Tag Archives: Health

India’s Push for Affordable Mental Health Meds: Triumphs and Challenges in 2025

Posted on by
Reply

In June 2025, a small clinic in rural Ghana celebrated a milestone: it provided affordable antidepressants to 500 patients, thanks to India’s generic sertraline, costing just $2 a month per person. This was unimaginable a decade ago, when branded versions cost $30 – far beyond reach for most. As the world grapples with a mental health crisis, with 1 in 8 people facing disorders like depression or anxiety, India’s role as the “pharmacy of the world” is saving lives. Its affordable generic medications are a beacon of hope for millions in low-income countries. Yet, while India has made remarkable strides, significant hurdles remain.

Since long, I have been deliberating on this growing concern in this Blog. For example, on January 17, 2017, I wrote: ‘Mental Health Problem: A Growing Concern in The Healthcare Space of India’. However, in today’s article, let’s explore what India has achieved, what’s left to do, and why this matters to us all.

India’s Game-Changing Achievements:

India’s ability to deliver mental health medications at a fraction of global prices is nothing short of revolutionary. Supplying 40% of the world’s generic antidepressants and antipsychotics, companies like Cipla and Sun Pharma make drugs like fluoxetine (Prozac’s generic) and risperidone accessible to millions. For example, a month’s supply of fluoxetine costs under $1 in India, compared to $15-$20 in the US or Europe. This affordability transforms lives, like that of Priya, a fictional but representative single mother in rural India, who manages her depression with generic escitalopram for $3 a month, allowing her to work and support her family.

The backbone of this success:

The backbone of this success is India’s 1970 Patents Act, which blocks “evergreening” – minor drug tweaks by big pharma to extend patents and keep prices high. This policy ensures generics hit markets fast, benefiting not just India but countries like Nigeria and Bangladesh. In 2022, during UK-India free trade agreement talks, leaked drafts suggested “data exclusivity” clauses that could delay generics for years. Health policy researcher Kavya Shah, reportedly warned, “Such rules could choke access to mental health drugs.” India’s firm rejection of these clauses in the 2023 FTA ensured that drugs like quetiapine, used for bipolar disorder, remained affordable globally. Another report highlighted – Dr. Kanica Rakhra, an Asia Global Fellow, calls this “a masterstroke for health equity,” cementing India’s role as a global health champion.

India’s recent efforts go beyond generics: 

The 2025 Mental Health Mission, launched with a $300 million budget, has boosted production of psychotropic drugs and trained 10,000 community health workers to identify and treat mental health issues early. Public awareness campaigns, like nationwide ads featuring relatable stories of recovery, are chipping away at stigma. Partnerships with the World Health Organization have also scaled up access to drugs like aripiprazole for schizophrenia, reaching patients in Nepal and South Africa. These steps show India’s commitment to leading the global mental health conversation.

The Challenges India Still Faces:

Despite these triumphs, India’s work is far from done. Domestically, the country’s mental health infrastructure is strained. A 2025 Indian Council of Medical Research study reveals only one psychiatrist for every 130,000 people, leaving millions without specialized care. Over-the-counter sales of psychotropic drugs, often misused due to lax regulation, fuel risks like dependency. For instance, in urban India, easy access to unprescribed benzodiazepines has led to rising misuse cases, a problem the government is yet to tackle effectively.

Globally, trade pressures loom large. The EU’s 2024 imposition of a 15% tariff on Indian pharmaceuticals has raised costs for African nations reliant on India’s generics, making drugs like sertraline less affordable. Ongoing EU-India FTA talks in 2025 still carry risks of stricter intellectual property rules that could limit generic production. Developing new mental health drugs is another hurdle. With global investment in psychotropic medications lagging – only 10 new drugs approved since 2015, per WHO – India’s R&D sector needs more funding to innovate.

Access gaps persist even within India. Rural areas, where 70% of the population lives, often lack pharmacies stocking mental health meds. Take Raj, a fictional farmer in Uttar Pradesh, who travels 50 kilometers to find generic citalopram for his anxiety, only to face stockouts. Scaling up distribution and enforcing stricter regulations on drug sales are critical steps India has yet to fully implement.

Conclusion:

India’s leadership in delivering affordable mental health medications in 2025 is a global triumph, transforming lives from rural Ghana to urban India with generics like sertraline and risperidone. Yet, challenges like strained infrastructure, trade tariffs, and innovation gaps demand action. By strengthening domestic systems and resisting restrictive trade policies, India can solidify its role as a health equity pioneer. Join the movement – share these stories, advocate for access, and use #MentalHealthForAll to amplify India’s promise of hope for a healthier world.

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.

No Compromise: India Protects Patents Act in High-Stakes UK Trade Pact

Posted on by
Reply

India, the “pharmacy of the world,” has long been a lifeline for millions, churning out affordable generic medicines that make healthcare accessible across the Global South. With over $25 billion generic drug industry exporting half its production, India’s commitment to low-cost medicine is a global game-changer. Yet, this role has often pitted it against pharmaceutical giants and developed nations pushing for tighter intellectual property (IP) rules. The India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA), finalized on July 24, 2025, showcases India’s firm stand in safeguarding its generic drug industry while navigating complex trade dynamics. By rejecting patent evergreening and data exclusivity—tactics Big Pharma uses to prolong monopolies—India has struck a bold balance between public health and international trade. This article dives into how India’s resolute stance, as highlighted in a July 29, 2025, Economic Times report, reflects its dedication to affordable healthcare while addressing foreign pressures and trade opportunities.

The Stakes: Evergreening and Data Exclusivity:

Evergreening is a clever ploy: pharmaceutical companies tweak existing drugs—think new dosages or slight formula changes—and secure fresh patents to extend their market control beyond the standard 20 years. These tweaks rarely add meaningful therapeutic value but delay cheaper generics, keeping prices sky-high. Data exclusivity, meanwhile, blocks generic makers from using original clinical trial data for regulatory approval, forcing them to run costly, redundant trials. This stalls generic drug launches, hitting hardest in poorer nations where every dollar counts.

The Economic Times noted on July 29, 2025, that “the India-UK free trade agreement (FTA) does not mandate patent term extensions or data exclusivity, which are two common tools of evergreening of patents, the commerce and industry ministry said Monday, adding that this would protect the interests of the domestic generic drugs industry.” This clarity from the ministry signals India’s triumph in shielding its generic sector from provisions that could favor multinational giants like AstraZeneca or GSK, ensuring medicines remain within reach for millions.

Facing Down Foreign Pressure:

The UK, a hub for pharmaceutical innovation, pushed hard for data exclusivity during FTA talks, echoing demands made by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 2024. These “TRIPS-plus” provisions, which go beyond the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, prioritize innovator companies but threaten India’s ability to supply affordable generics to its 1.4 billion people and countless others globally. An expert quoted in The Economic Times emphasized that “data exclusivity is beyond the provisions of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement under the WTO,” giving India solid ground to push back.

India’s resistance isn’t just about principle—it’s about lives. The country’s generic industry has slashed costs dramatically, like when compulsory licensing in 2012 dropped Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar from $5,500 to $175 a month. By rejecting data exclusivity and preserving Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act, which bars patents for minor drug tweaks unless they significantly improve efficacy, India ensures generics hit the market faster. The commerce ministry’s statement that “India’s patent law provisions on patentability criteria under Section 3(d) remain fully protected” is a clear signal: India won’t bend to foreign advocacy at the expense of public health.

A Global Health Lifeline:

India’s firm stand resonates far beyond its borders. Developing nations rely on its generics to combat diseases like tuberculosis and HIV. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has flagged data exclusivity as a threat to drugs like delamanid, critical for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. In 2022, leaked FTA drafts raised red flags among activists, hinting at provisions that could curb pre-grant patent oppositions or weaken anti-evergreening measures. MSF’s Leena Menghaney warned, “India should stay vigilant and not allow barriers to affordable medicines to be written into FTA negotiations.” The final agreement’s rejection of these provisions proves India listened, cementing its role as a global health champion.

But the fight isn’t one-sided. The UK and other developed nations argue that stronger IP protections fuel innovation, enabling the development of new drugs. Without patents or data exclusivity, they claim, companies might hesitate to invest billions in research. India, however, counters that innovation shouldn’t come at the cost of access. The TRIPS agreement already balances these interests, and India’s generics don’t stop innovation—they democratize its benefits.

Trade Wins Without Compromise:

The FTA isn’t just about medicine; it’s a masterclass in balancing priorities. India secured zero-duty access for over 95% of its agricultural exports to the UK, boosting farmers and traders, while granting duty concessions on British niche products like cranberries and durians, which don’t compete with Indian crops. This give-and-take shows India’s knack for negotiating trade gains without sacrificing its generic industry.

Still, there’s a shadow of concern. Some experts worry the FTA’s focus on voluntary licensing—where generic makers negotiate with patent holders—could weaken compulsory licensing, a TRIPS tool allowing governments to authorize generic production in emergencies. The agreement’s nod to “adequate remuneration” for patent holders raises questions about potential hurdles. While the government insists compulsory licensing rights are untouched, full transparency in the IP chapter’s terms would ease these concerns.

Conclusion:

A Purposeful Advance – Guiding Progress with Balance:

India’s firm stand in the UK FTA is a compelling narrative of principle meeting pragmatism. By blocking evergreening and data exclusivity, India protects not just its citizens but millions worldwide who depend on its generics. Yet, the tension between trade and health equity looms large. Can India keep fending off Big Pharma’s influence while forging global partnerships? The UK FTA suggests it can, blending trade wins with a fierce defense of affordable healthcare.

This isn’t just a policy win—it’s a moral statement. ‘India’s vigilance is critical to keeping medicines accessible’. In a world where healthcare is often a luxury, India’s fight to make it a right is both a challenge to global powers and an inspiration. As more FTAs loom, India’s ability to hold this line will shape not just its future but the health of nations worldwide.

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.

Harness Patients’ Quest For Trusted Information From Cyberspace

Posted on by
Reply

The controversy surrounding patients’ looking for health information online is virtually an ongoing one, for various reasons. Interestingly, it has been continuing at an accelerating pace for a long time. For example: “Eight in ten internet users have looked for health information online, with increased interest in diet, fitness, drugs, health insurance, experimental treatments, and particular doctors and hospitals,” reported Pew Research Center way back on May 17, 2005.

Nearly a couple of decades later, yet another research study, Reuters Events (Pharma & Healthcare) on July 12, 2023, reiterated the same, especially focusing on the role of drug companies in this fast-evolving scenario. It said, “Patients are increasingly having to research their own health needs. Pharmaceutical companies can help fill in information gaps for patients to protect trust in the healthcare sector.”

One may easily brush aside this trend, ascribing it as merely a western phenomenon, but probably at one’s own peril. In this article, therefore, I will discuss this issue against a contemporary Indian backdrop – in search of ways and means to leverage this opportunity through the pharma industry. Let me begin with contemporary Indian examples, as available in the public domain, giving a sense of the ground situation in this space.

Are Indian patients also increasingly trying to get online disease information?

Here below are some examples of recent studies confirming more patients are now seeking disease-related information online, before meeting their doctors:

  • A 2022 study by the Indian Medical Association found that 72% of Indian patients do some research on their condition online before meeting their doctor.
  • A 2023 survey by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry found that 65% of Indian patients believe that it is important to be informed about their condition before meeting their doctor. 
  • A 2023 report by the National Health Portal of India found that the number of visitors to its website seeking information about diseases and conditions has increased by 20% in the past year. 

These are just a few illustrations that reinforce the ascending trend of Indian patients’ seeking out disease related online information, just as in other parts of the world.  

Any benefits to patients’ seeking such information online?

In my view, there are several benefits to patients seeking disease-related information before meeting their doctors, such as:

  • Patients can come to their appointment better prepared. By doing their research ahead of time, patients can come to their appointment with a better understanding of their condition, the different treatment options available, and what to expect. This can help them to make more informed decisions about their care. 
  • Patients can ask better and more relevant questions. By having a good understanding of their condition, patients can ask their doctor more specific and informed questions. This can help them to get the most out of their appointment.
  • Patients can feel more confident and empowered. By being informed about their condition and treatment options, patients can feel more confident and empowered to take control of their own healthcare. 

Is this a healthy trend that deserves to be encouraged?  

From a large number of studies, it appears that the increasing number of patients seeking online health and disease information has both pros and cons.

Pros: 

  • Patients can become more informed about their health and conditions. This can lead to better communication with doctors and more informed decision-making about treatment.
  • Patients can access information from a variety of sources, including medical websites, patient support groups, and social media. This can be especially helpful for patients with rare or complex conditions. 
  • Patients can find information that is tailored to their specific needs and interests. For example, they can find information about their condition in their native language or about treatment options that are available in their area. 

Cons:

  • The quality of online health information can vary widely. Some websites are more reliable than others, and it can be difficult for patients to assess the credibility of the information they find online. 
  • Patients may misinterpret information they find online or apply it to their own situation incorrectly. This can lead to anxiety, confusion, and even harmful health decisions.
  • Patients may delay seeking medical attention if they are self-treating based on online information. This can be dangerous, especially for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions. 

Overall, the pros of patients seeking online health and disease information outweigh the cons. However, it is important for patients to be aware of the potential risks and to take steps to ensure that they are getting accurate and reliable information.

Points to consider for patients who are seeking online health and disease information:

  • Use reputable sources, such as websites from government agencies, medical organizations, and universities. Here pharma companies can also play a very meaningful role. In this context, I also wrote an article on December 17, 2018 titled - Rewriting Pharma Strategy For ‘Doctor Google’ Era.
  • Be critical of the information you find online and don’t take it all at face value. Check multiple sources and talk to your doctor to confirm what you’ve read. 
  • Don’t use online information to self-diagnose or self-treat. If you have any concerns about your health, see a doctor. 
  • Patients can also talk to their doctor about how to use online health information safely and effectively. 

Role of pharma companies in this area:

As I mentioned above, pharmaceutical companies can play an important role in helping patients get credible online information on healthcare and disease information. The following are some of the many things they can do:

  • Create and maintain high-quality websites and social media pages that provide accurate and understandable information about diseases and conditions, treatment options, and clinical trials. These websites and pages should be easy to navigate and should be updated regularly with new information. 
  • Partner with other organizations, such as patient advocacy groups and medical associations, to develop and distribute educational materials about diseases and conditions. These materials can be made available online and offline.
  • Support research on how to best communicate health information to patients. This research can help pharmaceutical companies develop more effective ways to reach patients with credible information. 

Some global and Indian examples:

1. Some recent global examples of pharmaceutical companies taking steps to help patients get credible online information on healthcare and disease information:

  • Pfizer: In 2022, Pfizer launched a new website called “Pfizer Rx Path” that provides patients with information about their medications, including how to take them, potential side effects, and interactions with other medications. The website also includes a tool that allows patients to search for clinical trials for their condition. 
  • Novartis: In 2023, Novartis launched a new social media campaign called “#NovartisAnswers” that aims to provide patients with answers to their questions about diseases and conditions, treatment options, and more. The campaign features a series of videos and blog posts that are created in collaboration with medical experts. 
  • GlaxoSmithKline: In 2023, GlaxoSmithKline partnered with the patient advocacy group “Parkinson’s UK” to develop a new educational website about Parkinson’s disease. The website provides patients with information about the disease, its symptoms, and treatment options. It also includes a forum where patients can connect and share their experiences. 

By taking these steps, pharmaceutical companies can play an important role in improving patient health outcomes.

2. Some recent Indian examples of domestic pharmaceutical companies taking steps to help patients get credible online information on healthcare and disease information: 

  • Sun Pharmaceutical Industries: In 2022, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries launched a new website called “Sun Pharma Health” that provides patients with information about a variety of diseases and conditions, including COVID-19, diabetes, and cancer. The website also includes a section on “Patient Resources” that provides patients with tips on how to manage their health and medications.
  • Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories: In 2023, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories launched a new social media campaign called “Dr. Reddy’s Health Talk” that aims to provide patients with answers to their questions about diseases and conditions, treatment options, and more. The campaign features a series of videos and blog posts that are created in collaboration with medical experts. 
  • Cipla: In 2023, Cipla partnered with the patient advocacy group “Diabetes India” to develop a new educational website about diabetes. The website provides patients with information about the disease, its symptoms, and treatment options. It also includes a section on “Living with Diabetes” that provides patients with tips on how to manage their diabetes and live a healthy life. 

By taking these steps, Indian pharmaceutical companies can also play a very important role in improving patient health outcomes in India.

In addition to the above examples, many Indian drug companies are using social media platforms like X (Twitter) and Facebook to educate patients about diseases and conditions. They are also partnering with doctors and other healthcare professionals to create informative content about healthcare. For example, in 2022, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) launched a campaign called “IPA Health Talk” on Twitter. The campaign aims to provide patients with accurate and timely information about a variety of health topics. The IPA also partners with doctors and other healthcare professionals to create and share informative content about healthcare on its social media channels. 

These initiatives by Indian pharmaceutical companies are expected to help improve access to credible information on healthcare and disease for patients in India. Such endeavors are now well poised to increase manifold in the years ahead.

Conclusion:

Patients’ quest for trusted information from cyberspace is valuable because it can lead to better health outcomes. By having access to information about their conditions, treatment options, and clinical trials, patients can make more informed decisions about their healthcare. They can also become more empowered to advocate for themselves and to get the care they need.

However, it is important for patients to be aware of the potential risks of seeking health information online. The quality and accuracy of this information can vary widely, and it can be difficult for patients to assess the credibility of the information they find online. Patients should also be careful not to misinterpret information or to delay seeking medical attention if they are self-treating based on online information. 

Overall, the value of patients’ quest for trusted information from cyberspace outweighs the risks. By being informed and critical of the information they find online, patients can use cyberspace to improve their health and well-being.

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 And How To Be In-Sync With Gen Z As Pharma Paradigm Shifts?

Posted on by
Reply

As science and technology, across the world, are progressing at a scorching pace – Covid-19 pandemic notwithstanding, today’s generations are growing up tech savvy – more than ever before. The trend will keep going north faster and with a steeper gradient. This is being driven by transforming social and economic environments – necessitating quicker solutions to any needs, problems, and expectations.

The current signals, as underscored by an article appeared in the Abbott Website on November 19, 2019: ‘Generation Z’s relationship with technology will also influence how the group relates to healthcare.’ Thus, it’s no secret that millennials approach their health care in drastically different ways than members of the Silent Generation, baby boomers or Gen Z, the article added.

Which is why, gradually shifting paradigm of the pharma industry would also eventually create a brand new one – with the Gen Z population growing at a faster pace. From the above perspective, in today’s article, I shall focus on the importance of this shifting paradigm, especially from the pharma industry perspective, including India.

Expectations and experience of Gen Z are contrasting:

Let me start with the definition of Gen Z. In January 2019, Pew Research defined Gen Z as anyone born after1996, just as ‘anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 23 to 38 in 2019) is considered a Millennial.’ Gen Z grew up with technology, the internet, and social media. Moreover, according to another study of Pew Research, published on May 14, 2020, Gen Z is growing up having experienced catastrophic disruptions in almost all spheres of life and livelihoods, triggered by Covid-19 pandemic. It further ascertained, ‘the oldest Gen Zers have been particularly hard hit in the early weeks and months of the Coronavirus crisis.’

Thus, I reckon, the experience and expectations of many of such Gen Z from business and overall environment around – are quite different from earlier generations. More importantly, they will also have a strong influence on younger ones. Hence, the expected transformation would be much broader than what is currently visible today on the ground.

Some core characteristics of Gen X from pharma business perspective:

Various studies have captured the core characteristics of Gen Z, some of which are very relevant to pharma industry and are worth taking note of – for excellence in business performance. These include the followings:

Digital natives:

As McKinsey & Company highlighted in an article, published on November 12, 2018 that Gen Z is the first generation of true digital natives, and they are expanding. Whereas Millennials were regarded as ‘digital pioneers,’ who bore wit­ness to the explo­sion of tech­nol­o­gy and social media, Gen Z populations are born into a world of peak tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion. In that environment infor­ma­tion is imme­di­ate­ly acces­si­ble and social media becoming increas­ing­ly ubiquitous – endorses another study by the Casey Foundation with its own findings on the core characteristics of Gen Z.

Financial minded:

Finan­cial mind­ed­ness is anoth­er core char­ac­ter­is­tic of Gen­er­a­tion Z for several reasons. A major one being, as discussed – many of them grew up witnessing unprecedented impact on lives and livelihoods caused by Covid-19 pandemic. Several other studies, like the one published recently by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, indicates that millennials and Gen Z are especially sensitive to healthcare costs.

Shrewd consumers and cost-value conscious:

Gen Z show characteristics of shrewd consumers and are also cost-value conscious. Being tech savvy, they are more influenced by fast-expanding digital, world and would like to make well-informed purchasing decisions after evaluating a range of options – both for products and services. They tend to be more influenced by the experience of real-life users, rather than a celebrity endorsement and val­ue per­son­al­ized prod­ucts.

Gen Z to herald metamorphosis of future healthcare:

That it is happening gets retreated in the caption of the Fierce Healthcare article of June 16, 2020 – ‘Industry Voices -Generation Z is a game changer for healthcare.’ It emphasized, ‘Generation Z – are likely to turn the health industry on its head with their unique expectations for how healthcare should be delivered.’

Convenience is such a paramount for Gen Z that they are often willing to forgo a personal relationship with their healthcare provider. Besides, they will come to their physician and provider armed with data, information, and knowledge, unlike the past generations. Consequently, the danger for providers is, if Gen Z doesn’t get that desired convenience, they’ll go elsewhere, the article says. Simultaneously, ‘they also want a trusted adviser who can guide them toward holistic health and wellness.’ Thus, delivering patient-centric care, capitalizing on real-world data and automated care experiences, will be key to the transformative process of healthcare.

A recent survey also vindicates that the transformation has begun:

A recent Accenture healthcare consumer survey reiterated: “The new healthcare consumer is here.” The study clearly signaled a paradigm shift in this space spearheaded by millennials and Gen Z. Some of the survey findings encompass the following areas:

  • This group of healthcare consumer expectations for convenience, affordability and quality are redefining how they engage at each stage of care.
  • They are most dissatisfied with health care’s status quo and more willing to try non-traditional services, such as, virtual care and retail walk-in clinics, which are gaining in popularity and use with them.
  • With greater health care needs, they will increasingly look for services to satisfy their expectations for effectiveness, convenience, efficiency, and transparency.
  • With millennials and Gen Z to become the largest generation in not-too-distant future, they hold the most power to influence future healthcare models.

Some pharma players are tracking Gen Z and the changing paradigm:

Some global majors, such as Abbott, are also writing about it in their website Abbott.com. The Company has noted some of these changes, as follows:

  • Generation Z’s relationship with technology will influence how the group relates to healthcare. While growing up in a fully connected world, they ‘are less likely to have primary care providers and are more likely to use apps for scheduling, viewing medical records and paying bills.’ They are also more receptive to telehealth visits and connected healthcare than previous generations.
  • With the wait times for an appointment with a doctor growing longer, Gen X populations are more likely to use walk-in clinics or opt for urgent care centers which are more convenient.
  • Self-service and convenience play into Gen Z’s interactions with doctor’s and the industry as a whole. They prefer email, texting, and apps to manage their appointments or communications with doctors. Finding ways to communicate with this younger generation in their preferred modes, can help keep them engaged with the industry.
  • Millennials and Gen Z populations are most likely to use a wearable device. They typically reach out to friends or online communities to ask about a particular health condition before speaking with a doctor. Although they aren’t the groups using the more healthcare services, millennials and members of Gen Z are showing what the health industry needs to do to provide the best care.

Size of Gen Z population in India:

According to EY Gen Z survey, released on November 04, 2021, the next decade will be shaped by the maturation of Gen Z, the largest generational cohort in history, where India stands out with a population that includes 375 million people or 27% of the total population in Gen Z. Besides, the survey also underscores the importance of Gen Z in the shifting paradigm of market dynamics for the pharma industry, as well.

Conclusion:

Currently, healthcare industry, in general, and most drug companies, in particular -especially, in India, don’t seem to nurture the fast-growing population of Gen Z with a customer engagement strategy that they can relate to. What these players are currently marketing is mostly aimed at traditional customers, and who still form the majority.

Exploring these evolving changes, I wrote an article in this blog, on November 07, 2016. This was titled ‘Millennial Generation Doctors And Patients: Changing Mindset, Aspirations, And Expectations.’ However, the unprecedented impact of Covid-19 pandemic, alongside rapid advancement and adaptation of digital technology, tools, and platforms, has expedited this process.Apace with these changes the pharma paradigm is also shifting, at a much faster pace than ever before. Which is why, I reckon, it’s important for the entire health care industry in India to be in-sync with Gen Z expectations and engage them, accordingly.

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.

 

Deliver The Best Patient Outcomes With Right High-Tech-High-Touch Combo

Posted on by
Reply

Healthcare is regarded as an industry where high-quality technology and high-quality human touch can’t possibly be separated from each other, ever. Since long, this is considered essential in delivering better treatment outcomes – the core value most patients desire, and buy – directly or indirectly.

Why high-quality technology helps make treatment of various diseases increasingly more effective, is no-brainer. However, amid high decibel ‘digital’ buzz during Covid-19 pandemic, some may also wonder how does ‘high-touch’ help improve treatment outcomes? Against this new backdrop, I shall explore in today’s article: why high-touch is so important for most patients alongside high-tech, and the critical need of striking a right balance between high-tech and high-touch in most areas of healthcare delivery. Let me start with a brief recap of the same in the pharma industry perspective. 

Balancing high-tech and high-touch in pharma – a brief recap:

In a similar context – against the  contemporary market dynamics, I discussed about Pharma’s new and still evolving pathway for digital and F2F customer engagement on February 15, 2021. This is primarily because, today’s patient-centric marketing model has to be on Omnichannel platforms to deliver patient-expected value, effectively – and more.

In this mix, F2F customer engagement process is just one among several channels – but a critical brand demand generation tool, though – giving a feel of ‘high-touch’ – in-person interactions to many key customers. Many studies show, alongside acceptance of ‘high-tech’ digital channels, customer expectations for ‘high-touch’, by and large, continue to exist, even today. Thus, one of the key responsibilities of pharma marketers is to arrive at the optimal combination of in-person F2F engagement channel, and high-tech digital channels for remote engagement.

However, this isn’t the unique need of the new normal. On April 29, 2019, I wrote about the evolving new pathway is a hybrid business model. It is customer-centric and helps create a right blend of high-tech and high-touch approaches. Striking an optimal balance between the two is critical to successful business outcomes. This brings me to the point of the relevance of ‘high-touch’ in healthcare.

The relevance of ‘high touch’ in healthcare:

Since time immemorial, a strong bond of trust-based doctor-patient relationship has remained pivotal in the disease treatment process, across the world. This still exists regardless of the socio-economic status, and degree of patient literacy, including digital – particularly for moderate to severe ailments.

A recent article – ‘High-Touch Telemedicine’, published by CFHA on June 04, 2020, also highlighted, “Touch has been central to the physician-patient relationship for as long as there have been physicians. Patients allow their doctors to touch them in places and in ways that they would allow to no one else.  The gentleness and the carefulness that doctors are trained to use on this touch is a bonding experience that supports healing.  If this trust is violated, if a doctor is unduly forceful or disrespectful, this can be a cause for grievance and even litigation.”

The scientific pertinence of physicians’ high touch for patients:

This point was lucidly elaborated in the above paper. It said, the doctor’s comforting physical touch, and interactional touch, have impacts on the Neuroendocrinology of the patients involved. Thus, physicians’ high touch when used in a benevolent conversation, releases the neuropeptide oxytocin in the brains of both participants. This, among others, helps to improve recognition of emotions, increase mutual trust, so compliments and the recognition of a person’s efforts and successes.

Covid-19 propelled ‘high tech’ in healthcare to a new high sans ‘high touch’:

The Covid-19 pandemic, undoubtedly, propelled healthcare into a virtual world. It triggered the development of a plethora of ‘high tech’ innovations to deliver prompt healthcare to patients suffering from various ailments, even from remote locations. One such example is telehealth. Many healthcare providers, including the Government of India realized that leveraging the potential of ‘Telemedicine’ can effectively address the healthcare needs of a large population, across the world.

That said, I reckon, although, healthcare can’t survive without high tech. But, a high-tech-healthcare, like telemedicine, can’t totally replace high touch, at least, in the treatment process of several moderate to severe ailments.

The Best and the worst-case scenario for only high-tech healthcare:

As studies indicate, only high-technology based healthcare sans high-touch, in the best case scenario, would facilitate affordable access to treatment for more patients, bringing down administrative time and cost, in tandem. Which is why, when Covid-19 pandemic posed unique challenges to providing health care, India’s health policy makers revised the nation’s Telemedicine Practice Guidelines on March 25, 2020. They acknowledged in the manual, high-tech Telemedicine ‘increases timely accessto appropriate interventions, including faster access and access to services that may not otherwise be available’.

Whereas, in a worst-case scenario, only digital access to healthcare may create some barrier to direct physical examination of the patient by the doctor, and their interaction. This may impact patient emotion – so important in the disease treatment process. Thus, although high-tech is essential for the advancement of healthcare, but can’t totally replace a patient’s need for high touch care.

High tech is essential, but can’t replace high touch-based trust:

Several recent papers deliberated this point with umpteen evidences. One such paper was published in the Harvard Business Review on October 30, 2019. The article is titled, ‘AI Can Outperform Doctors. So Why Don’t Patients Trust It?

The research points out, ‘patients are reluctant to use health care provided by medical artificial intelligence, even when it outperforms human doctors. This is because, patients believe that their medical needs are unique and cannot be adequately addressed by algorithms. To realize the many advantages and cost savings that medical AI promises, care providers must find ways to overcome these misgivings.’

The study also found that when health care was provided by AI rather than by a human care provider, patients were less likely to utilize the service and wanted to pay less for it. They also preferred having a human provider perform the service even if that meant there would be a greater risk of an inaccurate diagnosis or a surgical complication.

Given a choice – ‘patients will always highly value and seek out human touch’:

This point was also deliberated in another study, published in the MedCity News on January 14, 2021. Acknowledging: ‘Effective, modern medicine cannot survive without technology,’ it brought to the fore an important finding: ‘Regardless of how intuitive the software – or how advanced the technology – patients will always highly value and seek out human touch’ because of several reasons. Some of which are as follows:

  • Patients believe that their medical needs are unique and cannot be adequately addressed by algorithms. Patient experiences aren’t meant to be 100% digital. And despite the accuracy of computers, humans prefer to seek care from other human beings.
  • Different patients have different emotional needs. Life-altering diagnoses and unforeseen outcomes are best delivered by a living, breathing, feeling individual who can fully understand and address these needs.
  • Physical examinations by a doctor are more reassuring and restorative for patients.

The author concluded, high tech is absolutely necessary for the progress of health care, in general. However, in the foreseeable future, high touch would remain an instrumental part of patients’ healthcare experience.

I believe, one can even experience it as the Covid-19 safety restrictions will start easing, or even now – to some extent. Therefore, ‘healthcare professionals must find a way to blend the sophistication of technology with the power of touch in order to continue improving patient experiences, care, and outcomes’, the paper underscores.

Conclusion:

Just as in the pharma business, a right-mix of high-tech and high-touch is also necessary in overall healthcare space, to deliver the best health outcomes to patients. After initial disruptions, a similar trend is emerging even in the new normal. No doubt, usage of high-tech digital platforms is here to stay, and further improve in the years ahead. But, digitalization alone in the healthcare space, should not be construed as something that can make high-touch totally irrelevant or redundant in a patient’s journey for disease treatment.

The mindset of mutual exclusiveness of high-tech and high-touch, if any, either during patient-treatment or in the customer engagement process needs a revisit. As it appears, it is neither desirable in customer engagement, nor in patient treatment processes – akin to one approach suits all. This is because, healthcare is very personal to patients – more than most other areas. A lot of individual feelings and emotions are involved in patients’ end-to-end journey for treatment, where only high tech-based solutions may not meet all patient expectations – sans high-touch of physicians, as I deliberated above.

Thus, effective integration of high-tech-healthcare with high-touch of physicians, nurses, and some technicians, is evolving as the right way to deliver patient expected values, for better health outcomes. From this perspective, alongside most other stakeholders, astute marketers are realizing that high-tech digitalization isn’t a panacea for effective pharma marketing. Delivering the best patient outcomes with the right high-tech-high-touch combo, is the name of the game.

By: Tapan J. Ray       

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

 

Focus On All 3 Areas of Innovation For Affordable Access To Innovative Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Medical treatment has made astonishing advances over the years. But the packaging and delivery of that treatment are often inefficient, ineffective, and consumer unfriendly. This was articulated in an article on innovation in healthcare, published in the Harvard Business Review, way back, in its May 2006 issue.

Highlighting soaring healthcare cost, including ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, and its impact on public health, the paper recommended innovative solutions for every related aspect of health care. These encompass – healthcare delivery, unleashing the power of technology, and customer-centric business models. Interestingly, despite enormous investment in drug innovation, the access to affordable health care for all, continued over the years.

The consequential scenario was well articulated in another paper on rising consumerism among healthcare consumers, published in the Deloitte Review issue 16, 2015. It noted, the existing business models are increasingly being challenged by all concerned. The aim is to find new sources of value – as expected by patients and deliver them effectively with innovative approaches for better outcomes. This has, initiated a recalibration of the healthcare system, as it were, in many parts of the world, including many -both developed and developing countries, across the globe.

In this article, I shall try to explore this area, especially from the perspective of relevance of innovative business models for affordable access to innovative drugs in the new normal. Let me start with three basic innovation needs in the pharma business that may help chart out a meaningful pathway to attain this goal.

3 innovation areas to make health care better and cheaper:

In pharma industry, people mostly talk about product or treatment innovation. Although, this is of paramount importance to make healthcare more and more effective with time, but may not help save or heal more patients, commensurately.

Going by the ‘health care innovation catalog,’ as charted by the above Harvard Business Reviewarticle, ‘three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper.’ These innovations are primarily related to:

  • Use of ‘technology’ to develop new products and treatments or to improve care
  • Bringing in innovative changes the ways ‘consumers’ buy and use healthcare.
  • Generating new ‘business models’, particularly those that involve the horizontal or vertical integration of separate health care organizations or activities.

As I have deliberated in the past, related to the first two areas, this discourse will deliberate on the third type of innovation to explore the above specified area. Let me hasten to add that several studies published in the later dates, echoed similar approach.

Subsequent studies reinforce the point:

One such example, is the paper titled ‘Innovative Approaches to Increase Access to Medicines in Developing Countries’, published in the Frontiers in Medicine on December 07, 2017. This study also captured: ‘Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e., drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries.’

The paper highlighted, several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, can further stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities, significantly. It underscored: ‘No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions.’

Changing business model concept gaining steam during Covid pandemic:

The issue of affordable access to innovative medicines drew attention of all stakeholders, even the common man, during the Covid pandemic – more than ever before. Several publications raised a flag on this barrier to public health, especially amid a pandemic or epidemic like situation.

One of these papers, titled ‘COVID-19 and the global public health: Tiered pricing of pharmaceutical drugs as a price-reducing policy tool’, was published in the Journal of Generic Medicines, on October 07, 2020. The paper emphasized, COVID-19 has raised serious concerns about affordable and equitable access to critically needed innovative medicines and other health technologies. It pointed out: ‘Patent exclusivities add to the cost of healthcare by allowing supra-competitive prices of protected technologies’, it commented. At the same time, ‘the prices and availability of drugs also depend on certain other factors that are not related to IP protection.’

Here comes the concept of ‘differential pricing’ or ‘tiered pricing’. This is a voluntary price-reducing policy option of the innovator to sell innovative drugs at lower prices in developing countries – compared to developed nations. The study articulated, more and more innovators imbibing this option in the future, could be a way forward to address for the future. Could it be a win-win solution for this critical issue?

Is it a win-win solution to this critical issue?

Since, at least, the last decade, the concept of differential pricing or tiered pricing ‘has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to these life-saving products.’ This was also noted in the paper - ‘A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries,’ published in the journal Globalization and Health, on October 12, 2011.

Even at that time, the paper said: ‘International tiered pricing has been proposed as an alternative to high prices when separable high- and low-to-middle-income markets exist for a medicine and when the seller exerts significant power over pricing, such as when there is limited or no competition due to patent protection, data exclusivity, or other market-entry barriers.’

Interestingly, despite above findings, tiered pricing has not been a widely followed concept in the old normal to ensure affordable access to life-saving innovative drugs, for all. One of its reasons could possibly be commercial considerations. Company specific business threshold of tiered pricing may not necessarily be able to offer a price that is equitable or affordable for all. That said, there are a few laudable initiatives of some major innovator companies in the past.

Some laudable past initiatives for affordable access to innovative drugs:

Since the beginning of this millennium, one can witness some laudable pricing initiatives for affordable access to critical, innovative drugs to save lives in developing countries and poorer nations. Let me give a few reported examples below:

  • Abbott Laboratories – the patent holder of lopinavir and ritonavir had initially announced a tiered price of $650 in 2001 for African countries and 16 non-African least developed countries. In 2002, the Company reduced the price to $500 for these countries and in August 2009 dropped it to $440 – slightly below the lowest generic price.
  • In 2001, Novartis offered “at-cost” tiered price of $2.40 per adult treatment course for artemether-lumefantrine FDC to WHO for developing countries After 5 years when a generic version of the same was available, Novartis decreased its tiered price to $1.80, thereafter to $1.50.
  • Eli Lilly’s two key DR-TB drugs, capreomycin and cycloserine were not widely available from other suppliers even after it went off patent. In 2002, Lilly transferred the drug manufacturing technology to several generic drug companies in TB-endemic countries. Eli Lilly’s tiered price has consistently remained below the generic prices for these drugs.

More examples of voluntary licensing during Covid pandemic:

Gilead signed non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Egypt, India and Pakistan to manufacture remdesivir for distribution in 127 countries that face significant obstacles to healthcare access.

Notably, the licenses are royalty-free until the World Health Organization declares the end of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern regarding COVID-19, or until a pharmaceutical product other than remdesivir or a vaccine is approved to treat or prevent COVID-19, whichever is earlier.

On May 11, 2021, several media reports revealed that ‘US pharma giant Eli Lilly has issued royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licenses to three Indian drug makers – Cipla, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Lupin – to manufacture and distribute Baricitinib, which is being used to treat Covid-19.

As announced on October 27, 2021, the global drug major MSD and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) entered into a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including India following appropriate regulatory approvals. The Indian companies, reportedly, include, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure Pharma and Hetero Labs.

On November 16, 2021, Pfizer Press Release stated: Pfizer and MPP has signed a voluntary license agreement for Pfizer’s COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate PF-07321332, which is administered in combination with low dose ritonavir (PF-07321332; ritonavir). Under the terms of the license agreement, qualified generic medicine manufacturers worldwide that are granted sub-licenses, will be able to supply this combination drug to 95 countries, covering up to approximately 53% of the world’s population.

Conclusion:

Covid Pandemic, which apparently, is refusing to vanish anytime soon, makes the issue of making affordable access to critical innovative drugs for all, more intense. Since long, researchers, academicians, practitioners, and the stakeholders involved in addressing this healthcare challenge for the majority of the population have suggested several innovative approaches.

These include, focus on three kinds of innovation simultaneously, and with similar zest, can make health care better and cheaper. One such area is changing pharma business models for critical innovative drugs. The good news is a few pharma players have already charted on this pathway in the past, successfully, by extending royalty-free, voluntary licenses to manufacturers in the developing countries and poorer nations. Some of them even tried to match their tiered pricing with equivalent generic drug prices. But the overall response was rather lukewarm in the old normal. Interestingly, the new normal signals a mindset change in this regard within a larger number of global innovators.

The current trend gives a hope to many that an increasing number of global innovators will sincerely explore – not just one, but all the three areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs. This could possibly reduce, if not eliminate the future need for the grant of compulsory licenses for such drugs, as happened during the peak of Covid pandemic, especially in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Expand Market Share Unleashing Digital Health Potential For All

Posted on by
Reply

“Advancement in digital health is currently restricted mainly to economically and socially privileged populations. Those having access, resources and basic digital skills, are reaping disproportionate benefits from the technology and other associated infrastructure available for this purpose. Unfortunately, underserved population, mostly in rural hinterland and in some urban areas, still do not have much access to this technical advancement in the healthcare space. Ensuring affordable access to “Digital Health” in digital India, would help augment quality healthcare support with equity, to all in the country.” I wrote the above in my article on digital health, published in this blog, way back on March 09, 2015.

About two years down the line from that date, the IQVIA report – ‘The Growing Value of Digital Health’, published on November 07, 2017, also reported: ‘The impact of Digital Health on patient care is accelerating with the increasing adoption of mobile health apps and wearable sensors.’ It highlighted, among others, the following important points:

  • Health-related mobile applications available to consumers nearly doubled from the number available just two years ago, with increasing clinical evidence on app efficacy – supported by 571 published studies in 2017.
  • The use of Digital Health apps with proven reductions in acute care utilization include, diabetes prevention, diabetes management, asthma, cardiac rehabilitation, and pulmonary rehabilitation.
  • ‘Digital health’ signals a high potential in reducing overall health care cost for both patients and the providers – reducing huge burden on the health system, significantly.
  • Efforts by patient care organizations to fit ‘’Digital Health tools into clinical practice have progressed with 540 current clinical trials in the U.S. incorporating these tools, and an estimated 20% of large health systems shifting from pilot ‘Digital Health’ programs to more full-scale rollouts.
  • However, despite progress to date, several barriers still exist to widespread adoption by patient care institutions, and only an intermediate level of adoption has yet occurred.

In this article, I shall explore – how pharma marketers can expand their respective brand market share by unleashing the full potential of digital health, for all, and equitably, while formulating their marketing strategies of the new normal.

Digital health accelerated effective response to COVID-19 challenges:

Never has extensive operational overhaul been more urgent in health care than in the current climate of the COVID-19 pandemic – emphasized the article on ‘Digital health during COVID-19’, published in the February 2021 online issue of The Lancet (Digital Health). The paper underlined – the urgency of the pandemic prompted new models of patient treatment, providing medical professionals tools to respond effectively to the unprecedented crisis, with the advances in digital health.

However, the authors cautioned, ‘to ensure sustained adoption, it is necessary to not assume that digital solutions will naturally assimilate into clinical practice, and instead adopt participatory approaches that regularly involve stakeholders.’ Meanwhile, a confused signal is causing delay in the speedy adoption of digital health.

Is a confused signal delaying speedy adoption of digital health?

As Covid vaccination process gaining steam, the pandemic, apparently, is coming under control in many places of the world, just as it is in India. Alongside, several optimistic health care facilitators, providers and even regulators are probably awaiting the old normal to return – especially, F2F customer services.

Whereas, the above The Lancet (Digital Health) study finds – the clinical demand for digital services are gradually picking up – mostly because of the sudden surge in patient demand during the pandemic. Intriguingly, amid this situation, weak governance of digital technologies and platforms, is increasing health inequities and compromising human rights, which I wrote in my article on digital health, published in this blog, on March 09, 2015.

Weak governance of digital health results, increasing health inequities:

That weak governance of digital technologies and platforms, is increasing health inequities, was reiterated by yet another contemporary article titled – ‘Digital technologies: a new determinant of health,’ published in the November 2021 issue of The Lancet (Digital Health).

The article revealed, ‘The Lancet’ and ‘Financial Times’ Commission on governing health futures 2030’ has made important recommendations for successful integration of digital technologies in health. The bottom line of which is, weak governance of digital technologies is causing health inequities and compromising human rights. The study also emphasized, the future governance of digital technologies in health care ‘must be driven by the public purpose, not private profit’.  

Points to ponder for pharma marketers:

As iterated in the article of the November 2021 issue of The Lancet (Digital Health), the following facts needs to be considered by all, especially I reckon, by astute pharma marketers:

  • The COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive disruptions within health care, both directly as a result of the infectious disease outbreak, and indirectly because of prompt public health measures to mitigate against transmission.
  • This unprecedented disruption has caused rapid dynamic fluctuations in demand, capacity, and even contextual aspects of health care.
  • Therefore, the traditional face-to-face patient–physician care model has had to be re-examined in many countries, including India.
  • To rapidly tide over the crisis, and thereafter to avoid similar possible situations in the future, digital technology and new models of care are being rapidly deployed to meet the challenges of change, triggered by the pandemic.
  • The new models include remote digital health solutions such as telehealth, artificial intelligence – decision support for triaging and clinical care, and home monitoring of several ailments.
  • Operationalizing these new models will be based on the choice of technology support, clinical need, demand from patients, and manpower availability – ranging from pre-hospital to out-of-hospital models, including the hub-and-spoke model.

Conclusion:

It is widely believed today, the pan-industry shift toward digital health of different types is here to stay, in varying degree, though, and accelerate further for several strategic reasons. These include, adding more flexibility in attaining greater efficiency and effectiveness for customer engagement, and patient-perceived brand value delivery to them.

That said, as I wrote before, customer engagement may call for a hybrid business model of virtual and in-person F2F engagements. However, going back to the old normal of in-person F2F engagements for all doctors could probably be a far cry. Similarly, the initial success of e-customer engagement is unlikely to replace in-person and in-clinic F2F engagements of sales reps completely.

From the above perspective, I reckon, pharma marketers may now wish to expand their brand market share, significantly, by unleashing the full potential of digital health for all, and equitably, particularly, in the new normal.

However, in that process, they need to be vigilant for not deviating from the key purpose of digital health for the end users. This must reach across all socioeconomic strata, regardless of patient demographics or their geographical locations. It’s, no doubt, easier said than done, but has to happen – for the sake of health-equity - augmenting healthcare for all in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Why Pharma Need To Connect Better With Patient Organizations Now?

Posted on by
Reply

A good number of patients (63%), especially those with chronic ailments would look for Patient Support Services, revealed a survey by Human Healthcare Systems, released on February 25, 2020. Alongside, drug companies are also, reportedly, investing billions of dollars in every year, for several types of patient support programs, according to the Fierce Pharma article of July 06, 2021, on this subject. It emphasized: ‘Pharma companies spend more than $5 billion on patient support programs every year.’

Thus, it will be interesting to explore – when patients are looking for Patient Support Services (PSPs) and pharma companies are also trying to deliver the same, what’s really happening on the ground? Today’s article will focus on this area to help pharma marketers to get a ringside view of this area, and take necessary action in this area to make this investment more productive.

The aim is to help create a cutting-edge marketing strategy, while delivering best patient value and outcomes in the new normal. Let me start by recapitulating what exactly is a PSP to ensure that we all are on the same page, during this discussion.

Patient Support Services (PSPs):

According to IQVIA, a key challenge in deliberating with PSPs is that they have broad definitions, and consequently, may often give rise to multiple interpretations, misunderstandings and even bias. Be that as it may, IQVIA defines PSP as ‘An umbrella term to describe initiatives led by pharmaceutical companies to improve access, usage, and adherence to prescription drugs. These programs can have a financial component, support clinical investments, focus purely on education, or a combination.’

As we also see around, such programs include – disease awareness campaigns, helping patients use their drugs at the right dose for the right duration for best outcomes, to help patients use their drugs with disease education, financial support and more.

Relevance of PSP in the new normal:

Although PSPs aren’t a new concept, studies unfold – value that PSPs deliver to the community is so significant that when created with a clear understanding of motivators and drivers of patient behavior, can fetch equally significant return on investments for the pharma players.

A recent IQVIA White Paper concludes by noting: ‘One of the major trends seen from the COVID-19 global pandemic, is an increase telehealth. As the point of enrolment into a patient support program goes digital, PSP programs need to adjust.’ This seismic shift in the way we seek and receive treatment will require companies to revisit and potentially update their actionable insight in this space, The paper further notes: ‘With an increase in digital enrolment there are now more opportunities to capture data points and utilize technology.’

Thus, I reckon, it will be worthwhile to fathom, when patients are looking for health care support services and pharma companies are also spending considerably towards the same, what exactly is happening on the ground.

Interestingly, according to the 2021 findings of Phreesia Life Sciences, which surveyed nearly 5,000 patients checking in for doctors’ appointments during the past February and March, found, ‘just 3% were using patient support programs (PSPs).’

Some key highlights of the survey findings:

The support programs in the above survey of Phreesia Life Sciences, broadly includes, services, such as, financial assistance, disease education and specifics about medicine – offered by pharma companies. Based on these, some of the key findings of the study were as follows: 

  • Just 3% of eligible patients are currently using support programs, and 8% have used them in their lifetimes.
  • 59% of patients have little to no knowledge of patient support programs.
  • 61% of patients feel that patient support programs of pharma companies would be “somewhat,” “a little,” or “not at all helpful” for them.
  • Most patients who had used support programs, used them either at first diagnosis, or when starting medication.
  • Only 10% of patients said they had learned about support programs online, but 44% said they’d like to learn about support programs online

Further, as one of the senior officials involved in this research, reportedly, said, ‘nine out of 10 qualified patients were not using the brand’s copay card—even though more than half (53%) said they would likely use one if they had it.’ Moreover, ‘two out of three patients reported it was the first time they were learning about it.’

Likely reasons for low usage of pharma’s PSPs: 

Some of the most likely reasons for low usage of pharma’s PSPs were deliberated in another article of Fierce Pharma dated December 04, 2020. A domain expert commented there, ‘pharma companies simply have missed the mark in developing useful, durable tools for patients. Elaborating this point further, she said, ‘Focusing just on specific adherence tasks, like medication reminders, isn’t providing enough value for patients over a long period of time.’

Another contributing factor could be, patients suffering from multiple diseases and those who are on multiple medications of different pharma companies, are unlikely to download four different apps to track each one.

One more reason could well depend on patients’ generally preferred sources to avail such services, which may not necessarily be pharma companies.

Patients generally preferred sources for patient services:

This point was discussed in the Accenture study – ‘Uniting pharma companies and patient organizations,’ published on August 07, 2019. This survey was done on 4000 patients and some broad findings of this study include the following:

  • Patients generally prefer services from patient organizations over those from pharma companies.
  • Patients feel that patient organizations have a better understanding of their emotional, financial, and other needs than many pharma companies.
  • Patients also want pharma companies to coordinate with patient organizations to provide better care.

The survey also captured details of patient preferences regarding availing required services from patient organizations, rather than the drug companies, as below:

  • Over 50% of patients have greater trust in and better experiences with patient organizations.
  • 64% of patients are willing to share their health data with patient organizations to get better care.
  • 52% of patients are willing to share their health data with patient organizations to get better care.
  • 72% of surveyed patients call or talk to someone at patient organizations on the phone.
  • 58% of patients attend in-person events hosted by patient organizations.

Are PSPs commercially useful to pharma companies?

The very fact that drug companies are currently spending over $5 Billion annually for PSPs, reflects their direct and indirect influence in pharma’s branding strategy and image building process. Otherwise, why would they spend so much? That said, the above survey details send a clear message to pharma marketers to maximize their marketing investments on PSPs, more than ever before. Consequently, the question arises, how to achieve that goal? 

Maximize marketing investments on PSPs:

Echoing and paraphrasing some points from the above IQVIA White Paper, let me highlight, especially for the marketers, 3 clear steps for maximizing returns from pharma’s investments on PSPs, as follows:

A. Gain beforehand deeper insights of patients’ PSP need and expectations: 

37% of patients surveyed said, pharma companies with actionable insights, will better understand their needs through collaboration with Patient Organizations (PO), leading to meaningful engagement in a more personalized way and more frequently.

B. Deliver patient expected value thorough close coordination with the POs:

This is because, 84% of patients think pharma companies – with closer coordination with, at least, a couple of influential patient groups or organizations (PO), will deliver greater value. This will also create a seamless and more cohesive patient experience, while filling gaps in the patient treatment process, to enhance end-to-end customer experience - in an unbiased way.

C.  Creating and delivering new and seamless patient experiences:

The newness is important – not just to delight the patients, but also for strategic differentiation in this ball game. This is possible by working closely with Patient Support Groups (PSGs) as partners, seeking ways to rethink for creating and delivering a unique patient experience from patients’ perspective, and outcome first basis.

Use of data, analytics and insights will be essential while creating care experiences that will better meet the patients’ needs, and would also help measure the impact of PSPs on an ongoing basis.

PSGs are helping to transform health care also in India:

Some PSGs are helping to transform healthcare with prudent use of PSPs in India, as they raise awareness about diseases, help people recover psychologically, and more, have been captured by Indian media, as well. One such report titled, How patient support groups are revolutionizing health care’ says: ‘Because of these networks, patients and their families have become better organized, and are equipped to handle emergency situations and advocate for access to treatment.’

Conclusion:

Echoing the ZS article, published on August 17, 2020, I too concur that COVID-19 has pushed the drug companies to define new ways to deliver care and reach patients. It is quite possible that patient organizations are moving faster in this direction than many pharma companies. Which is why, more patients, reportedly, prefer PSPs from patient organizations, over those from pharma companies.

Further, a course-correction in PSP, would also offer pharma marketers an additional opportunity. Because, PSPs have hidden potential to create an exceptional patient support base that marry brand’s key attributes with the new reality of patients, living with their conditions in the new normal.

Pharma companies will, therefore, need to move from typical reactive support programs – to delivering proactive patient experiences in a post-COVID-19 world, in partnership with PSGs. To ensure maximum number of patients use PSPs, it’s critical for pharma marketers to redefine – the “new normal” patient journey, and meet their current unmet needs in this space. That’s why, I reckon, to succeed in this ball game, pharma would need to effectively connect with patient organizations, more than ever before.

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.