority. To illustrate the point, let me help recapitulate what happened in this regard, immediately after the last two Presidential elections in America.

After swearing in on January 20, 2009, then American President Barack Obama, as expected by the voters and promised by him accordingly, enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, almost within a year’s time – on March 23, 2010. Similarly, within a few months of swearing in as the American President, Donald Trump administration is mulling to address the voters demand and his electoral promise to make the prescription drugs more affordable.

Public demand and outcry for affordable healthcare, including affordable drugs have led to several serious consequential developments in the United States. Let me illustrate this point with another example of recent lawsuits filed against alleged price fixing of generic drugs – many of these are new, but a few started in the last few years.

Vigil on drug prices continues:

As high drug prices are a burning issue even in America, a lot many steps are being taken there on that issue – just as many other developed and developing countries are taking.

It is rather well known that even after enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the Department of Justice of the country expanded probing into the allegation of price fixing by many generic drug manufacturers operating in America. One such illustration is October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. It states that the AG is leading a coalition of 46-states in new, expanded complaint in Federal Generic Drug Antitrust Lawsuit. It further mentioned: States allege broad, industry-wide understanding among numerous drug manufacturers to restrain competition and raise prices on 15 generic drugs, where some senior executives have been sued.

Interestingly, in this notice the AG said, “The generic drug market was conceived as a way to help bring down the cost of prescription medications. For years, those savings have not been realized, and instead the prices of many generic drugs have skyrocketed.” He alleged that the defendant companies’ collusion was so pervasive that it essentially eliminated competition from the market for the identified 15 drugs in its entirety. ‘Ongoing investigation continues to uncover additional evidence, and we anticipate bringing more claims involving additional companies and drugs at the appropriate time,” the Attorney General further added.

By the way, the expanded complaint of the states reportedly also includes several large Indian companies, such Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. Curiously, the expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Examples such as this vindicate, even if a robust public healthcare system is put in place, the regulators would still keep a careful vigil on drug prices.

Getting back to the key link between some indices:

Let me now get back to where I started from – the link between ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘becoming a healthy and wealthy’ nation, over a period of time. This would subsequently bring us to the link between healthy nation and the existence of a robust and functioning affordable public healthcare system in the country.

From that angle, I raised a key question. Why the general public, and specifically the voters in India aren’t making effective delivery of an affordable public healthcare as one of the top priority areas while voting for or against a political dispensation? The question assumes greater relevance when one sees it happening in many other countries, as discussed above. Is it, therefore, worth pondering whether this issue can be explained, at least to a great extent, by applying the well-known ‘Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs.’

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and hunger index:

As the literature says, ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ is a theory of motivation in psychology developed by Abraham Maslow in 1943. He believed people move through different stages of five needs that motivate our behavior. He called these needs physiological, safety, love and belonging (social), esteem, and self-actualization.

As we see, the first two basic needs are physiological and then safety. Maslow explains the ‘physiological needs’ as food, water, sleep, and basic biological functions. When these physiological needs are adequately met, our safety needs would usually dominate individual behavior.

Similarly, Maslow’s ‘safety needs’ in the modern era are generally expressed as the needs of job security, financial security, and health and well-being, among a few others. Thus, the need for healthcare falls under ‘safety needs’, following the most basic ‘physiological needs’.

As Food is one the first basic needs, India’s current ranking in the ‘Global Hunger Index (GHI)’, would suggest this primary need of having at least two square meals of nutritious food a day, has not been adequately met by a large population of Indians, not just yet.

India’s ranking in the Global Hunger Index (GHI):

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been defined as a multidimensional statistical tool used to describe the state of countries’ hunger situation. The GHI measures progress and failures in the global fight against hunger. It is now, reportedly, in its 12th year, ranking countries based on four key indicators – undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report, titled ‘2017 global hunger index: The inequalities of hunger ’, indicates that India ranks below many of its neighboring countries, such as China (29th in rank), Nepal (72), Myanmar (77), Sri Lank (84) and Bangladesh (88), but ahead of Pakistan (106) and Afghanistan (107). Just for the sake of interest, North Korea ranks 93rd while Iraq is in 78th position.

The primary basic need of food and nutrition does not seem to have been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. Many of them are still struggling and searching for appropriate means of earning a dignified livelihood. It includes support in agricultural production and the likes. Thus, many voters don’t feel yet, the second level of need that prompts a vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country. The same situation continues, despite ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on healthcare being one of the highest in India, alongside the cost of drugs too.

Conclusion:

This brings us to the key question – When would the demand for having an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country, assume priority for the general public in India, and the voters, in particular?

Sans Government’s sharp focus on public healthcare, including the cost of drugs, devices, and education, it will be challenging for a democracy of India’s size to make a decisive move, for a long term – from average to good – and then from good to great, even in the economic parameters.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs onto various health related global indices, it appears that the primary basic need of food and nutrition has not been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. This possibly makes a large section of Indian voters to move into the second level of need, raising a widespread vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country.

Rejoicing country’s advancement in the World Bank’s ranking on the ease of doing business by 30 points in a year has its own merits. However, in the same yardstick, doesn’t health care losing the priority focus of the nation also highlight the demerits of misplaced priority in a country’s governance process, and just because the voters are not quite demanding on this issue?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

A Sine Qua Non to Pharma Success in Digitized World

Posted on by
Reply

A wind of change is now blowing at an accelerated speed – encompassing virtually anything, across the world, including India, with a varying degree, though. It leaves a profound impact on the day to day lives of many, including almost free access to a plethora of information of any kind available in the cyberspace. The way we express ourselves – connect with others – meet our various needs and requirements – make hassle-free financial transactions – increasing transparency – containing corruption, besides scores of others.

Fast evolving digital technology is predominantly catalyzing this paradigm shift. Its weighty impact can also be felt across the global business world, sparing virtually none. Digitally enabled recent GST implementation process in India is just one such example.

Newer technology driven transformation process of overall business ecosystem is sending a strong signal to all concerned to shape up – coming out of their respective comfort zones of the old paradigm, and embracing the new one. Squarely facing this challenge of change is equally critical even to one of the most conservative, tradition bound, and well-regulated pharma industry. It’s rather an absolute necessity for pharma, as virtually all its stakeholders, including the patients and governments, have already started stepping on to the digitized world. The fundamental choice is, therefore, between shaping-up and shipping-out.

In this article, I shall argue on this critical need, based on several recent, pertinent and contemporary research findings on this fascinating space.

Indian CEOs take:

The 20th CEO Survey of 2017 titled, “Being Fit for Growth”, conducted by PwC

reveals that the term ‘digital’ evokes both excitement and a sense of apprehension among CEOs, both globally and locally. The following are some interesting findings involving the Indian CEOs, as captured in this survey:

  • 38 percent observed that over the past 5 years alone, disruptive technological innovations have had a significant impact on competition within their respective industries.
  • 47 percent believe that in the next 5 years, disruptive technological innovations will have a significant impact on competition in their industry.
  • 77 are concerned about the speed of technological change.
  • 76 percent expressed concerns about rapidly changing customer behavior.
  • 77 percent mentioned the need to create differentiation in their products and offerings by managing data better. 

Its relevance in pharma:

The relevance of taking this wind of change in stride and embracing it fast, is beyond any reasonable doubt today. The 2017 report of EY, titled ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India,’ also reaffirms: ‘Digital will play an ever-increasing role in this era of profound transformations, characterized by increasingly informed patients/physicians, new range of customers and new disruptive entrants. To stay relevant, pharma companies need to adopt a nimbler approach and make data the currency of marketing.’.”.

The urgency:

A sense of urgency for this change has also been epitomized in the same report, as it underscores that digital disruption has demolished 52 percent of Fortune 500 companies, since 2000. The study further reiterates: “The pace of transformation has increased, competition has intensified and business models have been profoundly disrupted. This shift is happening at breakneck speed across industries, and pharma can no longer be an exception. Customers have already embraced technological changes, through their many digital touch points, and pharma must look toward digital to re-imagine the customer experience.”

Just changing manual processes to digital won’t suffice:

This is exactly what is mostly happening today in pharma. Concerned employees, in general, are also receiving training inputs accordingly. Vindicating this point, a recent study reiterates that just changing manual processes to digital won’t suffice, any longer. Delivering greater value to the stakeholders continuously through digitization of business is the name of the game.

The above EY report unambiguously endorses that: “Whatever was being done manually earlier is now being done digitally. But we are not adding additional value.”

While capturing in the report Indian pharma’s journey to the digital world, it articulates, though some digitization initiatives are being taken now, Indian pharma companies are still way behind their global counterparts. The survey found 53 percent of the participating companies still at the ‘beginners’ stage, while 40 percent are at the ‘conservatives’ stage and only 7 percent have moved toward the ‘explorers’ stage.

Three fundamental non-technical barriers, and the way forward:

Two important studies – one by EY, as quoted above, flagged three fundamental non- technical barriers in this area, and the other one by McKinsey & Co that proposed three strategic actions for Indian pharma to start on a digital path by leveraging its intrinsic value, meaningfully.

EY study indicated, 86 percent of the senior pharma leaders exhibited a strong positive inclination toward digital as a ‘strategic’ rather than a tactical approach. It then highlighted the following three key barriers to embracing digital:

  • Lack of clear digital strategy for the organization
  • Incremental value proposition and effective delivery
  • Change management

McKinsey & Co in its August 2015 report, titled ‘The road to digital success in pharma’ also indicated, though differently, lack of a clear strategic direction and focus in this area. The study noted: ‘Most pharma companies have started to build some digital capabilities, but the talent and resources for their efforts can be fragmented, often across hundreds of small initiatives. Without clear strategic direction and strong senior sponsorship, digital initiatives often struggle to secure the funding and human resources required to reach a viable scale, and they cannot overcome barriers related to inflexible legacy IT systems.’

Based on the above finding, the paper proposed three strategic actions for pharma companies to place it on the right trajectory, capturing the differential value of digital, as follows:

  • Develop the right organization for new business models with significant value addition from digital. This, I reckon, would involve a cultural shift.
  • Focus on two or three flagship initiatives, such as building a digital ecosystem for patient adherence to a blockbuster drug.
  • Run collaborative experiments, and then scale what works, such as putting the right people from IT, business compliance, and outside partners in a ‘war room’ to run quick test-and-learn cycles of a well deliberated digital strategic initiative. Where results are positive, scale those up.

Personalization in every facet of the value delivery system:

As we move ahead, personalization in virtually every facet of the value delivery system is unlikely to remain optional for the Indian pharma players. With this wind of change gathering further momentum, many will eventually witness a mind-boggling level of personalization – spanning across from personalized diagnosis of serious ailments based on complex genomics, doctors’ writing personalized medicines to tech savvy pharmacists dispensing 3D printed individualized formulations.

This trend will continue evolving with an ascending trend of outcomes, breaking all conceivable barriers. Accordingly, services to patients and physicians would also demand more personalization, along with the other stakeholder engagement process.

Most of these may appear no more than a figment of imagination today, or probably a science fiction to many – just as what the incredible narrative of unleashing unfathomable potential of the Internet appeared to so many, not so long ago. Indian pharma players may prefer to wish away this emerging scenario, but at their own peril.

Conclusion:

The Indian pharma industry is currently passing through a phase of transition to move into the digitized world. Just doing digitally whatever is being done manually now or earlier, won’t suffice, any longer.

Giving shape to a robust, comprehensive digital strategic game plan for the organization, as a whole, is the need of the hour. Pharma CEOs would require leading their respective core teams to the drawing boards for charting out this digital pathway, without further delay.

This would be a game changer, as constantly delighting the stakeholders with the best possible value addition in business, emerges as the primary means for sustainable organizational excellence. Long term success in this effort, would call for constant upgradation of the state of the art digital platforms and tools.

This is sine qua non to pharma success in the digitized world – offering a strong foothold as the new paradigm ushers in. Envisioning, what all-round excellence in business would entail in a rapidly evolving digitized world, and championing its effective implementation on the ground, sooner, is now a critical accomplishment factor for pharma CEOs 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.

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

  • “The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”
  • Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

  • Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
  • The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
  • As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
  • Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

  • Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.
  • Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.
  • Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.
  • Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.
  • Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.
  • Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

  • More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
  • More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
  • More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
  • A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
  • A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
  • More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
  • Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on by
Reply

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the  National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently –  annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

  • UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.
  • On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for the country.

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.

 

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Posted on by
Reply

It started way back – spanning across many developed countries of the world. However, probably for the first time in the last five years, an international media group focused on this issue thriving in India, with so much detail.

Reuters reported it with a headline “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” The report was supported by a detailed description of the relevant events, with ‘naming and shaming’. It drew the attention of some, apparently including the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), but escaped the attention of many, and finally – got faded away with time, without any reported official investigation.

In this article, I shall revisit this subject against the backdrop of draft pharma policy 2017. My focus will be on the current marketing practices, with the moot question ‘why pharma does what it does’ occupying the center stage of this piece.

Bothering many across the world:

Pharma marketing practices wear different hues and shades. Many of these are contentious, and often perceived as gross ‘malpractices’. Nevertheless, across the world, these have mostly become an integral part of pharma business. Many law-enforcing authorities, including in the US, Europe, Japan and even China, have started taking tough penal action against those transgressions. Interestingly, the draft pharma policy 2017 intends to take this raging bull by its horn, with a multi-pronged approach, as I see it.

It’s a different debate, though, whether the policy makers should bring the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) under the Essential Commodities Act, or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India. Let’s wait and see what exactly transpires in scripting the final version of the new National Pharma Policy to address this issue, comprehensively.

The net impact of the fast evolving ‘newer norms’ of pharma ‘marketing’ practices, has been bothering a large section of the society, including the Governments, for quite some time. Consequently, many top-quality research studies are now being carried out to ascertain the magnitude of this problem. The top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States (US) are leading the way with such analysis. However, I haven’t come across similar India-specific analytical reports, just yet, probably due to lack of enough credible data sources.

Four recent studies:

Several interesting studies supported by a robust database have been carried out in the US during 2016 and 2017 to ascertain whether any direct relationship exists between payments in various forms made to the doctors by the pharmaceutical companies and physicians’ prescribing various drugs in brand names. For better understanding of this issue, I am quoting below, as examples, the gist of just four of such studies:

One of these studies conducted by ProPublica was published in March 2016. It found that physicians in five common medical specialties who accepted, at least one industry payment were more likely to prescribe higher rates of brand-name drugs than physicians who did not receive any payments. More interestingly, the doctors receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate, on an average. Additionally, the type of payment also made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians receiving no payments, and those who accepted speaking payments had a higher rate of the same than those drawing other types of payments.

The details of the second study published in PLOS on May 16, 2016 states, “While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.”

The third example of such investigative study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 2016. This cross-sectional analysis, which included 279,669 physicians found that “physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest, with a mean value of less than $20, had significantly higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin as compared with other statins; nebivolol as compared with other β-blockers; olmesartan as compared with other angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers; and desvenlafaxine as compared with other selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.”

This study also concluded that “Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

And the fourth analysis on the same subject featuring in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) of 18 August 2016 concluded that “Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials.”

Exceptional steps by a few global CEOs – would the rest follow through?

As this juggernaut continues to move unrelenting, a few global CEOs have been taking some exceptional steps in this regard, e.g.:

- In December 2013, Sir Andrew Witty –  erstwhile global CEO of  GlaxoSmithKline tossed out the ‘Big Pharma marketing playbook’. He announced, no longer will his company pay doctors to promote its drugs or shell out bonuses to sales reps based on their ability to boost prescription numbers.

- Around September 2015, Brent Saunders – the Global CEO of Allergan was the first major drug company chief to explicitly renounce egregious price increases. Outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” he vowed that Allergan would:

  • Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts
  • Limit price increases to once per year
  • Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

- In October 2016, Joseph Jimenez – the current global CEO of Novartis said, “We tell people, we don’t want you to deliver at any cost. We want you to deliver, but we want you to deliver in the right way,”

It’s probably a different matter, though, that one of these CEOs has already stepped down, another will do so early 2018, and third iconoclast is still in the saddle. They all are still relatively young, as compared to several of their counterparts.

These are some of the laudable steps taken by a few CEOs for their respective global operations. However, the moot question remains: would rest of the Big Pharma constituents come on board, and successfully follow these initiatives through?

That said, the overall scenario in this area, both in India and abroad, continues to remain mostly unchanged.

Why pharma does what is does?

This may not be akin to a million-dollar question, as its right answer is no-brainer – to generate more, and even more prescription demand for the respective focused brands of the concerned pharma companies. In a scenario, as we have seen above, when money can buy prescriptions with relative ease, and more money buys more prescriptions, how do the prescribers differentiate between different brands of the same molecules or combination of molecules, for greater support?

As evident from various available reports, this kind of intangible product differentiation of dubious nature, doesn’t necessarily have a linear relationship with the quantum of money spent for this purpose. Many believe, it is also intimately related to the nature or kind of various ‘gratis’ extended, some of which are highly contentious. Illustratively, how exotic is the venue of so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ event, whether located in India or beyond its shores, bundled with the quality of comfort provided by the event managers, or even whether the spouses can also join the doctors for a few days of a relaxed trip with fabulous sight-seeing arrangements.

Regardless of many pharma players’ terming these events as purely educational in nature, lots of questions in this regard – accompanied by proof, have reportedly been raised on the floor of the Indian Parliament, as well, cutting across virtually all political party lines.

Conclusion:

Should anyone tag the term ‘marketing’ against any such pharma business practices, or even remotely accept these as integral parts of any ‘branding exercise’? For better understanding of my readers, I had explained what this buzzword – ‘branding’ really means in the marketing vocabulary.

Be that as it may, where from the pharma companies recover the huge cost of such vexed business practices? Who ultimately pays for these – and, of course, why? So far, in India, the basic reasoning for the same used to be – branded generics provide significantly better and more predictable drug quality and efficacy than non-branded generics, for patients’ safety.

This logic is anchored mainly on the argument that bioequivalence (BE) and bioavailability (BA) studies are mandatory for all generic drug approvals in India. Interestingly, that loose knot has been tightened in the draft pharma policy proposals 2017. Hope, this commendable policy intent will ultimately see the light of the day, unless another innovative new reason pops-up.

Against this backdrop, many ponder: Are the current pharma ‘marketing’ practices, especially in India, akin to riding a tiger? If the answer is affirmative, the aftermath of the new pharma policy’s coming into force – broadly in its current form and with strict enforcement measures, could well be too tough to handle for those drug players without a Plan B ready.

That said, pharma ‘marketing’ ballgame is getting increasingly more complex, with the involvement of several third-parties, as is often reported. Alongside, it’s equally challenging to fathom ‘why pharma does what it does’ to generate more prescription demand at an incremental cost, which far exceeds commensurate incremental value that branded generics provide to patients 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.

Pharma ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’

Posted on by
Reply

Reputation is one of the most fundamental requirements for long-term sustainability of any business, without facing too much of avoidable distraction, or even a tough headwind from any hostile business environment. This fact is, of course, no-brainer. We all know it, yet continue faltering – often not so very infrequently.

Before proceeding further, let me recapitulate, how has the Oxford Dictionary defined reputation? It says, reputation is ‘the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.’ Or in other words, it is ‘a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular characteristic.’

The subsequent logical question then arises – how to gain reputation? Again, this was very aptly captured long ago by none other than Socrates, when he said: ‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

Taking a leaf from this quote, in today’s article, I shall focus on whether pharma is making enough endeavor to be what it desires to appear in the eyes of its stakeholders, and the public at large. If not, what are the ways forward.

Not all of it is pharma’s own creation:

The host of reasons for pharma’s adverse public image, may not necessarily be its own creation. Some of these could well be lying miles away from its operational domain. For example, articles such as, what appeared on July 7, 2017 in the BMJ titled, ‘We need to end cut practice in Indian healthcare,’ doesn’t seem to be much related to pharma’s direct business operations. But in many respects, the subsequent unprecedented announcement of the Maharashtra government on enacting a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also covers the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Nevertheless, a commonly perceived nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, or for that matter alleged malpractices in many hospitals, also prompts a rub-off adverse perception – indirect though, on pharma’s overall reputation. Such barriers also need to be carefully navigated through.

While moving towards this direction, effective management of consumer perception is also of critical importance. For, reputation is a complex blend of both reality and perception, where perception is believed to contribute around 66 percent, and reality – about 33 percent, in various organizational efforts to gain business reputation.

Changing from a dogmatic to pragmatic approach:

The above area of adverse perceptual impact causing further dents in pharma’s reputation, is understandable, as these are beyond its control, as such. Nonetheless, what is difficult to fathom, why does pharma continue to remain so dogmatic in recreating a make-believe image, that continuously gets negated by its own actions on the ground.

To illustrate this point when I briefly look back, one of the critical themes around which, especially the research-based global drug industry has been trying to gain reputation, over a long period of time, is woven around – ‘innovation’. Concerned pharma players keep trying to gain consumers’ trust and reputation by trying to make them believe that pharma is one of the most innovative industries in the world, thus possibly trustworthy.

The same tradition continues even today. Millions of dollars are being spent through various communication and advocacy campaigns, hoping to drive home this point. Nonetheless, the current reality is that the pharma consumers hardly believe that the industry is particularly innovative today. I discussed that point in my article of July 26, 2017, appeared in this blog.

Therefore, I shall not dwell on that area again. Instead, let me try to arrive at, how is this dogmatic approach going way off the mark from consumers’ expectations, repeatedly. More importantly, why it calls for a rather pragmatic approach from pharma to gain reputation, taking well into consideration – what the patients’ or patient groups’ expectations are from the industry, based on meticulous research findings.

Patients’ recent perception on pharma reputation:

A recent report by ‘PatientView’ – a leading specialist in understanding the patient movement, and its impact on health care, captured perceptions of patient groups on the pharma industry, in this area. The report is titled, ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2016 – The Patient Perspective.’ The phrase ‘corporate reputation’, as defined in the study, is the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups, and was assessed by the following three types of measures:

  • How pharma’s corporate reputation compares with that of seven other healthcare-industry sectors.
  • How pharma’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
  • How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities.

The results of this study are based on a survey conducted between November 2016 to early-February 2017 on 1,463 patient groups; 46+ specialties in 105 countries. 47 pharma companies were assessed on seven indicators of corporate reputation, as follows:

  • Patient centricity
  • Patient information
  • Patient safety
  • Useful products
  • Transparency
  • Integrity
  • Effectiveness of patient-group relationships

47 companies surveyed include names, such as AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck & Co, Merck KgaA, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva, UCB and Valeant.

Some of the key findings of this survey are as follows:

  • In 2016, just 37.9 percent of respondent patient group thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. Whereas 44.7 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.
  • In 2016, only 23 percent of patient groups thought that pharma’s corporate reputation had improved over the previous five years. Whereas 28 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.
  • In 2016 (as in 2015), pharma continued to be ranked 5th out of eight healthcare sectors (ahead only of generics, for-profit, and not-for-profit health insurers).
  • Patient groups thought that pharma’s ability to conduct activities of importance to them declined in 2016. Patient groups were more sceptical in 2016 even about pharma’s ability to innovate, which is an important patient-group measure of confidence in the industry.
  • Regarding the quality of pharma’s innovation across several geographic areas: patient groups in New Zealand expressed the least confidence in pharma’s ability to innovate; and those in Greece, the most.

What should pharma do?

Keeping the above findings in perspective, the consequent question that arises in this area is, what should pharma do to improve its patient centricity, and thereby to gain trust and reputation?

It is interesting to note that pharma companies should ‘consider the cost of drugs’, has featured as one of the top three, in the 14-point plan proposed by the 460+ patient groups in the above study, as follows:

  • Partner with patient groups
  • Provide more or better patient services
  • Consider the cost of drugs
  • Try to understand patients
  • Develop better medicines
  • Be transparent
  • Involve patient groups in the design
  • Look at continuity of care
  • Listen to patients
  • Help patients in a holistic way
  • Increase participation in clinical trials
  • Offer training
  • Concentrate on safety
  • Tailor services to individual patients

Conclusion:

Thus, the bottom line is, among various stakeholders, patients and patient groups, play a critical role in pharma to gain reputation. Winning their trust is widely considered as the substratum to get this process rolling, effectively. In that sense, pharma players individually, and the pharma industry collectively, need to have innovative, and game changing strategic plans to win the patients’ trust, for a long-term gain in reputation.

Repeatedly trying to communicate that life-changing medicines exist, because of pharma’s years of efforts in painstaking research and development that are hugely expensive and time-intensive, doesn’t seem to be working much, any longer. Patients are increasingly expecting improved access to drugs for various treatments, coupled with related value added services, from the drug players.

In such a scenario, many top drug companies, on the other hand, publicly express: ‘we are patient-centric’. This creates a logjam, as it were, to take pharma’s ‘patient centric’ endeavors from this point to where the patients’ expectations really are. Thus, I reckon, it’s time for pharma to deeply introspect and act on what Socrates had advised a long time ago, ‘‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

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.

 

Relevance Of Outliers In Pharma Sales Forecasting

Posted on by
Reply

Just like any other predictions or forecasting – on a broader sense, pharma sales forecasts are also a tough and tedious task. Availability of many sophisticated state of the art digital software tools and techniques, notwithstanding.

In an article, published in the July-August 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR), Paul Saffo – a forecaster based in Silicon Valley, California – expressed this point succinctly with a nice example. He said: “Prediction is possible only in a world in which events are preordained and no amount of action in the present can influence future outcomes. That world is the stuff of myth and superstition. The one we inhabit is quite different—little is certain, nothing is preordained, and what we do in the present affects how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.”

At this point, I would respectfully prefer to slightly alter the last sentence of the quote as, “….and what we and (others) do in the present affects how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.”  This is important to me, as we may have control over what ‘we do’, but may not have much control over what ‘others do’ in the present, which may also greatly affect how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.

However, the author distinctly differentiates predictions from forecasts by clarifying that prediction is concerned with future certainty, whereas forecasting looks at how hidden currents in the present, signal possible changes in direction for companies. Thus, unlike a prediction, a forecast must have a logic to it and the forecasters must be able to articulate and defend that logic.

My own hands-on experience in the domestic, as well as the pharma industry of the western world tells me that the actual sales and profit may seldom be a replica of the respective forecasts for the same. However. a reasonably good forecast is the one that is much closer to reality.

That said, it is important to note in the same context, what the above HBR paper has said, in this regard. The author underscores whether a specific forecast actually turns out to be accurate is only part of the picture. Citing a nice simile it says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Thus, the forecaster’s one of the key tasks is to map uncertainty where our actions in the present influence the future. Uncertainty is an opportunity, he articulates.

In this article, I shall try to explore the possible reasons why, despite the availability of so many sophisticated digital software tools and techniques, the reality in most cases is much different. In a significant number of occasions, the actual sales is much less than the sales forecasts.

The criticality of forecast accuracy:

As we know, sales forecasts today are generally data pooling or consensus forecasts for better buying-in by the implementer, as there exists a critical need, just not to deliver closer to the forecasts, but to exceed the same, especially for the new products.

One will get the flavor of criticality of sales forecast accuracy from the McKinsey research study titled, “The Secret of Successful Drug Launches”, published in March 2014. It found that two-thirds of the sample group of drug-launches failed meeting pre-launch sales forecasts in their very first year on the market. The sample for this study comprised 210 new drugs launched between 2003 and 2009, for which McKinsey gathered necessary consensus-forecasts data for launch from EvaluatePharma. Three important findings of this EvaluatePharma – McKinsey analysis may be summed up, as follows:

1. Actual sales during the first year of launch as % of sales forecast one year before launch:

  • % of launches below forecasts: 66
  • % of launches on or near forecasts: 8
  • % of launches exceeded the forecast: 26

2. Of launches that exceeded the forecasts in the year 1:

  • 65% continued to do so in the year 2
  • 53% of those exceeded forecasts in the year 3

3. Of launches that lagged forecasts in the year 1:

  • 78%continued to do so in the year 2
  • 70% of those lagged forecasts in the year 3

In an eloquent way, this study highlights the benefits of sales forecast accuracy for a sustainable performance excellence, especially with new products.

Wide room for improvement in forecasts:

Although, my focus in this article will be on sales revenue forecasts, there is a wide room for improvement in other related forecasts, as well.

Another interesting article titled, “Outsmart Your Own Biases”, appeared in the May 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review revealed, when researchers asked hundreds of chief financial officers from a variety of industries to forecast yearly returns for the S&P 500 over a nine-year horizon, their 80% ranges were right only one-third of the time. The authors considered it as a terribly low rate of accuracy for a group of executives with presumably vast knowledge of the economy of the United States.

The study further indicated that projections are even further off the mark when people assess their own plans, partly because their desire to succeed skews their interpretation of the data.

Such a scenario prompts the need of yet greater application of a mix of creative and analytical minds to ferret out the reasons behind general inaccuracy in forecasting, which incidentally does not mean setting out an easy target, and then exceeding it. Right sales forecasting with high accuracy, is expected to make use of every potential future opportunity in the best possible way to achieve continuous excellence in performance.

Analyzing outliers in consensus forecasting:

A recent paper deliberated on this area backed by some relevant case studies to capture the relevance of outliers in consensus-forecasting for the pharma companies.

The 2017 study of EvaluatePharma, titled “The Value of Outliers in Consensus Forecasting” flagged some important points. It also asked, are we questioning the level of agreement or disagreement, while leveraging each estimate for consensus forecasts?

However, in this article, I shall highlight only on the relevance of outliers in pharma sales forecasting, and keep aside the question on the level of agreement or disagreement while leveraging each estimate for consensus forecasts, for another discussion.

As many of us have experienced, there will always be outliers in most of the consensus forecasting process, which are usually removed while arriving at the final numbers. Nonetheless, this article brings on to the table the importance of outliers who, on the contrary, can provide an insightful view, especially in those areas with more upside potential and downside risk.

Just to recapitulate, an outlier is a data point that lies at an abnormal distance from other data points, which in this case is data related to consensus-forecast. This divergence can be either very high or very low. Which is why, outlier removal is a common practice, as it is considered as bad data by many. Nonetheless, before singling out and elimination of outliers, it will be a good idea to analyze and understand the exact reasons behind the same.

The above paper also indicates that combining consensus forecasts with the analysis of outliers will enable the pharma companies:

  • To better balancing risk and upside
  • Improving accuracy of new product selection

Conclusion:

Just as in any business, for pharmaceuticals too, sales forecasting holds a crucial importance, having a far-reaching impact. This is primarily because, many critical decisions are taken based on sales forecasts, such as internal revenue and capital budgeting, financial planning, deployment of sales, marketing and other operational resources, including supply chain, to name a few. All these, individually and collectively, necessitate that sales forecasts, especially for new products, should be of high accuracy.

One of the recent trends in this area, is pooling or consensus forecasts, though, it is not free from some criticism. The recent EvaluatePharma study, as quoted above, clearly demonstrates that this approach helps increase forecast accuracy, especially in situations with a high degree of uncertainty.

The upper and lower bounds of consensus known as outliers, may often identify potential upside or downside events that could significantly affect the outlook of a pharmaceutical company.

With this perspective, it now clearly emerges that in-depth analysis of outliers is of high relevance to improve accuracy of pharma sales forecasts, in a significant way.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the world’s richest and most powerful American pharma associations, having an equally strong indirect global presence, apparently, expects all concerned to give an emphatic affirmative answer to the above question.

Vindication of this thought gets reflected in the self-description of the association claiming, it “represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies. Our members are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. New medicines are an integral part of the health care system, providing doctors and patients with safe and effective treatment options, and improving quality of life.”

Nearer home, the reverberations of the same could be felt when Novartis lost the Glivec patent case in the Supreme Court of India. At that time, the Wall Street Journal quoted Eric Althoff – a spokesman of Novartis saying, “If innovation is rewarded, there is a clear business case to move forward. If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.”

In sync with this self-belief, all pharma trade associations, located across the world, intensely lobbying for the ‘research-based’ global drug companies, together with their individual members, also expect the stakeholders to believe, as if, innovation is the middle name of the pharma industry. This process continues unabated, though, is expensive, and costing millions of dollars every year.

This core intent of doing so, may well be a statement of fact to some, and a contentious one to many, for various reasons. Be that as it may, as the proof of the pudding lies in eating, it is worth ferreting out how successful these efforts have been with the consumers of pharma products. Do they generally buy this concept, and if not, why?

In this article, I shall try to explore the overall scenario in this area.

A recent study:

A recent study results released on June 12, 2017, based on a survey on this issue, and that too conducted in the homeland of pharma innovation – America, brings to the fore a startling fact. In the absence of any other, better and more credible recent study, I shall draw upon some relevant facts from this report.

Klick Health Health – reportedly one of the world’s largest independent health marketing and commercialization agency headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, conducted this survey. As the agency reports, this is an online omnibus survey, conducted between May 19 and May 21, 2017 among 1,012 randomly selected American adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent. To ensure that the findings are representative of the entire adult population of America, the results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender, region, and ethnicity. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the report says.

Consumer perception on pharma innovation:

Some of the major findings on consumers’ perception regarding the innovativeness of the pharma industry, are as follows:

  • Consumers do not believe that healthcare-related industries are particularly innovative today.
  • Only 17 percent of consumers polled perceive pharmaceuticals & biotech, health & wellness, and hospital sectors as the most innovative, ranking in the 4th place after consumer electronics (72 percent), telecommunications (87 percent), and media & entertainment (90 percent).
  • Among health-related industries, respondents ranked health & wellness first in terms of the industry that should be the most innovative (17 percent), quickly followed by pharmaceuticals & biotech (14 percent), and hospitals (9 percent) trailing behind the top 5.

Some other interesting findings:

On innovation and technology, general consumer perceptions are as follows:

  • 91 percent of consumers believe that innovation will positively impact health care over the next five years.
  • 90 percent of respondents say that technology will have a positive impact on their health in the future.
  • 70 percent believe that technology will have the biggest impact in helping them personally manage their own health.nology
  • Top five technologies predicted to have the biggest impact on people’s health in next five years:

-       Health and fitness wearables (21 percent)

-       Robotics (15 percent)

-       3D printing (10 percent)

-       Smart home devices (9 percent)

-       Artificial intelligence (9 percent)

  • The survey reflects a shift in the consumer mindset from being passive recipients of healthcare to more active and autonomous individuals who appear eager to try more creative and innovative approaches to managing their health.

Another study reflects a similar perception:

Similar negative perception gets reflected in the January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, which reported only nine percent of American consumers believe that pharma and biotechnology drug makers put patients over profits.

January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, while comparing consumers’ perception among different entities in the health care space, found that only insurers have an overall worse reputation than the pharmaceutical industry.

An important area worth exploring:

When consumers do not perceive the pharma industry as innovative as the sector wishes to be, what could possibly be its reasons? While that could be a part of another discussion, it is worth exploring another important area in this article – Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

This is yet another interesting question. A research article titled “Many CEOs Aren’t Breakthrough Innovators (and That’s OK)”, published in the Harvard Business Review on September 04, 2015 discussed this issue, well-supported by some interesting research data, while coming to a logical conclusion.

The authors indicated that they looked at the background and performance data of 297 CEOs leading the largest companies in three different industries which are widely regarded as innovative: pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and fashion retail. The data captured a 20-year period, from 1995 to 2014 (and includes both current and former CEOs).

The study highlighted, though innovation is widely regarded as important to long-term business performance, CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies, are more likely to have a background as company lawyers, salespeople, or finance managers than in medicine or pharma R&D.

A direct comparison of the same, with the other two industries in the study, which are also widely regarded as innovative, vindicates the above point, as illustrated in the following table:

CEO Background

Pharma   (%)    (85 CEOs)

High-tech (%)     (137 CEOs)

Fashion Retail (%)      (75 CEOs)
Specialist background to lead innovation

26

61

60
Industry experience in other management function, e.g. Sales, Production

48

33

29
Background in support functions, e.g. Finance, Legal

26

6

11

In this study, the researchers found that, for pharmaceutical industry CEOs, there is a statistically significant relationship between a CEO’s specialist background and the firm’s performance. A specialist background to lead innovation is worth a 4 percent better shareholder return every year for 20 years, compared to other pharma CEOs in their sample.

Innovations are mostly ‘me-too’, so is the consumer perception:

As the above article reiterates, shorter patent lives of prescription drugs mean companies must continually look for not just any new drugs to fill their pipelines, but more often with breakthrough ones, which are significantly better than what’s already on the market.

Further, the article titled “How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, which is linked to publications on ResearchGate, also indicates, over more than two decades, therapeutics discoveries of pharmaceutical companies more often than not yielded compounds that are only marginally better than existing therapies, rather than breakthrough molecules.

This could well be another contributing factor in the general ‘not so positive’ consumer perception about the global pharma industry, today.

Conclusion:

There may not be a hell of a lot of argument on the fact that the drug industry has a consumer perception problem today. Even the August 2016 Gallup Poll rated pharma as one of the worst industries in the current times.

Is the collective internal effort of continuously trying to associate innovation with the global pharma industry, the right answer for the same? May be, may well be not, though, the global drug industry is incessantly trying to project, as if ‘innovation’ is its middle name, as it were.

Is it working? The obvious answer is available from various recent research studies, as enumerated above. Still, in January 2017, reportedly to rescue the image of its member companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, unveiled a campaign,  again basically focusing on innovation, called “Go Boldly.” It reportedly tries to communicate that the pharma industry develops life-saving medicines, and that they help keep medical costs down, because new medicines often reduce hospital stays and chronic illnesses. Is the campaign cost intensive? – Of course, yes. Is it productive? – possibly not. But who cares?

Be that as it may, today’s health care consumers perceive the global pharma industry neither as innovative nor caring, despite all its efforts. Thus, there is an important need for the pharma players to effectively bridge this perception gap in different and more innovative ways.

However, all that one can witness today, is the global pharma industry charting the same beaten path, yet again – with no further innovation in its communication – neither in content nor in its delivery platforms. That said, only time will be able to tell, whether similar efforts, renewed again and again, can reverse the consumer perception on pharma – making it seen as highly innovative and a caring industry for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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