Tag Archives: innovation

What Have And Haven’t Changed In Pharma’s New Normal?

Posted on by
Reply

While navigating through the challenge of disruptive changes, several pharma marketers are now focusing more on creating, connecting, and leveraging all market and customer related data, across the organization. Astute ones are using state-of-the-art tools, platforms, and techniques to gain actionable insights on new demands of pharma markets. I wrote about it in my article - ‘Data: the new ‘Magic Wand’ For Pharma Business Excellence,’ published in this blog on October 01, 2018.

This process is helping them to fathom what areas the pandemic has changed and what it hasn’t. Their aim is to draw cutting-edge strategies accordingly for market effectiveness – outperforming competition. This article will explore that space with contemporary examples. Let me start with a few illustrations of some hits and misses for the treatment of Covid – as the world started learning to live with this menacing virus. This was enviable, as the requisite scientific date wasn’t readily available at that moment of truth. But the time has changed now.

Some hits and misses:

As the pandemic overwhelmed the world, and no well-documented treatment for infection caused by the brand new virus – Covid-19 was available, many drug players were given quick emergency approval by country regulators for some repurposed drugs. But most of those weren’t found effective as fresh clinical data started pouring in. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO), have, reportedly, indicated that remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on 28-day mortality or the in-hospital course of COVID-19 among hospitalized patients.

More recently, Gilead Sciences Veklury – a failed Ebola drug, repurposed for hospitalized Covid-19 patients, suddenly became a blockbuster drug, according to a September 17, 2021 report. However, in less than a year, alongside more research data - a study from Europe, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, showed that Veklury has no real benefit. The report also highlights: ‘Aided by a ringing endorsement from then-president Donald Trump, Veklury rang up sales of $2.8 billion in 2020, including $1.9 billion in the final quarter. But those sales slid this year to $1.5 billion in the first quarter followed by $829 million in the second quarter.’

Similarly, there are several areas that are seemingly getting transformed, triggered by the pandemic and the time for resorting to a hit or miss approach, is now virtually over. From pharma marketers’ point of interest, it will now be at one’s own peril for not challenging the pre-Covid business traditions, rules, and well-tried strategies on customer relationships and brand building models. This brings us to the question on what specifically have changed in the new normal as the pharma industry navigates thorough the Covid pandemic – for close to two years now.  

Pandemic-triggered changes in the pharma marketing area:

Changes are many and are being studied across the world. One such recent analysis, articulating how the pandemic triggered changes have redefined marketing, was published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR), on March 10, 2021. This paper came more than a year after the pandemic overwhelmed the world. This article listed some interesting macro-level changes, including the following:

  • Old normal: You are competing with your competitors.
  • New normal: You are competing with the last best experience your customer had.
  • Old normal: Customers hope you have what they want.
  • New normall: Customers expect you to have exactly what they want.
  • Old normal: Courting customers is just like dating.
  • New normal: Courting customers is just like online dating.
  • Old normal: Customers must sit at the heart of your marketing strategy.
  • New normal: Customers must sit at the heart of your customer journey.
  • Old normal: Agility is a technology process.
  • New normal: Agility is a modern marketing approach.
  • Old normal: Your brand should stand behind great products.
  • New normal: Your brand should stand behind great values.

To illustrate the point, let me now give a few examples of some micro-level changes in the same space.

Some transformation trends:

I am citing a few examples related to pharma’s traditional sales and marketing models. One such area is, quite a few companies are adopting connected data based and analytics-supported Omnichannel approach for customer engagement. The key objective is to deliver coherent and high-quality customer experience.

The need for new commercial models for the changing life sciences market, was also highlighted in an interesting article, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on September 16, 2021. The authors identified six health care macro trends, demonstrating the value of transforming care delivery and shifting market behavior that prompt to reframe customer value propositions.

Taking a cue from this paper, I am listing below some of the current trends – as I see these and wrote before in this blog. Each one of these calls for well-connected data with analytics support:

  • Fostering a new genre of ‘customer-brand relationship’ to drive more targeted go‑to‑market strategies, enhanced agility/mobility of resources and highly personalized customer interactions.
  • Meeting the growing demand for value‑based care with novel risk‑adjusted and outcome‑based Price-Value-Models, supported by ongoing innovation in this area and sophisticated approach to value, affordability and outcomes.

Interestingly, despite Herculean constraints, many pharma players continued creating and delivering value, as the customers were expecting with changing situations.  

Drug-price sensitivity is increasing:

In the new normal, drug price sensitivity of customers is increasing manifold, for various reasons. A June 18, 2020 study, flags: ‘Nine in 10 Concerned About Rising Drug Costs Due to COVID-19.’ Although, this particular study (Gallup Poll) was conducted in the United States, general public apprehension is no different in other parts of the world, including India.

In my article of September 14, 2020, I also wrote that the concept of ‘fair pricing a drug’ is being deliberated by many experts around the world, since quite some time, till today. But it continues. Most recently, as reported on September 22, 2021, for different reasons related to its new Alzheimer’s drug - Aduhelm, including its hefty price tag of $56,000 annually per patient, ‘Biogen reps banned from D.C.-area neurology clinics.’

Regardless of such customer reactions, the pharma industry, as reported on September 17, 2021, continues to advocate – drug pricing pressure will stifle innovation, blocking patient access to needed medicines and dry up investment in important R&D on new therapies. Curiously, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), is spending more than $1 million on TV ads as part of a massive lobbying and communications campaign emphasizing the potential harm to patients seeking cures for deadly diseases, as the report highlights.

Innovation – remained mostly unhindered from old to new normal:

Customers’ expectations can’t be ignored indefinitely. Interestingly, the world has also witnessed it with Covid drug and vaccine innovation continuing even during the most trying times during the pandemic, even in India. It is, therefore, quite understandable why unfettered access to drug innovation is considered an oxymoron, by many.

The good news is, despite shrill voices over pricing measures, the quest for adding meaningful value to the healthcare space continues unhindered. As reported on September 19, 2021, both Pfizer and Merck are advancing oral antiviral candidates targeting Covid-19 into late-stage testing. Thus, I reckon, regardless of jarring noise from pharma lobbyists, drug innovation, willy-nilly, has to satisfy the diverse demand of health care customers.

Innovation needs to satisfy demands of diverse healthcare customers:

That, increasingly, drug innovations will need to be based on their ability to satisfy the demands of life sciences companies’ diverse customer-perceived value-based, was also echoed by the Pharmaceutical Executive article of September 16, 2021.

While doing so, companies will need to structure innovation in terms of health outcomes, affordability, and personalization, as the paper emphasized. It further added, ‘broader definition of innovation means products are no longer the central driver of value.’ Instead, innovation will be powered by an increasingly diverse stream of data that resides outside the confines of the traditional health ecosystem.

Covid pandemic accelerated the transition of this process of innovation, drawing its new focus on providing a seamless and holistic customer experience in the disease treatment process – supported by advanced analytics and this deeper understanding of customer segments.

Conclusion:

Many pharma marketers have possibly undertaken a sophisticated and credible market scanning exercise in the new normal, to assess by themselves what have or haven’t changed in their customer preferences and market dynamics. If not, I would encourage them to initiate it, at least, now.

Equally noteworthy, as the above HBR article wrote, in the post pandemic period: ‘Beyond geography, marketing messages need to be personally relevant, aligned to an individual’s situation and values, as opposed to demographics, such as age and gender.’

The objective is to create a personal connection between the customer and the brand promotional content, aiming to influence the prescribing and purchasing behavior, based on their psychographic to attitudinal characteristics. This process would require creating and screening lots of customized data, supported by sophisticated analytics.

From the above perspective, I reckon, deep insight on what have or haven’t changed in the healthcare environment alongside its customers, would be of fundamental importance for pharma marketers, in the new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

Unfettered ‘Access To Drug Innovation’ – An Oxymoron?

Posted on by
Reply

The mass paranoia, as it were, over Covid pandemic has now started fading with drug regulators’ ‘emergency approval’ of several Covid -19 vaccines, and its free of cost access to all, generally in most countries. As the endgame of the pandemic, supposedly, depends on the speed of Covid-19 vaccination, the drug industry’s public reputation in the interim period, driven by its rapid response to the crisis, got an unsurprising boost (62%). This was captured by the Harris Poll, released on March 15, 2021.

Interestingly, soon after the high of 62% approval rating, the decline began. It came down to 60% in May and then 56% in June 2021—and now down three more percentage points, according to the Harris Polls that followed. No wonder, why the FiercePharma article of August 24, 2021, carried a caption: ’Pharma’s reputation drops again. Could it foreshadow a return to the bottom?’

Further, in the new normal, especially when customer expectations and requirements from drug companies have significantly changed, MNC Pharma industry still appears to be in the old normal mode in this space. It still, reportedly, ‘believes that the need for innovation must be balanced with the necessity for more accessible medicines, within a robust IP and regulatory environment,’ in India.

The hidden purpose of the same could possibly be, as several industry watchers believe – availing benefits of greater access to one kind innovation, making access to other kind of innovation more difficult. Consequently, two critical points are reemerging, even in the new normal, as follows:

  • Aren’t Indian IP and regulatory ecosystems still conducive enough for MNC pharma players’ access to drug innovation?
  • In the name of greater access to pharma product innovation, are they creating barriers to pharma process innovation, delaying market access to complex generics and Biosimilar drugs – besides systematically eroding consumer confidence on such products?

In this article, under the above backdrop, I shall try to explore why the epithet – ‘access to drug innovation’ is considered an oxymoron – with contemporary examples from around the word, including India.

Aren’t Indian IP and regulatory ecosystems conducive to drug innovation? 

This allegation doesn’t seem to hold much water, as several successful local initiatives in Covid-19 vaccine development will confirm the same. Besides, already marketed Covaxin, developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Zydus Cadila’s ZyCov-D, there are several others waiting in the wings. These include domestic drug makers like, Hyderabad based Biological-E, Bengaluru-based medical pharma startup’s – Mynvax, and Pune-based Gennova Biopharmaceutical’s m-RNA vaccine candidates. However, only critical difference is – Indian made Covid vaccines are more affordable and accessible to patients, as against those manufactured by MNCs, such as, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J.

If we look back to the old normal, one will also find similar instances of new drug discovery in India, which deliberated in my article of September 02, 2013. Let me give just a couple of examples below:

  • Ranbaxy developed and launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ for malaria - Synriam, on April 25, 2012
  • Zydus Cadila announced in June 2013 that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia –Lipaglyn.

Hence, meager wherewithal for R&D notwithstanding, as compared to the MNCs, Indian pharma players don’t seem to find the country’s IP and regulatory ecosystems not conducive to innovation of affordable new drugs with wider patient access.

Off-patent drugs also involve another type of major innovation:

Discovering an NCE is, unquestionably, a product of drug innovation. Similarly, developing a new – cost-effective, non-infringing manufacturing process to market off-patent drugs, like biosimilars, also involve another type of major innovation. Intriguingly, when the MNC pharma industry talks about ‘access to innovation’, the latter type of innovation isn’t publicly acknowledged and included in their drug innovation spectrum. This practice, reportedly, remains unchanged in their advocacy campaign, even in the new normal.

However, the fact is, the manufacturers of off-patent drugs, such as biosimilars, also need to follow a major innovative process, for which they require access to innovation. This was also captured in an editorial of the newsletter – Biosimilar Development. The deliberation addressed the question - Do biosimilars fit into the innovation paradigm? The editor began by articulating – hardly anyone publicly argues that the development of new manufacturing process of Biosimilar drugs is not an innovation. The industry can’t call them as a copy of an existing innovation, either.

This is also vindicated in the Amgen paper, published on February 11, 2018. It acknowledges, “Unlike small molecule generic drugs, biosimilars are not identical to the reference biologic or to other approved biosimilars of the same reference biologic, because they are developed using different cell lines and undergo different manufacturing and purification processes.” Moreover, biosimilars also carry a different International Nonproprietary Name (INN), because of their molecular differences from the reference drug. This has been specified in the nonproprietary naming Guidance document of the US-FDA of January 2017.

From this perspective, the next question that logically follows: Is process innovation as important as product innovation?

Is process innovation as critical a capability as product innovation?

This question was unambiguously answered by a pharma industry-centric Harvard Business Review(HBR) article – ‘The New Logic of High-Tech R&D’, published in its September–October 1995, issue. The paper emphasized, for the commercial success of a product ‘manufacturing-process innovation is becoming an increasingly critical capability for product innovation.’

When to meet patient-needs ‘access to innovation’ an oxymoron: 

‘Access to innovation’ is an interesting epithet that is often used by many drug companies for meeting unmet needs of patients. However, the same is also often used to create barriers to meeting unmet needs of more patients with cheaper biologic drugs, like Biosimilars, immediately after their basic patent expiry. This is mostly practiced by creating a patent thicket. Hence, drug companies’ advocacy for greater access to innovation is an oxymoron to many.

The same was echoed in another article – ‘How originator companies delay generic medicines,’ published by GaBI. It wrote, such practices delay generic entry and lead to healthcare systems and consumers paying more than they would otherwise have done for medicines. These include the following:

  • Strategic patenting
  • Patent litigation
  • Patent settlements
  • Interventions before national regulatory authorities
  • Lifecycle strategies for follow-on products.

A very recent piece on the subject, published by Fierce Pharma on August 31, 2021, vindicates that the patent life extension through the patent thicket is happening on the ground – denying patients access to cheaper equivalent, especially of off-patent biologic drugs within a reasonable time period. It highlighted:

  • The exclusivity of AbbVie’s Humira, which hit the market in 2002 and generated nearly $20 billion in sales last year was extended by 130 patents.
  • The same company has applied for 165 patents for its another blockbuster Imbruvica. Launched in 2013, Imbruvica has already generated sales of $5.3 billion for AbbVie.

No wonder, why in February 2021, during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. John Cornyn blasted the company saying:

“I support drug companies recovering a profit based on their research and development of innovative drugs,” Cornyn said. “But at some point, that patent has to end, that the exclusivity has to end, to be able to get it at a much cheaper cost.”

More reports are also available on attempts to erode consumer confidence in Biosimilar drugs, as compared to the originals.

Work for innovation sans eroding consumer confidence in Biosimilars: 

Making affordable new drugs and vaccines available to patients with ‘access to innovation’, deserves inspiration from all concerned. Curiously, even in the new normal, some big companies continue trying to erode consumer confidence in off-patent drugs, especially Biosimilars and complex generics.

For example, an article on Biosimilars moving to the center stage, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on August 12, 2021, quoted an interesting development in this space. The article highlighted that US legislators are now ‘eyeing measures to deter innovator promotional messages that disparage follow-on competitors.’ This initiative was spurred by US-FDA criticism of an Amgen promotional communication for undermining consumer confidence in Biosimilars to its Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) injection.

On July 14, 2021, US-FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) sent a letter to Amgen carrying a caption ‘FDA notifies Amgen of misbranding of its biological product, Neulasta, due to false or  misleading promotional communication about its product’s benefit.

The letter, as reported in the above article, criticized the company for making a false claim of greater adverse events with the injection system used by Biosimilars compared to the Amgen product. OPDP advised Amgen and other firms to “carefully evaluate the information presented in promotional materials for reference products, or Biosimilar products” to ensure correct product identification and avoid consumer confusion.

Conclusion:

When the point is, creating a conducive ecosystem to promote access to innovation, it should be patient-centric – always, and, more so in the new normal, considering changing needs and expectations of health care customers.

The innovation of usually pricey new molecular entities, no doubt, meets unmet needs of those who can afford these. Whereas, manufacturing process innovation expands access to the same molecule, particularly when they go off-patent, by making them affordable to a vast majority of the population.

But powerful industry lobby groups continue pressing harder for unfettered ‘access to innovation’ with greater relaxation of the IP and regulatory framework of countries, like India. The situation prompts striking a right balance between encouraging more profit by helping to extend patent exclusivity and encouraging greater access to off-patent cheaper Biosimilars as soon as the basic patent expires.

The bottom-line is, both need to be actively encouraged, even if it requires new laws to discourage practices like, creating patent thickets or undermining the use of generics or Biosimilars, and the likes. The good news is lawmakers have started deliberating on this issue – along with increasing public awareness, which gets reflected in the pharma industry’s current reputation ratings.

Left unresolved soon, such piggyback ride on ‘access to drug innovation’ bandwagon to serve self-serving interests, would continue denying speedy entry of cheaper Biosimilars. From this perspective, it isn’t difficult to fathom, why unfettered access to drug innovation is considered an oxymoron, by many.

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.

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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 Pricing: Why Justify On R&D Cost Rather Than Precise ‘Customer Value’?

Posted on by
Reply

While looking around, it won’t be difficult to spot many types of steep-priced highly innovative products, where high costs aren’t justified by high R&D expenditure, but for unique ‘customer value’ offerings. Many consumers evaluate those and decide to settle for one, instead of opting for cheaper variants – delivering the basic customer requirements in that product class or category. Although, both pharma and electronic goods belong to high tech-based knowledge industries, similar examples are in plenty of the latter, but hardly any in pharma.

Agreed that pharma is a highly regulated industry, unlike electronic goods. But so are banks, financial services, airlines, telecommunication, among many others. Interestingly, all these industries are building great brands without talking about their investment costs in R&D, while doing so.

In this article, I shall focus on – despite facing a formidable headwind, mostly for the same, pharma industry, in general, continue to lack in two critical areas of brand building. But, before doing that let me quote from some recent research papers wondering, how is this situation continuing unchanged, despite all concerned being aware of it.

Two opposing views:

Just to recap, let me put below, two diametrically opposing views that continue to clash with each one, since long:

  • New and innovative drug costs being excessive, globally, lowering their prices will not harm the progress of innovation.
  • Drug industry argues, any restriction of free pricing of innovative drugs, will seriously jeopardize innovation of newer medicines and treatments.

So much of divergence in the views of two key partners within the industry, can’t just continue any longer, without a serious intervention of governments across the world, including the United States.

Pharma does want to talk about ‘Cost & Value of Medicines’. But…

It’s not that pharma doesn’t want to talk about ‘Value of Medicines,’ but not, apparently, to create an ‘emotional connect’ with its stakeholders, including the patients. It appears, more as a general justification for the high cost of new drugs. For example, a pharma trade association’s communication, after acknowledging ‘that many are struggling to access the medicine they need,’ says upfront: ‘Discussions about costs are important.’ It follows a series of much-repeated common justifications, which are no- brainer, such as:

  • Medicines Help Patients Avoid Expensive Hospital Services,
  • Developing New Treatments and Cures is a Complex and Risky Undertaking,
  • Medicines are Transforming the Treatment of Devastating Diseases.

But, the reality is, these justifications are not working on the ground, as these are not quite in sync with ‘customers’ value’ expectations, both from the company as well from the brand. Moreover, instead of establishing an ‘emotional connect’, this approach probably is further alienating many stakeholders, as several governments are now broaching the issue of price control, or some other mechanism to set drug prices.

Pharma marketers need to be eclectic:

Instead of keep following the age-old marketing and communication models, young pharma marketers need to be empowered to be eclectic. They should look around and try to fathom how is ‘marketing,’ as a business domain, changing in other fast-growing industries, and act accordingly. As pharma is a high-tech knowledge industry, let me draw examples from other similar industries, such one that innovates and manufactures electronic products.

Unlike any high-priced, high-tech electronic product companies, such as Google, Apple or Microsoft – pharma marketing communications are more like ‘justification’ centric, for charging high prices for medicines. This approach, apparently, is not just a bit defensive, but virtually negative. Whereas, unlike drug manufacturers, the above tech companies are constantly focusing on the following two areas, for creating a robust ‘corporate brand’ that infuses consumer-trust in each of their products:

  • Establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers
  • Focusing on the total value of unique value offerings, rather than the high cost of innovation to justify high prices

Let me deliberate briefly on each of the above two.

The importance of establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers:

With the penetration of technology, almost in every household, with a varying degree, though, access to a gamut of information becomes increasingly easy, so are the options available to customers. This is impacting almost every industry, including pharma and healthcare.

Thus, for corporate performance excellence, customers are now creating a space for themselves at the core of the pharma business strategy. Consequently, a need arises for the pharma marketers to enhance end-to-end customer experience. Besides, brand value offerings, this includes both short and long-term customer service offerings to ensure an ongoing emotional connect with customers, for more intense and longer-lasting engagement with trust, both on the ‘corporate brand’ and also on individual products.

Therefore, creating effective ‘emotional connects’ with customers are assuming a cutting-edge strategic importance – in multiple facets of pharma business. More ‘emotionally connected’ customers also act as a force-multiplier to enhance corporate reputation. Although, it mostly happens through word of mouth, in recent days, value added omnichannel communication by respective companies, is playing a crucial role for success in this area.

In the good old days, reaching patients or patient groups directly, would have been a challenging proposition. Most communications on products, diseases and treatments, used to be through healthcare providers. But, this is no longer so, especially in the digital world, that opened a new spectacle of opportunities for crafting patient-centric strategies – as patients become more digital-savvy, too.

Focus on brand value offerings, not on cost of innovation to justify high prices:

To dwell in this area, a series of questions that one may possibly encounter, such as: ‘How do you define value? can you measure it? What are your products and services actually worth to customers?’ Way back, these points were deliberated in the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It said: ‘Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.’ From this paper let me pick up just two critical components of value, as follows, for better understanding:

  • Value in monetary terms: Such as, dollars per unit
  • Value for a customer: What the person gets in exchange for the price it pays

Nevertheless, the important point to note: As ‘market offering has two elemental characteristics: its value and its price, raising or lowering the price of a market offering does not change the value that such an offering provides to a customer. Rather, it changes the customer’s incentive to purchase that market offering.’

When applied in the pharma perspective:

When the above concept of value is applied in the pharma industry perspective, it vindicates an important. Which is, tangible value offerings of an exclusive, high-priced patented products, and the same in its off-patent low-priced avatar remains unchanged, regardless of significant change in its monetary value per unit. However, unlike a patent protected drug, options for generic equivalents will be many, with differing prices.

This brings out another important facet of ‘value’. As the above HBR paper states, considerations of value take place within some context. Even when no comparable market offerings exist, there is always a competitive alternative. For example, in the pharma business, one possible competitive alternative for patented products could well be – when the Government decides to issue a Compulsory License (CL) for make the product available at a cheaper price to patients.

The name of the new game:

Thus, for an exclusive new drug, instead of focusing on cost of innovation to justify high prices, a sharp focus on ‘total value offering’ of the brand would possibly be the name of the new game. It will entail persuading the ‘connected customers’ to realize the total value of both the tangible and intangible cost of each benefit that the product offers, rather than simply the cost of a pill. In doing so, a pharma marketer and his entire team, must have an accurate understanding of what its customers value, and also, would value. This calls for a painstaking research, and a mammoth real time data analysis.

Developing a unique ‘Customer Value’ model:

As the above HBR article reiterates, ‘customer value’ models are not easy to develop. Unfortunately, pharma’s ‘value delivery system’ is still tuned to a self-serving mode and not ‘customer value’ centric.Thus, marketers may wish to note some key points in this regard, as below:

  • Many customers understand their own requirements, but do not necessarily know what fulfilling those requirements is worth to them.
  • This leaves an opportunity to demonstrate persuasively, the total ‘customer value’ that the new brand provides, and how it fulfills their requirements.
  • The strategy makers would have to necessarily generate a comprehensive list of ‘customer value’ elements, based on robust data, on an ongoing basis.
  • The acquired insight on – what customers value, and would value, to gain marketplace advantages over competitors, would form the core of the business strategy.

The next stage would be a pilot study to validate the model and understand the variations, if any, in the estimates. It is also vital to note that an improvement in some functionality may appear important, but may not necessarily mean that customers are willing to pay for it. The aim should always be delivering superior value, and get an equitable return for it. Thus, enhancing end-to-end customer experience in this effort, becomes a critical ingredient to brand success.

Conclusion:

After the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), in June 2000, a similar article was published in the ‘McKinsey Quarterly.’ The paper titled, ‘A business is a value delivery system,’ also emphasized the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment.

This means a simple statement of benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge for each of those. The paper also underlined, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy, once that product is paid for.

Over a period of time, high prices of new and innovative drugs are attracting negative headlines, like - ‘High cost of hepatitis drug reflects a broken pricing system.’ This continues, despite high decibel justification of the ‘exorbitant’ cost of innovation. Undaunted, Big Pharma and its large trade associations remain reluctant to jettison their old advocacy toolkit.

They seem to be still on a – ‘Listen and believe what we are saying’ mode. This is vindicated by the December 14, 2019 report that revealed: ‘The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry’s top lobbying group, filed a lawsuit this week against the state of Oregon, claiming two laws it passed requiring greater transparency of drug prices are unconstitutional.’

Continuation of such approaches, on the contrary, is further alienating many stakeholders, especially the patients and the governments. Thus, time appears more than ripe today to focus more on delivering measurable ‘surplus value’ of new products, to well engaged and connected patients, both globally and locally.

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

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.

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Posted on by
Reply

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business,” said the management guru of all times – Peter Drucker, decades ago. He further added, “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.” What needs to be underscored in this visionary articulation of Drucker is, effective marketing should create such a strong pull for a product or service that renders hard selling less relevant.

The word ‘innovation’ is used frequently within the pharma industry, and more by the multi-national players on a specific context. The purpose is mainly to douse stakeholder concern on high prices of innovative drugs – building a narrative around expensive, complex and time-intensive drug innovation process. That said, just as creativity is necessary to discover new drugs, creative minds also help in effectively reducing the cost of innovation – creating more customers for the company.

Curiously, in this debate the other key business function – ‘marketing’, often takes a back seat, with its usage getting generally restricted to product features and benefits, including ‘freebies’ of various kinds. Neither is there any palpable effort to make the culture of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ prevail across the organization, for overcoming several critical growth barriers that keep looming over all functional areas.

Is it happening because of a hubris, as it were, within the pharma and biotech industry? This article will try to figure out why this has been happening over decades and would also ponder whether the time is ripe for changing the charted path of the business model. For a clear understanding of all, let me start with the difference between creativity and innovation from the business perspective.

Creativity – a fundamental requirement in a business, is different from innovation:  

This was examined in the article titled, ‘The Importance of Creativity in Business,’ published by Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 09, 2017. It emphasized, although “creativity” and “innovation” are often used interchangeably, these are two separate concepts. “Creativity is different because it is a mechanism to being innovative. You can have great ideas, but not be innovative,” the paper underscored. It brought to the fore that ‘creativity’ – being the fundamental ingredient for being ‘innovative’, is essential in the highly competitive business environment. It fuels big ideas, challenges the employees’ way of thinking, and opens the door to new business opportunities.

The IBM study also confirms this fact:

The study titled, ‘‘Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study,’ led by the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change, also confirmed the above fact. The study is the fourth edition of IBM’s biennial Global CEO Study series, involving more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide.

The study reported, CEOs selected creativity as the most important leadership attribute and the number one factor for future business success. It added: ‘Creative leaders invite disruptive innovation, encourage others to drop outdated approaches and take balanced risks. They are open-minded and inventive in expanding their management and communication styles, particularly to engage with a new generation of employees, partners and customers.’ Importantly, ‘creativity’ ranked higher than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision, as each of these will require creativity. According to the study, successfully navigating through an increasing complex world of ‘accelerated industry transformation, growing volumes of data, rapidly evolving customer preferences, can be overcome by instilling ‘creativity’ throughout an organization.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ – does it apply to pharma, as well?  

In today’s complex business environment, pharma’s business challenges are spreading rapidly across many areas. Besides innovation of new drugs, following are four broad, but critical areas, where fostering of creativity, innovative thinking and invention of game changing ideas, across the organization, I reckon, can fetch a sustainable return, in a win-win way:

  • Intense ‘pricing pressure’ to make innovative drugs affordable for greater access to patients: Just as innovative ideas are of fundamental importance to develop new drugs; disruptive innovative ideas in this area, can help resolve this issue, effectively – not any incremental measure.
  • Declining corporate image and eroding public trust: Placing patients’ interest at the center of the business model, and then effective marketing of the same, can reverse this trend, with better business outcomes.
  • Lack of business transparency: Make business processes, including pricing, sales and marketing more transparent, by leveraging the power of data with modern technology.
  • Declining per dollar marketing productivity: Move away from the old and traditional business models to find a new pathway for success, using the process of simulation, on an ongoing basis.

While above are some of the pressing needs for steering the course of pharma and biotech industry, the business keeps charting the same patch, with a bit of tweaking, here or there. Thus, the good old saying – ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ still doesn’t work in pharma.  The question, therefore, is why? We shall discuss it in just a bit. Before that, let me explore how creative the pharma industry, joining some critical dots.

How creative is pharma and biotech industry?

To explore this area, I shall try to touch upon the following two points:

  • Is there any perceptible financial impact on pharma sales revenue, net profit and gross operating margin, for not creatively resolving some critical growth barriers, as stated above?
  • Where does pharma and biotech industry stand in global ‘creativity ranking’?

For this purpose, when I look at the following four major areas, some interesting findings emerge:

  • Top 10 in sales revenue.
  • Top 10 in net profit
  • Average Gross and Operating Margin
  • Creativity ranking of some major pharma and biotech companies

Top 10 in sales revenue:

The overall sales revenue of the pharma/biotech companies remains healthy. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any storm signal.  According to Market Research Reports, Inc. the top 10 companies on 2018 sales revenue, are as follows:

  1. Pfizer Inc.: USD 53.647 Billion
  2. Novartis AG: USD 51.90 Billion
  3. Roche Holding AG: USD 45.5896 Billion
  4. Johnson & Johnson: USD 40.734 Billion
  5. Sanofi S.A: USD 39.288 Billion
  6. Merck & Co., Inc.: USD 37.689 Billion
  7. AbbVie Inc.: USD 32.753 Billion
  8. Amgen: USD 23.7 Billion
  9. GSK: USD 22.968 Billion
  10. Bristol-Myers Squibb: USD 22.600 Billion 

Top 10 in net profit:

There isn’t any storm signal visible in this area, either, as it is seen in isolation. According to Statista, the 2018 ranking of the top 10 biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based on net income, as appeared in the Financial Times 2018 equity screener database, is as follows:

Rank

Company

Net income ($ Billion)

1.

Johnson & Johnson (USA)

15

2.

Novartis (Switzerland)

13.8

3.

Pfizer (USA)

11.9

4.

Roche (Switzerland)

10.5

5.

Amgen (USA)

8.5

6.

Gilead (USA)

7.7

7.

AbbVie USA)

6.8

8.

Novo Nordisk (Denmark)

6.0

9.

Bayer (Germany)

4.3

10.

Biogen (USA)

4.1

Let’s now look at the average gross and operating margin in the pharma and biotech industry.

Average Gross and operating Margin – still the best:  

This also looks healthy, as compared to others. According to the January 2018 study by New York University’s Stern School of Business, average gross margin of 481 biotech and 237 pharma and biotech companies was reported at 70.71 percent and 68.60 percent, respectively. And their operating margins were at 25.45 percent and 24.89 percent, severally – against 12.32 percent of all the 7209 companies surveyed.

Creativity ranking of some commonly known pharma and biotech companies:

Here there seems to be an issue. When I look at the 2018 Forbes list of ‘The World’s Most Innovative Companies,’ it will be challenging to find any of the above top names of the pharma and biotech companies within the Top 100 ranking. Just to illustrate the point, let me reproduce below some commonly known names of our industry:

Rank Company Country 12-month sales growth% Innovation Premium%
#7. Incyte USA 38.93 70.59
#14. Celltrion S. Korea 45.25 62.3
#16. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals USA 20.82 61.11
#17. Vertex Pharmaceuticals USA 46.2 60.93
#22. Alexion Pharmaceuticals USA 17.32 58.04
#82. Allergan Ireland 9.4 37.59

Some interesting possibilities:

The above data, points towards some interesting possibilities:

  • Because of its sales and profit margin remaining generally lucrative, the focus on innovation of most pharma and biotech companies, get restricted to new drug discovery and development processes.
  • Top management’s encouragement of creativity across all functions of the organization appears inadequate, to successfully navigate through the key growth barriers, to maintain future business sustainability.

But, some critical signals do indicate: ‘shape up or ship out’:

But the real picture isn’t as rosy. Analysis of some key trends does capture several critical storm signals for the industry According to the July 09, 2018 study of EY (Ernst and Young): ‘Margins of pharmaceutical companies are continuing to decline – the future lies in new ecosystems.’ It further indicated: Although the margins of the 21 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are declining, the businesses ‘are still growing, thanks to blockbuster drugs and new active ingredients against cancer. 40 per cent of the active ingredients that are currently being developed worldwide are cancer drugs.’

The paper concluded, the future lies in designing completely new types of ecosystems and business models. With the aim of providing comprehensive support for healthcare customers, including patients. “Data-driven business models will permanently change the pharmaceutical industry,” the paper articulated. The study forecasted, ‘life Science startups will take over between 30 and 45 per cent of the market by 2030.’ Isn’t this a clear signal, especially for large and longtime pharma players to ‘shape up or ship out?’

Conclusion: 

Let me now revert to what Peter Drucker said on two basic functions of a business – Innovation and Marking. None can question pharma on its consistently bringing to market innovative drugs to effectively tackle many diseases, including complex and life-threatening ones. Given, that ongoing new drug development is the lifeblood of growth of pharma business. Nevertheless, that aspect of innovation is mostly perceived as an exclusive internal business value for most companies. The majority of stakeholders perceives the value of drug innovation as inclusive, when it is made accessible to a large population of patients at an affordable price, along with a decent Return on Investment (ROI) for the corporation. This expectation cannot be wished away. Instead, its core concept should drive the other basic function of business – marketing

This stage can be attained by building an innovative organization, fostering the culture and process of ‘creativity’ – across its functions. It is now a fundamental requirement for pharma and biotech companies. Beyond new product development, innovation immensely helps organizations navigating through strong headwinds to achieve its financial goals and objectives, in an inclusive manner. When IT – another knowledge industry, can reduce the cost of innovation through creative processes, across all functions, making its product and services affordable to a large population, e.g. Reliance Jio, why not Pharma? In that sense, I reckon, pharma and biotech companies are yet to become creative – in a holistic way.

By: Tapan J. Ray     

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