Tag Archives: Drug

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

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.

 

 

 

 

Deadly Climate Change Impact On Human Health: How Prepared Is India?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not uncommon to find many people, including heads of countries, expressing their serious apprehensions in public, about the scary impact of climate change. Just the last year, on November 26, 2018, BBC News captured one of such incidences with the astonishing headline: “Trump on climate change report: I don’t believe it.” The findings of this report have underscored, ‘unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy.’

Similarly, a few years ago, on September 05, 2014,CNN News 18 quoted Prime Minister Narendra Modi as saying: “Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed,’ while answering to a question on climate change. Regardless of the outcome of any split-hair analysis of the rationale behind such statements from the world leaders, such public discourse could trivialize the possible catastrophic impact of climate change on the planet earth.

Be that as it may, that climate change is taking place, carrying all its ill-effects, is real now, without any ambiguity. There is also widespread consensus among the members of the United Nations that ‘the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented during post hunter-gatherer human existence.’

It is worth noting that way back in 2001, the ‘Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, further recorded: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to be attributable to human activities”, most importantly the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

Several ‘International Agreements’, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change - all supported by hard scientific data, have called for immediate, quantifiable measures in each country to address the ‘wide-ranging environmental threats, such as ozone depletion and long-range transboundary air pollution.’ Against this backdrop, in this article, I shall focus on the dreadful effect of climate change in the proliferation of a wide-variety of ailments, especially infectious diseases, within a few decades. While doing so, let me first have a quick recap on what is ‘Climate Change’, in a simple language.

Climate Change – a quick recap:

According to the United Nations, ‘Climate Change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly.’

It’s important to note, although, the planet Earth’s climate is constantly changing over geological time, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation or variance, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming, as they emit more greenhouse gases. As these gases get trapped in the atmosphere, more heat is retained that has serious implications for the stability of the planet’s climate, even impacting human health with grave consequences. The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has also warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, waterborne disease and malnutrition.

Its impact human health:

The direct and indirect impact of climate change on human health is profound. Before I go into the specifics, let me indicate some of the direct ones, as captured by the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHanGE), University of Washington. This is sans any charts and maps, unlike the usual practice:

  • Increasing temperatures are causing poor air quality that can affect the heart and worsen cardiovascular disease.
  • Increasing exposure to pollen, molds, and air pollution, all of which can worsen allergies and other lung diseases, such as asthma.
  • Changes in the geographic range of disease-carrying insects, such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas and other similar ones, which can fast spread many tropical ailments, such as dengue fever and malaria to humans.
  • Increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather and climate events can cause, besides many physical illnesses, several kinds of mental illnesses – increasing both morbidity and mortality.
  • Frequent flooding events and sea level rise can contaminate water with harmful pathogens and chemicals, potentially causing food-borne and waterborne illnesses.
  • Changing weather patterns affect the quality and quantity of nutritious foods with increasing incidence of under-nutrition and micronutrient deficiencies.
  • Additional stress placed on hospital and public health systems, could limit people’s ability to obtain adequate health care during extreme weather events and disease outbreaks.

Most specific and the deadly one:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses,’ clearly flagged that ‘Changes in infectious disease transmission patterns are a likely major consequence of climate change.’

Citing a pertinent analogy to explain the reason, it said: “Humans have known that climatic conditions affect epidemic diseases from long before the role of infectious agents was discovered, late in the nineteenth century. Roman aristocrats retreated to hill resorts each summer to avoid malaria. South Asians learnt early that, in high summer, strongly curried foods were less likely to cause diarrhea.”

Would pharma players convert these problems into opportunities?

Curiously, some pharmaceutical investors are researching to fathom potential business opportunities lying underneath the above problem, especially for vaccines and newer antimicrobials. It’s probably a blessing in disguise not just for the drug companies, but also for the general public, considering the following two issues, prevailing in the current scenario:

  • According to W.H.O, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is an increasingly serious threat to global public health. It threatens the effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi, causing the success of even major surgery and cancer chemotherapy seriously compromised.
  • ‘Pharmaceutical companies are backing away from a growing threat that could kill 10 million people a year by 2050’, reported a July 19, 2018 article. This is because, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Profitable Enough for Big Pharma to Make More,’ wrote another article, published in Bloomberg Businessweek, on May 3, 2019.

Interestingly, a recent report analyzed and evaluated how this can be done, and which companies will be benefitted most in that process. 

“Climate change to fetch a big business opportunity for pharma”:

As reported on July 25, 2019, Morgan Stanley told investors that climate change will cause an increased prevalence and rapid spread of infectious diseases that may be a boon for some drug companies with big vaccine portfolios. It also highlighted, between 383 million and 725 million more people may be exposed to Zika, dengue and other diseases by 2050, depending on the pace and severity of global warming.

The analysts estimated, especially 7 pharma companies will be critical to fighting infectious diseases brought on by climate change. According to the research note of thebank, ‘the USD 500 billion infectious disease market could see demand for an added USD 125 billion in new vaccines, or as much as USD 200 billion assuming premium pricing for more complex new treatments.’

The top possible gainers:

Identifying the top possible gainers, Morgan Stanley apprised, vaccine development being more difficult and expensive, companies that are already in that business will have an upper hand.

Hence, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline are expected at the top, given their existing pipelines and manufacturing capacity. Takeda and Merck both have vaccines in the works for dengue fever, one of the diseases that climate change is likely to exacerbate. Janssen and Pfizer are both active in the vaccines market, but would need to establish new research programs to take on tropical diseases. ‘Moderna’ is also in a good position because it has demonstrated a potential pipeline for drugs combating the Zika virus., as Morgan Stanley further elaborated.

Nevertheless, Morgan Stanley isn’t the only bank looking at investment opportunities from climate change, on July 24, 2019, Goldman Sachs also, reportedly, said it was hiring a sustainable-finance group that is looking into issues related to sustainability. Thus, on the positive side, climate change could fetch a big business opportunity for many pharma players, across the world.

600 million people at risk for climate change in India:

On June 24, 2019, a reputed national business news daily of India reported, “600 million people at risk: Climate change may soon turn critical in India.” Against this threat, the current public health care infrastructure in the country, continues to remain fragile, as stated in India’s National Health Profile, 13th Issue.

It also states, the cost of treatment has been on the rise in India and it has led to inequity in access to health care services. Intriguingly, the country spends around 1.02 percent of its GDP towards public health, which has remained static to declining over a long period of time. Although, health insurance is a growing segment, it hasn’t taken off fully. Several measures are needed to improve and expand insurance coverage.

Further, according to the report by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in the US, India is facing shortage of 600,000 doctors and 2 million nurses. This report was widely quoted by the Indian media, on April 14, 2019.

These facts give a perspective on what is India’s level of preparedness to address the critical health issues related to climate change, especially the havoc that the dreaded infectious diseases can cause to so many.

Conclusion:

Astute health policy makers, including a large section of the top political echelon of the country are, apparently, aware of various ill effects of climate change. They also seem to be cognizant that these are likely to accelerate the worsening health problems of the population, including infectious diseases, asthma and other respiratory diseases.

Assuming, new and modern drugs will keep coming to help treat these ailments, do we have a functioning and efficient public health infrastructure to grapple with such issues. What about high out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare for a large section of the population, regardless of Ayushman Bharat?

As the (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses’ recommended, ‘early planning for health is essential to reduce, hopefully avoid, near future and long-term health impacts of global climate change. The optimal solution, however, is in the hands of governments, society and every individual—a commitment to a change in values, to enable a full transition to sustainable development.’

That said, as India is also a signatory to the latest Paris Agreement on Climate Change, can we assume, India will walk the talk to significantly contain its deadly impact on human health? How is India preparing itself to meet this great challenge of Probably it is anybody’s guess, at least, as on date?

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.

Visible, The Green Shoots of Digital Transformation in Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, one gets a mixed feeling about the progress of digital transformation in the pharma industry. This is despite various reports confirming that a number of major initiatives in this field have been taken, especially by Big Pharma, globally. Moreover, these are primarily driven by the company CEOs, as it should be, and adequately backed by heavy investments.

Another recent trend can’t also be wished away, as corporate C-suites find a new breed of leadership – Chief Digital Officers (CDO) as occupants. It has already happened in several top pharma companies. Alongside, one can spot in this milieu, a plethora of private ‘digital trainers’ – wearing interesting titles and offering courses of many types, especially for pharma line managers.

On the flip side, many experts feel that ‘digital transformation of business’ is currently more a buzz in the drug industry than reality. These are, apparently, piecemeal attempts of converting analogue formats to digital, in a number of functional areas to improve operational efficiency of the same process.

Thus, it’s time to go for a reality-check at the ground zero, to ascertain the overall progress of the industry in this area, at least, in the last five years. While doing so, in this article, I shall try to hear the views of the top company CDOs on the nature of the challenge, alongside examine some credible research findings. Let me begin this discussion by looking at where exactly does the pharma industry stand today in this space, as compared to other industries.

A fact-check:

That many players in the drug industry, continue to have no clear digital vision and strategy, was established in the ‘Harvey Nash/KPMG CIO Survey 2018.’ This survey is claimed to be the largest on IT leadership in the world, with almost 4,000 participants across 84 countries, representing over USD 300 bn of IT budget spend.

The report provides a snapshot of the pharma industry in several areas, particularly where the industry’s responses differed significantly from those across other industries. As I go along with my submission, I shall fact-check and quote from this data. Let’s find below the industry response to the following two key questions:

A.‘Does your organization have a clear digital business vision and strategy?’

Industry

Yes (enterprise-wide)

%

Yes (Within business units)                      %

No

%
Pharma

23

28

49
All industries

32

27

41

The second question is even more specific:

B.‘Does your organization have a Chief Digital Officer or someone serving in that capacity?’

Industry

Dedicated CDO

%

Someone else in that role                            %

No

 %
Pharma

4

37

59
All others

11

39

50

That said, let me also acknowledge, enough evidences suggest that a sort of ‘digital warming-up’ has commenced in the industry for some time now.

‘Digital warming-up’ has commenced:

That the process has just begun, was captured in several reports. Let me illustrate the point, citing an example of the article, titled ‘Marketing outside the box’, published in the Pharma Times Magazine of May 2017.

Considering blistering pace of progress and rapid adaptation of digital technology in businesses, it is interesting that a couple of years ago, the above article highlighted exactly what many would articulate even today. The author noted: ‘Think pharmaceutical marketing these days and the buzz words digital, consumer engagement, multichannel, and closed-loop all come to mind.’ Focusing on the possibility to make it happen, sooner, the paper added, ‘There is now a dizzying array of tools, technologies and tactics that can be combined in various permutations to create marketing campaigns unheard of a mere five to 10 years ago.’  Thus, the ‘digital warming-up’ notwithstanding, the key question, I reckon, is, about two years down the line, how many drug companies have started maintaining an enterprise-wide digital business strategy?

A soft target – for rationalization:

To rationalize the leisurely progress of this key initiative, one may possibly choose the soft target and say,drug companies being a part of a highly regulated and tradition-bound industry, are late to fathom the indispensability of digital transformation of business. But this justification is open to many probing questions. One such counter-query could be – in that case, why many constituents of as stringently regulated industry, if not more, – financial services business, including banking, are galloping ahead with digitization?

Even if, the above rationalization is accepted at its face value, the other question won’t also be too easy to answer: Why digitization is not gaining momentum in the pharma industry, as much as it should, particularly as compared to other highly regulated industries? Such probes understandably may not attract too many affirmative answers. However, the crux of this issue was reported in the headline of Fierce Pharma on June 25, 2019 – ‘Pharma’s got its chief digital officers. Now let’s see the results.’

In pursuit of holistic outcomes with digitization:

The August 2015 paper of McKinsey, titled ‘The road to digital success in pharma’, also acknowledged, just as other related one, the drug industry can play a pivotal role in the digital transformation of healthcare – changing lives of many. While pointing out, capturing this opportunity requires identifying the right initiatives, the article cautioned the industry, it needs to run harder ‘to keep pace with changes brought about by digital technology.’

There are indications that some top pharma decision makers have also realized that this change has to happen, sooner – assigning top organizational priority, and demanding sharp focus of all. As I wrote in my article of October 29, 2018, several companies have created a brand-new C-Suite position, to ‘lead the company’s digital efforts across research, discovery and business processes.’

The initiative intensified in the last two years:

According to May 13, 2019 edition of Biopharma Dive, seven of the nearly thirty pharma and biotech companies valued at more than USD 10 billion has named a Chief Digital or Information Officer (CDD/CIO) on their executive committee. Such placements facilitate greater influence for organization-wide changes and signal that they are taking the potential of digital technologies seriously to transform their respective business models.

Interestingly, six of those individuals were appointed to top management within the last two years. This shift comes, as tech companies like Amazon and Apple inch further into medicine, in a different form, though. Taking a cue from this emerging trend, some pharma majors are also merging research and development of new medicines with digital technology and big data. Thus, even CDO responsibilities are going through a curious metamorphosis.

Is CDO position a temporary one?

This question is aptly answered in the 2019 Report on the study of CDOs conducted byStrategy &, PwC’s strategy consulting group. The paper finds, the elevation of CDO at the Corporate Executive Committee or the Board level, ‘reflects the growing recognition that the digital transformation agenda now has strategic importance to most organizations, and that, unless it is driven from the top of the enterprise, it will not have the required momentum to drive business change.’ Overall in business: ‘More than half (54 percent) of CDOs have board-level status today, up from 40 percent in 2016’, the report highlights.

Although, it is construed as a general industry trend today, the report however, captures a clear dissonance. It found that leaders at many companies believe that putting a single person in charge of digital transformation may not be the best approach, as it is an intrinsic strategic priority, across the whole business, where agility becomes critical for survival. Thus, the researchers felt, as digital transformation becomes part of the core business, the next step will possibly be for the CDO to disappear. When it happens, digital transformation will become the responsibility of every member of the executive team of the organization.

Be that as it may, we shall cross that bridge when we come to it. At present,the basic groundswell for digital transformation of the entire business, is created from the C-Suite of the CDO. Thus, let us dwell on the scope of CDO in a pharma company.

Current scope of CDO in a pharma business:

Let me illustrate this point by quoting from the Press Release of Sanofi, dated February 12, 2019, appointing their CDO. It said, the CDO will be responsible for enhancing Sanofi’s strategy to integrate digital technologies and medical science to ultimately improve patient outcomes. His mandate will include scaling up Sanofi’s ongoing portfolio of digital initiatives by developing broad external partnerships, building out internal infrastructures, and exploring new business opportunities for the company in the digital space.

Thus, the role of a CDO is primarily focusing on both - developing a digital health strategy and improve internal capabilities, to effectively use new technologies and advanced analytics to deliver the deliverables, more effectively. As many would know, last year, both Pfizer and Merck announced appointments of CDOs for the first time in the company. In 2017, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) also created similar C-Suite positions.

Now, CDOs will need to prove their value:

Yes. That’s exactly what the Sanofi CDO said in the above Fierce Pharmaarticle – appeared on June 25, 2019. He was forthright in admitting, after a few years, pharma and biotech companies would be ‘kind of pressuring’ CDOs to ask, ‘Well, what have you really achieved? And show me the results. Have you made us more efficient? Have you transformed the way we work? Have you created new business? Have you really given us new tools, new technologies, new drugs which are digitally enhanced? And show me where they are.’

Hence, the pace of digital transformation of companies needs to be much faster now than ever before.

The current status of digitization in pharma:

Since, proof of the pudding is in the eating, let’s get a feel of the company employees in this area from their response to the query from the same ‘Harvey Nash/KPMG CIO Survey 2018.’:

‘Overall, how effective has your organization been in using digital technologies to advance its business strategy?’ 

Industry

Very effective          %

Moderately effective  %

Not/Slightly effective %
Pharma

17

37

36
All others

22

42

46

The above details may not reflect a great progress for the pharma industry in digital transformation. Nevertheless, this space doesn’t remain barren either, not any more. Some signs of progress – some green shoots, I reckon, are indeed discernable.

Conclusion:

As I see it, the need for digital transformation is an existential issue for the pharma industry. No one can afford to let this initiative die. In any case, the technological wave of such dimension, power and relevance for all, will always prevail – getting stronger – as the days pass by.

That said, there isn’t much doubt, either, that many drug companies are finding it challenging to keep pace with the rapid progress of technology, where obsolescence is also equally fast. Some are also facing tough barriers to scale up digital transformation across the organization. The rest seems to be not very sure how and where to start it from.

On the other hand, as I also wrote in my article in this blog on April 08, 2019, fueled by, among others, Internet of Things, the health care environment, including in India, is moving towards a ‘connected healthcare’ regime. This disruptive change will demand the best value offerings from each brand for better patient outcomes.

The good news is, at least, some green shoots of digital transformation in the pharma space are certainly coming up. But its pace needs to be considerably accelerated and now, creating an optimal groundswell – always being on the same page with customers – for path-breaking outcomes.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Continues ‘The Cat And Mouse Game’ In Pharma Business?

Posted on by
Reply

Many are already aware of the critical factors that make generic drugs so important for patients – virtually for all. These don’t just facilitate greater access to health care – offering affordable alternatives to high-priced off-patent innovative drugs. This is as relevant in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), just as in India. Let me illustrate this point with two examples – one from the US and the other from India.

According to US-FDA, ‘9 out of 10 prescriptions filled, are for generic drugs’ in the United states, as off-patent branded generic drugs cost more than their generic equivalents. The US drug regulator explains, ‘Increasing the availability of generic drugs helps to create competition in the marketplace, which then helps to make treatment more affordable and increases access to healthcare for more patients.’

However, unlike the US, there prevails a unique perception difference even within generic drugs – between branded and unbranded generics. The Indian Survey, undertaken to review and analyze various facts on branded and equivalent unbranded generic medicines, found a huge difference in prices between them in the country. Interestingly, as the researchers also noted, although, more consumers want an economical alternative to high priced branded generics, most physicians do not prefer unbranded generic medicines.

There is another important point worth noting regarding India made generic drugs. Although, Indian pharma sector caters to around 40 percent of generic demand in the US, as IBEF reports, many Americans nurture serious apprehensions on the quality of generic drugs manufactured even by India’s top drug companies. 

This is quite similar to apprehension that exists in India between the quality branded and unbranded generic medicines in India. The only difference is – the above perception in India is not based on impartial and credible scientific studies, whereas it is not so in America. The New York Times report, published on May 11, 2019 vindicates this point. It questioned: “Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them? The fake quality-control data, bird infestations and toxic impurities at the overseas plants that could be making your medication.” Incidentally, there aren’t any such large-scale accusations regarding dubious quality of drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. 

On the other hand, big pharma players have long been accused of drug price gouging or price-fixing of life-saving drugs, primarily to maximize earnings by ‘extending’ product patent-life. Curiously, in recent times, even the generic drug players are being accused of following a similar practice. Thus, in this article, I shall explore how generic drug players are also trying to hoodwink measures to bring down the drug price, either through price control or through the encouragement of intense competition – playing a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were, whenever an opportunity comes. If it continues and probably it will, what is the way ahead? Let me begin by recapitulating a historic pace-setting move in the global generic market by an Indian drug player.

A historic pace-setting move by an Indian generic drug player:

Being a major exporter of generic drugs in many developed, developing and even poor countries around the world, India is often termed as ‘the pharmacy of the world.’ That apart, a historical move in this space, by a top domestic player – Cipla, earned global accolades, at the turn of this new millennium. In 2001, Cipla slashed the price of its triple-therapy drug ”cocktails” for HIV-AIDS – being sold by MNCs, ranging from USD 10,000/ USD 15,000 a year to USD 350 a year per patient to a doctors’ group working in Africa.With the generic industry’s focus on a deeper bottom line, the scenario has changed now. Finding ways and means for the price increase, evading both competitive pressure and also drug price control, as in India, has turned into a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were.

Generic drug pricing – ‘a cat and mouse game?’

Pricing pressure, especially for generic drugs, from patients, payers, politicians and governments, is gradually becoming more intense. More the pressure greater is the effort of affected players to come out of it, in any way –akin to a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were. Although, it has recently started in the USA, the same exists in India, since 1970, when the first drug price control was introduced in the country. Intriguingly, in the midst of this toughest ever drug price control, phenomenal rise of almost all top Indian companies, including the top ranked company in the Indian pharma market commenced – from scratch. Nonetheless, to get a feel of how is this game being played out, let me start with the Indian scenario.

How this game is played in India to evade price control:

Instead of taking a deep dive into the history of drug price control in India, let me give a bird’s eye view of a few mechanisms, out of many, used to evade price control, since it commenced. The idea is to give just a feel of how this ‘cat and mouse game’ game pans out, with a few of such examples in a sequential order, since 1970, as much as possible, by:

  • Including price decontrolled molecule in the FDC formulations.
  • Replacing a price-controlled molecule by a similar decontrolled one, keeping the brand name unchanged, when the number of controlled molecules came down.
  • Making a major shift towards selling more of higher-priced decontrolled molecules, jettisoning low priced controlled molecules.
  • Resorting to vigorous campaigns, when the government started encouraging prescription of low-priced generic molecules, to ensure further shift to branded FDC prescriptions, alongside image enhancement of branded generics over equivalent unbranded ones. Its outcome is visible in the above Indian Survey on the image of branded and unbranded generics.

Has Indian pharma industry succeeded in this game?

It appears so and gets reflected in the CAGR of the industry. According to IBEF, “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach US$ 55 billion.” I underscore, this is value growth.

Thus, the point, I reckon, that the government should ponder: How both can happen, at the same time – price control is bringing down drug prices, extending real benefits to patients on the ground, and at the same time the industry is recording an impressive growth rate in value terms?  Whatever it means, let’s now try to explore, how such ‘cat and mouse game’ is being played to increase generic drug prices in the United States.

How similar game is played in the US to increase generic drug price:

On May 10, 2019, international media reported that ‘44 US states announced a lawsuit alleging an anti-competitive conspiracy to artificially inflate prices for more than 100 drugs, some by more than 1,000 percent.’ This lawsuit is based on an investigation involving a number of generic drug companies. The process, which took five-years to complete, accused twenty generic drug players. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, whose parent company is based in Israel was, reportedly, named as the ringleader of the price-fixing. The company raised prices of around 112 generic formulations.

Other companies, reportedly, named in the complaint, include Pfizer, Novartis subsidiary Sandoz, Mylan, and seven Indian drug companies, including Lupin, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Wockhardt, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries (a subsidiary of Sun Pharma) and Glenmark. Some of the 15 senior company executives who were individually named in the lawsuit for their involvementin this alleged “multibillion-dollar fraud ”belong to Teva, Sandoz and Mylan.

The ‘cat and mouse game’ in this case is slightly different. Instead of government price control, the US drug regulator encouraged intense generic competition to bring down the price. When the priced did not come down as expected, the State of Connecticut, reportedly, began investigating select generic drug price increases in July 2014. Subsequently, other states also joined the investigation, and uncovered the reason for prices not coming down.

According to the complaint, between July 2013 and January 2015, Teva significantly raised prices on approximately 112 different generic drugs. Of those 112 different drugs, Teva had colluded with its competitors on at least 86 of them. The complaint noted: “Teva had understandings with its highest quality competitors to lead and follow each other’s price increases, and did so with great frequency and success, resulting in many billions of dollars of harm to the national economy over a period of several years.” In this way, the impact of intense competition on drug prices, was made ineffective.

Not the first time, it was detected:

The 2019 anti-trust lawsuit against the generic drug makers may be ‘the biggest price-fixing scheme in the US history’, but not the first lawsuit of this kind in America. A similar lawsuit for illegal price-fixing against six generic companies, was filed by the states in 2016, as well, which is still being litigated. The 2019 case is a sweeping version of the same and is the result of a much wider investigation. It indicates, instead of taking corrective measures, the ‘cat and mouse game’ still continues. However, almost all the companies have vehemently denied this allegation.

Is this game existential in nature of the business?

One may well argue that such ‘cat and mouse game’ with the government is existential in nature, for the generic drug business. When price control or intense market competition brings down the price to such a level, it becomes a matter of survival of most businesses. There doesn’t seem to remain enough financial interest for them to remain in the market. If and when it happens, causing shortage of cheaper generic drugs, patients’ health interest gets very adversely affected. It also prompts the manufacturers to find a way out for the survival of the business. This is understandable. But it needs to be established, supported by scientific studies.

An off the cuff solution:

A general and off the cuff solution to the above issue would naturally be, there should be a right balance between affordability of most consumers and the business interest of the drug makers. This broad pointer is also right and understandable. But again, no one knows the expected upper limit of the generic drug profit margin for their manufacturers – where hardly any breakthrough and cost-intensive R&D is involved. Equally challenging is to know – below what margin, generic players, by and large, loose interest in this business?

What do some available facts indicate?

According to the year-end report of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil) the total pharma exports from India has been pegged at USD 19.14 billion for 2018-19. This represents a growth of 10.72 per cent over USD 17.28 billion in thelast year. It further reported, “The top 25 export destinations contribute 76.52 per cent of the formulation exports amounting to USD 10.38 billion. Among these, the US continues to be the largest export destination with over 38.62 per cent of the total generic exports to that country at USD 5.24 billion.” Does it mean business as usual, despite ‘price-fixing’ law suits in the US, since 2016?

Similar impression one would probably get from the Indian scenario, as well. Notably, despite price control, which is continuing since last five decades, the growth rate of the Indian pharma market, which is dominated by branded generics, remains very impressive.According to the January 2019 report of IBEF: “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach USD 55 billion.” So also the same game, probably!

Conclusion:

It appears, there is certainly a huge reputation or image crisis for the generic drug industry, as such, due to such alleged delinquencies. However, from the business perspective, the manufacturers are still having enough leeway to move on with similar measures, supported by fresh thinking. At the same time, it seems unlikely to have any form of drug price control in the United States, at least, in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, price pressure due to cut-throat competition could even be more intensive, as it gets reflected even in the US-FDA statements.

Nearer home, the Indian generic drug business has been hit with a double whammy – allegations for dubious drug quality standards, on the one hand, and price manipulation on the other, besides dented reputation and image – widening trust gap with patients and governments.

Moreover, unlike the best export market even for generic drugs – the United States, India has been following some patchy policy measures for health care, as a whole. The drug price control system is one such. Till a holistic policy on health care is put in place for all, backed by an effective monitoring system, The Indian price control system may remain like a ‘maze’, as it were, with several ways to hoodwink it.

Hence, the ‘cat and mouse game’, albeit in a different format, is likely to continue, until one gets caught, or till all concerned puts their act together – putting patients at the center of the core business strategy.

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.

Why D&I Is A Powerful Growth Driver For Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

‘Diverse India’ now needs an ‘inclusive society’, vowed the Prime Minister of India, after his massive electoral win on May 23, 2019. Many may consider a part of it as rhetoric, notwithstanding, as and when the government policy of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) gathers wind on its sail, the realization of its importance would reverberate – even in the corporate world, including the pharma industry, especially in India.

I discussed this subject in my article of June 25, 2018 ,in the context of transforminga pharma company to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization, with implementation D&I within the organization. However, in this article, I shall deliberate, over and above, the current status of D&I in the pharma industry, why most drug companies are still not leveraging it as one of the powerful business growth drivers. While opening this discussion, let me recapitulate what these two words mean to us, and their importance in the drug industry.

Recapitulating D&I:

As there are several, but similar definitions of D&I, I am quoting below just one – from the Ferris State University. It goes, as follows:

  • “Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs.”
  • “Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.”

The relevance and importance of D&I as a corporate growth policy for the drug industry is immense. It will not just, help them recognize and create business policies, based on diversity in people – a wide range of human differences in their consumers or potential consumers. In tandem, it will also help promote, and sustain a sense of belongingness with the society and communities where it operates – their values, beliefs, expectations and desire for a healthy living.

D&I begins within the company, and for the customers:

There are clear indications that many pharma companies are slowly, but surely realizing that for a consistent and sustainable financial performance the whole approach to business needs to undergo a metamorphosis. One such area of transformation, is a sharp focus on effectively satisfying a set of well-defined expectations of both their external and internal customers.

This journey begins with the creation of a Diverse and Inclusive (D&I) workplace. Nevertheless, the key goal remains – meeting expectations of the society where the drug companies operate, including a diverse set of customers – by saving and improving their quality of life, with affordable and accessible medicines.

While talking about diversity to Business Insider on January 10, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley also reiterated, for a future facing employer in an industry, D&I should be a priority corporate strategy – for aggressively modernizing the business.

D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry’:

This has been well-articulated even in the Workforce – a multimedia publication, where it says: D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry, where the workforce needs to be both business savvy and socially empathetic to serve their increasingly diverse communities.’

Quoting another CEO, a different article titled, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the pharma industry’, published in PMLiVE on June 27, 2018, emphasized: ‘The global Biopharma industry is one of the most powerful and important industries today, directly affecting the lives of billions of people around the world on a daily basis. In order to understand and meet the critical unmet medical needs of patients, the industry must represent the population it serves.’

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

“Many successful companies regard D&I as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” This was highlighted in the January 2018 research paper of McKinsey titled, ‘Delivering through Diversity.’

The article further elaborates: ‘D&I is a powerful growth strategy for an organization because it creates ‘a diverse and inclusive employee base – with a range of approaches and perspectives – would be more competitive in a globalized economy.’

Importantly, this research established a statistically significant correlation between greater levels of diversity and inclusion in company leadership and a greater likelihood of outperforming the relevant industry peer group on a key financial performance measure – profitability.

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

That some drug companies are gearing up to adopt this growth strategy, but still there is a lot of ground to cover in this area, gets reflected in the December 2018 ‘Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarking Survey’ of PwC. The survey included 183 corporate respondents from 5 regions and 15 countries. As many healthcare organizations have publicly declared their commitment to D&I, the study wanted to measure how they have translated strategy into execution and what impact it is leaving on the employee experience. The following are some of the key findings

  • While D&I is a stated value or priority area for 68 percent of organizations, only 51 percent of respondents disagree that diversity is a barrier to progression at their respective companies. Thus, ‘Diversity still remains a barrier to progression.’
  • Only 4 percent of healthcare organization’s D&I programs reach the highest level of maturity.
  • D&I program goals are quite varied. For about 38 percent it’s a way to attract and retain talent – 25 percent – a way to comply with legal requirements – 17 percent to achieve business results – 13 percent to enhance the external reputation and 8 percent to respond to customer expectations.
  • Interestingly, in 39 percent of cases there was no D&I program-leader in place, 32 percent cases the person reports to senior executives, 19 percent of cases the responsibility was assigned to staff with non-D&I responsibilities and only in 10 percent of cases – the leader is a peer to C-suite.
  • Only 29 percent leaders are tasked with specific D&I goals.

These may not be the points to cheer about – not yet, nonetheless, the survey findings send a clear signal about the beginning of D&I in the pharma industry.

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

As I said before, D&I is more important in the health care space, especially for drug companies, where the employees across the organization not just be business savvy with patient orientation, but also be inclusive and socially compassionate to benefit the diverse communities.Thus, there are two clear facets, I reckon, around which organizational D&I policies, especially for pharma players, should be formulated, as follows:

  • For employees within the organization.
  • For stakeholders outside the organization – putting patients at the core of the business strategy.

The above PwC survey is on the first one – D&I for employees within the organization. However, a holistic D&I policy requires dovetailing business savviness with a socially empathetic mindset to serve increasingly diverse communities, is even more challenging.

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

To serve increasingly diverse communities, dovetailing business savviness with socially empathetic mindset, appears to be more challenging for the pharma industry, in general. Its manifestations are varied, such as, dented image or its declining reputation – leading to trust deficit with many stakeholders, including patients. Likewise, one of primary causative factors that give rise to such manifestations is considered to be in the drug pricing area.

The current scenario in this area has been captured in a paper titled, ‘Curbing Unfair Drug Prices’, published by The Yale Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP), Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, National Physicians Alliance and Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut. The article unambiguously states, the high cost of prescription drugs is unsustainable, wherever it is. Spending on prescription drugs is increasing, either for different payers, or directly to patients through ‘out of pocket’ expenditure – at a faster pace than any other component of health care spending. Consequently, it is forcing many patients to skip doses of critical medicines, and several others to choose between their health and necessities, like food and rent.

The paper adds: “Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry continues to launch new drugs at exorbitant prices, increase prices of many old drugs without justification, and reap record profits. Evidence has unequivocally shown that high drug prices are not linked to the actual costs of research, development and manufacturing. Instead, inflated drug prices are a result of drug manufacturers’ power to charge whatever price the market will bear. The need for legislative action is urgent.”

One of the most recent examples of such jaw-dropping drug price was reported by Reuters, along with many others, on May 25, 2019 as: “Swiss drug maker Novartis on Friday won U.S. approval for its gene therapy Zolgensma for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), the leading genetic cause of death in infants and priced the one-time treatment at a record $2.125 million.”

That said, achieving this facet of D&I, is not just desirable, but also necessary to gain a sharp and well-differentiated competitive edge in sustainable financial performance. It is noteworthy that to be successful in this area, one of the key requirements is to assign specific accountability for D&I to that individual, where the bucks stop.

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

Yet another article titled, ‘Diversity and Inclusion: A Pharma 50 Perspective’, published in PharmExec on June 23, 2016, asserted that there is little point in tackling diversity without solving for inclusion.

It underlined: ‘Whereas diversity is the hardware bringing different machines together, inclusion is the software that brings the system to life.’ The authors suggested, as many others would: ‘Hiring a chief diversity officer can help, accelerating the process at the highest levels.’

Conclusion:

The good news is, the above McKinsey research study also found: ‘Corporate leaders increasingly accept the business imperative for D&I, and most wonder how to make it work for their firms and support their growth and value creation goals.’ The article reiterated the correlation between D&I and company financial performance. Thus, to effectively leverage this factor, developing a robust corporate D&I strategy aimed at both – the employees and the society, at large, appears to be the right choice.

From this perspective, a diverse and inclusive pool of employees, with varied range of approaches and perspectives are expected to meet both business expectations and the health needs of the society with more innovative ideas. Consequently, this deserves to be an organizational growth strategy, having a sharp competitive edge. It is mainly because, the initiative will uncover newer and unconventional pathways for providing greater access to affordable medicines, to save and improve the quality of many more lives. As the process rolls-out, it will keep gathering critical momentum, with support from all around and, more importantly, the enormous goodwill that the D&I strategy will attract from public, in general.

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.

The Game is Changing: Ensure Better Treatment Outcomes: Leverage Technology

Posted on by
Reply

Today, several pharma players, mostly ‘encouraged’ by many non-pharma tech companies, are trying to gain, at least, a toehold in the digital health care space. It is visible even within the generic drug industry. Such initiatives, as they gain a critical mass, will remold the process of doing – almost everything in the pharma business, catapulting the concerned drug companies to a much higher growth trajectory, as many believe.

This is quite evident from an interview of Fierce Pharma with the senior management of Sandoz – the generic drug arm of Novartis, that was published on May 14, 2019. The honchos said: “We’re looking across the whole value chain to make sure we’re embracing digital and technology wherever we can. So that means from the way that we innovate, to the way that we sell and the way that we operate and do day-to-day business.” The process covers “a whole range of activities from how you use AI and automation, all the way through to prescription digital therapies.”

I discussed about leveraging technology in the pharma space to address many burning issues – both for patients and the pharma industry. One such article, “Focus on Patient Compliance To Boost Sales…And More…”, was published in this blog on May 20, 2019. It establishes that even world-class sales and marketing programs can, at best, ensure higher prescription generations, but can’t prevent over 50 percent revenue loss from those prescriptions, due to patient non-compliance.

Interestingly, the issue of ‘nonadherence to treatment’ is being debated, since several decades. Various conventional measures were suggested and also taken. But the problem still persists in a huge scale, with probably an increasing trend. Thus, fresh measures, preferably by leveraging modern technology, are of high relevance in this area.

In this article, I shall illustrate the above point, with one of the most exciting areas in the digital space – the digital therapeutics. This is a reality today and marching ahead at a much faster pace than many would have anticipated.

Unfolding another disruptive innovation in healthcare:

One of the articles that I wrote on this subject is ‘Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare,’ which highlights a different facet of the same subject. Thus, let me begin today’s discussion with a recapitulation of some important aspects of a drug, particularly the following ones:

  • A large number of patients don’t find many drugs accessible and affordable during the entire course of treatment.
  • Drugs have to be administered orally, systemically or through any other route
  • Alongside effective disease prevention or treatment, many drugs may bother patients with long and short-term side-effects, including serious ones.
  • Treatment outcomes can’t often be easily measured by patients.

These are, of course, known to many, but several questions come up in this area, which also deserve serious answers, such as:

  • Are drugs indispensable for the treatment of all types of disease?
  • Can a holistic disease treatment be made more accessible and affordable with radically different measures?
  • Can the same effectiveness of a drug, if not more, be achieved with no side-effects with a non-drug therapy?
  • Can outcomes be significantly improved following this process, as compared to drugs?

In search of answers to these questions – arrive digital therapeutics:

In search of answers to the above questions, a number of tech savvy whiz kids. dared to chart an uncharted frontier by asking themselves: Is it possible to treat a disease with a software – having no side-effects, but providing better cost effectiveness and treatment outcomes to patients?

Today, with the signs of healthy growth of the seed – sown with the above thoughts, ushers in – yet another game changing pathway for disease treatment. The quest for success of these pathfinders can benefit both – the drug innovators and also the generic players, in equal measure, besides patients. Digital therapeutics is an upshot of this pursuit.

Its ‘purpose’ outlines – why it’s one of the most exciting areas in digital space: 

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance well captures the purpose of digital therapeutics, as, “Improving healthcare quality, outcomes, and value through optimizing the use and integration of digital therapeutics.”

What do digital therapeutics actually do?

There are several, but quite similar descriptions of digital therapeutics. For example, Deloitte described digital therapeutics as software products used in the treatment of medical conditions, enabling patients to take greater control over their care and are focused on delivering clinical outcomes. It also highlights, ‘digital therapeutics are poised to shift medicine’s emphasis from physically dosed treatment regimens to end-to-end disease management based on behavioral change.’

Digital therapeutics offers all positives of a drug and more:

In indications where digital therapy is approved and available, the new approach offers all positive attributes of an equivalent drug, with no side-effect. There isn’t any need of its physical administration to patients, either. Deloitte elucidated this point very aptly: “As software and health care converge to create digital therapeutics, this new breed of life sciences technology is helping to transform patient care and deliver better clinical outcomes.” More importantly, all this can be made available for better compliance and at a cheaper cost in many cases.

For example, according to the article published in the MIT Technology Review on April 07, 2017, carrying the title ‘Can Digital Therapeutics Be as Good as Drugs?’: “Some digital therapeutics are already much cheaper than average drug. At Big Health, people are charged $ 400 a year, or about $ 33 a month to use the insomnia software. The sleeping pill Ambien, by contrast, costs $ 73 for six tablets of shut-eye.”

Two basic types of digital therapeutics:

The Digital Therapeutics Alliance also underscores: “Digital therapeutics rely on high quality software to deliver evidence-based interventions to patients to prevent, manage, or treat disease.” It further elaborates: “They are used independently or in concert with medications, devices, or other therapies to optimize patient care and health outcomes.” In line with this description, the above MIT Technology Review article, as well, classifies digital therapy into two basic categories:

  • For medication replacement
  • For medication augmentation

It also says that the digital therapy for sleep (sleep.io), belongs to the first category, making sleeping pill most often unnecessary and with outcomes better than those of tablets. Whereas, the second category includes various disease specific software apps that improve patient compliance with better self-monitoring, just as co-prescription of drugs.

Nonetheless, the same MIT article gave a nice example of ‘medication augmentation’ with digital therapy. The paper mentioned, Propeller Health – a digital company, has inked a deal with GlaxoSmithKline for a ‘digitally guided therapy’ platform. The technology combines GSK’s asthma medications with Propeller Health made sensors that patients attach with their inhalers to monitor when these are used. Patients who get feedback from the app, end up using medication less often, the study reported.

The first USFDA approved digital therapy:

Let me give one example each of the launch of ‘medication replacement’ and ‘medication augmentation’ digital therapy, although there were other similar announcements.

  • On November 20, 2018, by a media release, Sandoz (Novartis) and Pear Therapeutics announced the commercial availability of reSET – a substance use disorder treatment that was the first software-only digital therapeutic cleared by the US-FDA, for medical prescriptions.
  • Closely followed by the above, on December 21, 2019, Teva Pharmaceutical announced US-FDA approval for its ProAir Digihaler for treatment and prevention of bronchospasm. Scheduled for launch in 2019, it is the first and only digital inhaler with built-in sensors that connects and transmit inhaler usage data to a companion mobile application, providing insights on inhaler use to asthma and COPD patients – for prevention and better treatment of the disease.

Many other projects on digital therapeutics are fast progressing.

Conclusion:

Stressing a key importance of digital therapeutics in chronic disease conditions, McKinsey article of February 2018, titled ‘Digital therapeutics: Preparing for takeoff’, also underlines: ‘Digital therapeutics tend to target conditions that are poorly addressed by the healthcare system today, such as chronic diseases or neurological disorders.’

It also, further, emphasized that digital therapeutics can often deliver treatment more cheaply than traditional therapy, by demonstrating their value in clinical terms. It illustrated the point with US-FDA’s approval for a mobile application that helps treat alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine addiction, well-supported by clinical trial data. The results showed 40 percent of patients using the app abstained for a three-month period, compared with 17.6 percent of those who used standard therapy alone.

I now come back to where I started from. The pharma ball game is changing, and that too at a faster pace.Ensuring and demonstrating better treatment outcomes for patients – both for patented drugs and the generic ones, will increasingly be the cutting-edge to gain market share and grow the business. Thus, leveraging technology to its fullest is no longer just an option for pharma companies. The evolution of digital therapeutics as a game changer, vindicates the point.

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 Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

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.

Is Pharma Communication In Sync With Doctors’ Expectations?

Posted on by
Reply

Not many pharma companies, especially in India, undertake any ongoing data-based analysis to gain insight on expectations and change in behavioral pattern of their customers, particularly doctors and patients. Many developments are taken as obvious, such as, when busy practitioners don’t want to give much time to a medical rep for brand detailing, if not any time, common spontaneous inference remains – ‘they are too busy.’ These responses are mostly without any data backup. Thus, meaningful efforts in finding ‘productive alternatives’ continue to remain elusive.

As making personal calls to some top medical practitioners becoming increasingly difficult, non-personal outreach for them tend to significantly go up. It often happens without any quantifiable assessment of how each of these targeted doctors is responding to even the non-personal outreach of the company.

That this is happening, was captured in a world-wide survey by ZS Associates in 2016. It highlighted: ‘The number of digital and non-personal contacts that the pharmaceutical industry now has with physicians exceeded its number of sales rep visits to doctor offices.’ It is worth repeating, this finding comes from a global survey.

Lack of insight in this area, could give rise to an avoidable disconnect between many pharma company’s core communication strategy, and what individual doctors would like to hear from them and in what way. Unless this issue is addressed sooner, it could be a strong invisible barrier to brands’ success, if not the image, too. Thus, in this article, I shall explore its implication, the key factors driving this trend, and most importantly, how to bridge this gap. Let me start with the well-established trend of increasing volume of non-personal contacts and hasten to add, by ‘non-personal’ I mean situations where a person is not physically present.

Increasing volume of non- personal outreach:  

In these days, personal interaction of medical reps with doctors, despite being traditionally important, is just one of the many channels for delivering requisite content to them. With increasing difficulty in getting top prescribers’ time, for effective brand detailing, many more non-personal channels are fast opening up.

Today, even in the Indian context, more than half of the total outreach volume of many drug companies, especially to such prescribers, are taking place through non-personal promotions. These include activities, such as:

  • Both, general and personalized e-mails
  • Mobile alerts to achieve various different objectives
  • E-detailing
  • Continuing Medical Education (CME)
  • Speaker program with associated arrangements and fees
  • Sponsoring medical events, seminars, symposia
  • Advertising in medical journals

Whereas, a little less than 50 percent of the total outreach by volume, still take place through in-person interactions with medical reps for brand detailing, as studies indicate. Interestingly, for known products, such contacts are often no more than just brand reminders.

The productivity of such calls needs to be measured and quantified, just as what is required for various non-personal channels, including digital – the contact volume of which is fast increasing for several companies. Curiously, despite this prevailing scenario and in some cases, a declining performance trend notwithstanding, higher promotional budgets continue to be available, based on hope and supported by optimistic forecasts.

The key reason attributed to this trend:

The article titled ‘What healthcare professionals want from pharma’, published in Pharma IQ on April 23, 2019 wrote about a key research finding on this subject. It emphasized, ‘only 46 percent of physicians worldwide are “accessible”- defined as meeting with a pharma sales rep in 70 percent of requests in the past year – a figure that has declined from 78 percent in 2008.’

On the same issue, the survey brought out two other important points:

  • 38 percent of physicians restricted MR access, and
  • 18 percent of physicians “severely’’ restricted MR access

The question that follows is, how much doctors’ time is taken by non-personal communication?

Doctors’ time taken by non-personal communication:

The above article also found: ‘These doctors estimate they receive more than 2,800 contacts from pharma reps each year via digital and non-personal marketing channel – contacts that consume an estimated 84 hours per year, or two full work weeks of their time.’ This level of “white noise” makes it imperative to rethink strategies for reaching prescribers, the article added.

What do doctors do with non-personal communication?

In this situation, understanding when doctors open doors to MRs, read promotional emails, commit to speaker events, and engage with other sales and marketing channels could be the difference between gaining market share by delivering a strong customer experience and failing to keep pace with a competitor. This was one of the key findings of ZS Associate’s 2017 Access Monitor study.

Thus, gaining insight on individual customer behavior for personalized customer engagement, would help create a cutting-edge competitive advantage for pharma players. With this acuity, astute pharma marketers would require prioritizing their focus on communication channels and platforms – alongside resource allocation for each.

Current resource allocation:

As reported in the above survey by ZS Associates, while marketing executives and doctors notice the increase in non-personal communications, pharma players, in general continue to allocate around 88 percent of their total sales and marketing budget to the sales force. This is despite non-personal communications – including digital, now comprising 53 percent of the total marketing outreach, as captured in this worldwide survey.

The survey findings do raise a point of caution as it says: ‘If pharma companies continue to increase investment in less expensive digital communications without considering customer preferences, physicians may feel overwhelmed and eventually ignore them.’ Thus, it will be important for drug companies understand doctors’ expectations in this area.

Pharma – doctor communication: Expectations and gaps: 

On the doctors’ front, there are two important developments that pharma marketers should take note of:

  • Core expectation of doctors is much clearer now:  As one of the above studies clearly indicate, the core expectation of all practicing doctors, from both personal and non-personal contacts with the drug companies, is to get the ‘news that they can use’, in their respective medical practices.
  • Availability of multiple expert sources/channels to fetch relevant medical information: The reality today is, medical representatives are no longer the only credible source for many busy practitioners to get useful medical information, not just for the molecule, but also for specific brands. ‘And with more choices, physicians increasingly prefer to learn about products on their own terms,’ as the above worldwide survey points out.

Hence, there exists a gap between how and what type of content busy practitioners expect from pharma companies and how and what the drug companies actually deliver to them. There isn’t an iota of doubt that this gap has to be bridged for making sales and marketing efforts more productive.

It demandsa deep insight into the way doctors gather medical information – based on real-time data analysis. This is critical, considering the role it plays for success in generating increased brand prescription support.

Acquiring insight into the way doctors gather medical information:

There are four key elements, I reckon, to acquiring insight into the way doctors gather medical information:

  • What each high-value medical practitioner considers as ‘the news that he/she can use’ in their practice, which would also help a company to generate increasing brand prescription support? Its answer should be the key driver for targeted content development.
  • How a doctor would prefer to receive it – as a personal or non-personal communication?
  • What would be each such doctor’s most preferred channel or platform to receive this message?
  • How to create an effective and measurable synergy between personal and non-personal communication for each important prescriber?

As too-much, too-frequent and too-many types of communication may often be counterproductive, delivering the right content, on the right platform, through the right channel for each top prescribers, would likely to pave the way for success in this effort.

Real-time monitoring to increase the strike rate is important:

This is relevant for both personal and non-personal communication and would include several areas, such as, after getting appointment of a top specialist, with great difficulty, what results follow after the interview concludes. Or after sending important and even personalized emails, how to monitor whether doctors are opening those, reading and acting upon, as intended.

This is no rocket science. There are ample mechanisms to make it happen. However, it is important to decide first, which of these means would suit a particular company the most, for effective implementation. That said, leveraging modern technology and constantly updating it, is the only way forward, for sure. While the task is difficult, but is certainly achievable – with the optimal mix of right resources and perseverance.

Conclusion:

When the expectation is, to build a strong pharma brand with a long-term success record, the only tool is effective communication of brand-value to target customers – in the right way, leading to tangible value creation for all. The source of communication being respective drug companies, one can be sure that it will be relayed to targeted receivers, such as doctors, patients and other stakeholders. However, none can be too sure whether the receiver will be willing to receive it the way it was planned by the source – and through the same channels.

Like many other industries, pharma customers are also becoming more selective in receiving, accepting and acting on medical communications, according to individual expectations and preferences. Several research studies have confirmed this emerging trend. Simultaneously, it is also getting revealed that most communication of a large number of drug companies are not quite in sync with doctors’ expectations. As a result, return per dollar/rupee spent on such communication is fast declining.

Thus, it’s time for a significant course correction – with a sense of urgency, as discussed above. No doubt, all pharma players have a strategy in place to make their brand communication effective. Nevertheless, what they should also focus on, is to align their communication with doctors’ expectations.

It is, therefore, imperative that pharma communication is made in sync with doctors’ expectations – not based on a couple of interviews with them, as it were, but by analyzing a massive pool of credible data, leveraging modern technology. Otherwise, high value prescribers may keep considering reps visit as ‘noise’ and remain indifferent to such outreach.

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.