Impact of The Cost of Pharma Marketing Failure On Patients

Posted on September 12, 2022 by Tapan Ray

‘About half of all products launched over the past 15 years have underperformed pre-launch consensus forecasts by more than 20%.’ It’s one of the findings of a recent study by L.E.K. Consulting, going back to 2004. This number is besides the cost of failure while discovering a successful New Molecular Entity.

Adding this to the cost of the product innovation and development, clinical trials and other regulatory expenses, the wasteful expenditure becomes mind boggling – for any unsatisfactory launch performance. In such a situation, the probability of creating newer blockbuster therapies is not getting any easier.

As is believed by many – and vindicated by several studies, new drug marketing cost is more than its R&D cost. Which is why, ensuring success of a new drug launch is critical to fund new drug innovation – on an ongoing basis. Consequently, leadership focus on high ‘launch success’ rate is so important – as the good old saying goes – ‘well begun half done.’

In addition, prudent optimization of the success rate of new products may also help the company avoid irresponsible pricing, while improving the profit margin. In this article, I shall deliberate on the impact of the cost of marketing failure on patients, in general. Alongside, the avoidable ‘soft ground’ that marketers may wish to avoid while delivering unmet value to patients.

Big Pharma’s Sales and Marketing spend is more than R&D:

According to another recent study of October 27, 2021, ‘in most cases, more of the dollars spent by drug manufacturers go toward selling and marketing costs than toward research and development (R&D) for new treatments, cures, or expanded indications and uses of existing drugs.’ For example, as the paper highlights:

AbbVie, which manufactures branded drugs like Humira, spent $11 billion in sales and marketing in 2020, compared with $8 billion on R&D.

Bayer, which manufactures branded drugs like Xarelto (codeveloped with Johnson & Johnson) and Eylea, spent $18 billion in sales and marketing, compared to $8 billion on R&D.

Johnson & Johnson, which manufactures branded drugs like Xarelto (codeveloped with Bayer) and Stelara, spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $12 billion on research and development.

Therefore, just as R&D expenses have to be made more productive, so are the sales & marketing expenses, where the expenditure towards new product launches is a critical component.

Why a successful new product launch is important:

An analysis by Deloitte in this area, published on March 26, 2020, found that most new drugs continue with the revenue trajectory set at launch. It said, about 70 percent of products that miss expectations at launch continue doing so in subsequent years, and around 80 percent of products that meet or beat expectations continue to do so afterward. Thus, launch success of a new product is very important, both for the organizations and the patients.

A successful new product launch helps both the company and patients:

Correctly assessing and leveraging full commercial potential of a new product through its effective launch helps both the patients and the company. This subject was discussed in a recent article, published in the Fierce Pharma on October 25, 2021, in the context of many drug launch disasters. The areas of benefits, I reckon, include the following:

Patients’ unmet needs are met at a reasonable price
Manufacturer can recoup its research and development costs.
Fund future drug discoveries.
Satisfy investors with handsome returns.
Creating a sound brand performance base – as a strong launch is arguably the most critical step in a new drug’s lifecycle.

New product launch failure is across the disease areas – from Big Pharma to Startups:

As the above December 18, 2020, study by L.E.K. Consulting points out that new products’ launch failure is taking place across the disease areas. These include, Oncology, immunology, infectious disease, ophthalmology, blood disorders, brain diseases, and cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Similarly, the companies responsible for such failure span across global pharma majors to biotech startups.

Why many companies are failing in this process:

To help ascertain the depth of this issue, let me start with the key objective of a new product launch, which is effectively delivering the holistic value of the brand which consumers would appreciate. Several papers also acknowledge, to succeed in this area, pharma players need to prepare their data-based launch plan with cerebral power and ensure that the strategy is working and is being executed flawlessly.

A large number of studies find, ‘many companies fail in this process, due to a combination of factors.’ Some of these are uncontrollable, but many of which are very much within a marketer’s control.

Examples of uncontrollable and controllable variables:

Uncontrollable factors include post marketing approval drug safety issues. Reports indicate, ‘One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval.’ This is being reported even in recent times, like, ‘new safety signals that cropped up after the approvals of Novartis’ eye drug Beovu and Sanofi’s dengue vaccine Dengvaxia.’

Whereas, controllable factors include, poor product differentiation and other management missteps, besides ‘limited market access, poor understanding of market needs or misjudgment of competitive threats.’ For example, poor product differentiation and other management missteps were, reportedly, ‘the cause of trouble for Clovis Oncology’s Rubraca in the PARP inhibitor space, and Merck & Co. and Pfizer’s Steglatro in the SGLT2 field.

Key success ingredients to focus on:

Since long, various research, including one by Bain & Co dated October 2017, has highlighted that over 50% of new product launches are underperforming. This situation can’t, in any way, be accepted as a ‘thumb rule’ by pharma marketers, any longer. Mainly because: ‘When a drug misses its launch projections, there’s a high likelihood that it will never recover that revenue,’ as their study findings underscore. From this perspective, listed below are some of the basic areas to focus on for greater launch success, as I have experienced:

Early launch planning – well before the regulatory approval for new products.

Data-based and well-tested target-audience identification, the target markets’ selection and key opinion leaders need to be selected for greater focus in effective stakeholder engagement.

Creating differentiated value-propositions that addresses targeted patients’ unmet needs, and, in tandem, offers scope for commensurate premium pricing, are vital.

Product pricing should be based on quality of value delivery to patients that they can perceive and would acknowledge. Misvaluing a brand, and just focusing on those who can pay, may attract negative publicity, creating a key barrier to success.

Current competition, their ongoing counter strategy, new market competitors and other launch challenges need to be carefully mapped, for strategic fine tuning or course correction, in time, wherever and whenever needed.

Execution of the launch plan must be accomplished with military precision, as it were.

Conclusion:

As the above Bain & Co paper articulated, ‘The most consistently undervalued factor contributing to a successful launch is the way leadership teams organize and the manage the launch process.’

It’s again not too difficult to understand that the net accountability of the cost of marketing failure, which is a major contributing factor to stifle the R&D funding, in many cases, squarely falls on pharma leadership.

Instead of taking corrective action in this critical area, most of them choose the easy path – increase new product pricing to achieve targeted revenue from a smaller unit sale of the brand. The net impact of which is on patients due to access barrier caused by high prices.

Such products, without clearly differentiated value propositions that patients would recognize, would further increase sales and marketing costs, and could even result in marketing malpractices. Under this backdrop, serious and thoughtful attempt in making all new product launches successful money spinners, as respective brands will merit, may help the pharma leadership to create a win-win situation for both the company and patients.

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.

Using Selling Simulator For New Drug Launch In The New Normal

Posted on August 23, 2021 by Tapan Ray

The reverberation of unparalleled business disruptions in healthcare caused by Covid pandemic, extends across its value chain – from patients and families to clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. Consequently, even many diehards or staunchly tradition-bound pharma marketers were being prompted to reimagine their marketing model, to keep the business going.

Some of these areas include, customer preferred engagement channels, platforms and associated remote or virtual training inputs – necessary for effective execution of new strategic marketing models for the evolving new normal. A few of them are also moving in this direction – garnering requisite wherewithal.

“But it has also left some of them paralyzed by uncertainty. Should they invest now in transforming their commercial model or wait to see how things play out?” This palpable dilemma of many pharma marketers, was well captured in a recent McKinsey & Company article - ‘Reshaping pharma’s strategy in the next normal,’ published on December 15, 2020.

In a situation like this, one of the critical challenges is the successful launch of new pharma products amid changing customer behavior, product expectations and other associated uncertainties. ‘As pharmaceutical companies reshape their commercial models to prepare for the uncertainties ahead, personalization and digital enablement will be crucial to launch success in the new environment,’ underscored the above article.

As many of us will know, quality training and development inputs for the same, remain a vital prerequisite before the sales force hits the marketing battle ground. Isn’t that also a challenge in the prevailing market situation? Could digitalization of the company provide a solution to this critical sales force training issue for the same, in the new normal? This article will delve into this area.

Digitalization is a basic step – the challenge is much beyond that:

As I wrote in my article dated October 07, 2019, disruptive digital transformation in pharma sales and marketing is indeed a necessary basic step. It will also help to leapfrog in the field staff training and development process by imbibing leading-edge technologies, such as AI, for giant leaps to higher growth trajectories. But, ‘Digitalization’ isn’t a panacea, either.

This was also echoed in another recent article on ‘Pharmaceutical Marketing in The New Normal’, published in the Forbes magazine on August 11, 2021. It wrote, ‘even the best, most advanced digital tools won’t help if reps are not properly trained.’ This is due to multiple factors. Let me elaborate the point from a new product launch perspective.

New normal brings unprecedented changes – no footsteps to follow:

The extent and depth of personalization required in any effective customer engagement process for successful outcomes, has undergone a fundamental shift. Today, personalization of content, channels and platforms is a necessity and no longer an option. In the new normal one size doesn’t fit all. Consequently, sales force training process, particularly for a new drug launch, has also become personalized, with simulation of new expectations and requirements of each market becoming a key ingredient, more than ever before.

Simulated sales training still not too common in pharma:

That personalized and simulated sales force training is still not too common in the pharma industry, was also captured in the February 2020 ‘The Voice of the Sales Rep study’ of the sales research firm – SalesFuel. It reported, just 30% of sales reps in the pharma industry are now getting personalized sales training based on individual needs. This study was done in the United States, and the same percentage is expected to be much less in India.

In this context, the above Forbes article also noted that at an elementary level, reps should be proficient in video conferencing and virtual CME basics, such as, screen sharing, lighting, cameras, and the likes. There could also be occasions when they may need to teach even some of the physicians for whom, as well, this type of engagement is new. Thus, simulation training may possibly play a critical role to make the sales force future ready, always.

Besides, gaining deeper insights of customers, market dynamics, and tailoring the content of personalized engagement, accordingly, will be a critical part of personalized training through simulation, especially for new product launch in the new normal.

Doctors availing product and treatment related online services:

While navigating through acute disruption of life during Covid pandemic, several doctors have learnt to use digital channels and platforms to avail product or new therapy related information directly, instead of through sales reps. And that too, as they want, when they want and the way they want, gaining a discretionary choice. Several surveys, such as, 2020 Accenture research, also reported many doctors want either virtual or a mix of virtual and in-person meetings with pharmaceutical reps, even after the pandemic ends.

Available studies also give a sense that the future overall trend in pharma is unlikely to be a replication of pre-Covid time, prompting the players to reimagine their customer engagement format. For example, a contemporary ‘Real Time Covid-19 Barometer Survey of physicians,’ by Sermo, found that ‘67% believe pharmaceutical companies could improve communications with HCPs and could do more to help physicians make prescribing decisions.’

Hence, even with the much-reduced threat from Covid infection, as and when it will happen, the same trend is likely to change the scope and traditional toolkit for future new brand launch, as well. Hence, pharma companies would, need to change their sales training architecture, accordingly – like simulation training – always keeping one ear on the ground.

Proven edge of simulation training in healthcare during Covid-19:

There are several studies in this area in different parts of the world. To illustrate the point, let me quote a Canadian study, published by ResearchGate in December 2020. It made several important points, which I summarized, as below.

The study elucidates, healthcare resources were strained to previously unforeseeable limits because of COVID-19 pandemic, in most countries. The unprecedented nature of disruption in health systems prompted the emergence of rapid simulation training for critical just-in-time COVID-19 education. The aim was to improve preparedness for giving high quality care to rapidly increasing number of Covid infected patients, including caregivers, across all healthcare sectors.

The researchers found that simulation training was pivotal for healthcare provider learning, alongside new systems integration, development of new processes, workflows, checklists, protocols, and in the delivery of quality clinical care to all concerned.

To cope with the new reality, triggered by the Covid pandemic, as also demonstrated by several other studies, simulation training has the potential to deliver the best learning outcomes. Some may obviously would seek a little more clarity in understanding what exactly is a simulation training that I am referring to.

What exactly is simulation training?

It won’t be terribly difficult for pharma marketers to understand what exactly simulation training in pharma sales and marketing is. As the name suggests, simulation is a replication of what happens or may happen in a real-life situation. In this particular case, it involves the simulation of changing pharma customers and market behavior and expectations, in the new normal.

Thus, a simulation training process, say for a new brand launch, would create virtual market scenarios by replicating all recent changes in customer behavior/expectations and the market dynamics – of a specific territory. This is usually done with AI based computer software, designed to help sales force learning of a real-life situation, without being in the thick of it on the ground. In simulated training, the selected trainees interact with technology, rather than reading notes or listening through the lectures of persons having similar insights.

The selling simulators are cost-effective and provides better outcomes:

Besides being cost-effective, simulation training is also considered a 24-carat way of developing new skills, and also assessing how well the trainees are translating the new learnings into practice. No wonder why even the US National Library of Medicine, after evaluation and review of several research studies, has acknowledged that simulation training imparts learning ‘just like a real thing.’

How will it work on the new product launch?

In pharma sales and marketing area, the simulation of customers’ post-pandemic new needs and expectations, can be simulated by developing a ‘selling simulator’ for new product launch, in the new normal. These simulators will integrate AI-based software with game dynamics or gamification, creating a virtual field situation for sales reps to continuously learn and hone their new-product launch skills. The required contemporary skills may often be unique in nature, beyond the traditional pathways, even where there are no footsteps to follow.

Why simulation training for a new drug launch will add greater value?

This query is also well deliberated in the McKinsey & Company article - ‘Reshaping pharma’s strategy in the next normal,’ published on December 15, 2020, with the Covid pandemic as the backdrop. It underscores, ‘it is clear that major shifts in the way that healthcare professionals (HCPs) interact with pharma companies will present a challenge for the traditional launch model, with its reliance on face-to-face meetings with physicians and its “one size fits all” approach to engagement.’

The study further points out that “the traditional pharma commercial model will likely struggle to adapt to a different world. When reps venture back into the field, they will need to address the plurality and access challenges of the new interaction landscape. To do that, they will need to consider a new approach to launches: one that is digital, local, and personalized.”

This changing need will call for a new genre of training, and I think, simulation training for pharma reps will prove to be more productive in this area.

Conclusion:

Many uncertainties in the pharma business continue, even after the second wave of Covid pandemic, with the Damocles sword of its third wave hanging over the head, including the Indian population. In the current volatile pharma business environment, as an article on the subject, published by the Pharmaceutical Executive on July 30, 2021, articulates – the challenges of remote work mean that training approaches must be adaptable and engaging.

Simulation training, with its power to engage learners, and developed for strategically minded, and data-literate sales teams, would become a key component of the future pharmaceutical sales training landscape. This is destined to happen regardless of whether delivered on site or in remote training formats. From this perspective, I reckon, with a well thought-out – AI-driven selling simulator, especially for new product launch, to start with, could be a potential game changer in yet mostly untried 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.

More Challenges For Brand Launch Success In The New Normal

Posted on February 8, 2021 by Tapan Ray

The drug manufacturers’ life blood to drive business growth has always been successful new product launch. However, this task has always remained a tough challenge to crack, since last so many years for various reasons. According to McKinsey & Company: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” Several research studies have been carried out by now to gain actionable insight on this issue.

Existing challenges for successful drug launch got further amplified, as Covid-19 pandemic added a novel dimension in this space. It involves disruptive changes in many facets of customers’ new product-value expectations. Similar changes are witnessed in the product value delivery process, doctor-patient engagement, content development and delivery platforms, among others. This article will explore this area from successful new product launch perspective, in the days ahead.

Dismal outcome of many new drug launches – more for primary care:

According to a recent study, published by L.E.K Consulting on December 18, 2020: ‘About half of all products launched over the past 15 years have underperformed pre-launch consensus forecasts by more than 20%.’ This is quite in line with what McKinsey & Company found in 2014, as quoted in the beginning of this article.

However, in a relative yardstick, the primary care market has been the most vulnerable, which continues even during the ongoing pandemic. For example, according to an April 2020 Evaluate Vantage analysis, ‘Covid-19 adds a new danger to drug launches.’ The study emphasized, new drug launches, especially those targeting the primary care market, are particularly vulnerable as the pandemic continues. The key reason being, besides widespread disruptions in the health care system, sales teams will be physically unable to reach frontline physicians, as much as, and also the way they could do the same in the old normal. The studies underscore that a strong launch is critical to achieving maximum commercial potential, despite odds.

Some pivotal factors demand a greater focus than ever before:

After in-depth analysis of various studies in this area, some pivotal marketing factors appeared critical to me, in order to reduce success uncertainty while launching new products.

Alongside, unbreachable and agile supply chain alternatives also assumed a never before-frontline-importance in the new normal, unlike pre-Covid days. Another recent study, titled ‘Competitiveness During Covid-19 Pandemic: New Product Development and Supply Chain Agility’, published by ResearchGate in October 2020, vindicated the point.

As the title indicates, the above study examined the effect of new product development and supply chain agility to gain competitiveness during the Covid-19 pandemic and probably beyond. Thus, while developing and launching new products in the new normal, some pivotal factors, such as the following, appeared critical to me, in order to reduce success-uncertainty while launching new products:

Early planning for launch with a robust market access strategy, better sales forecasting with stretch goals – supported by state-of-the art forecasting tools and relevant learnings from the past.

Gaining actionable insight on changing customer needs, market dynamics and competitive threats in the new normal – by generating credible and contemporary data and leveraging the power of analytics – to offer differentiated stakeholder value.

Driving home patient-centric coeval product values that will delight customers – through flawless execution of stakeholder engagement strategies.

Working out virtual, innovative, personalized and impactful alternatives to some critical launch related physical events, such as, conferences, seminars, webinars and the likes, for doctors and other customers.

Developing creative and contemporary content and other marketing assets for significant online or omnichannel presence of new brands – supported by video clips and other tools, aiming at the target audience.

Differentiating the launch product clearly from those of the nearest competitors, where a focus on price-value relationship of the brand – from the patients’ perspective, could play a game changing role. As McKinsey & Company also highlighted, launching an undifferentiated product in an unestablished disease area carries a greater risk of failure.

Creating a robust and agile supply chain to navigate through unexpected market changes – as all experienced recently.

Delivering ‘patient-centric’ real value of the brand together, is critical:

Interestingly, L.E.K Consulting has also emphasized in its recent study that to drive and effectively deliver ‘patient-centric’ real value of new products, it is imperative for drug companies to execute the launch process flawlessly.

To make it happen on the ground – at the moment of truth, careful selection of a team of self-motivated people is necessary. This needs to be followed by intense training in all aspects of the specific launch, including effective use of modern digital tools and platforms – and above all – by creating a ‘can do’ team spirit to deliver the deliverables.

This requirement has been epitomized in the recent article, titled ‘Beyond the Storm: Launch excellence in the new normal,’ published by McKinsey & Company. Therein, the authors articulated, ‘Intangible though it may sound, great launches have a different feel from normal launches. There is a real sense that – we’re all in this together.’

Pharma’s current way of using digital platforms doesn’t satisfy many doctors:

Over the last one year, as the pandemic brought all human activities virtually to a grinding halt, there has been a significant shift towards digital tools and online platforms, including in the way medical practitioners interact with drug companies. As recent surveys indicate, pharma customers don’t seem to be quite satisfied with the way many pharma players are currently making use of this technology.

This is happening even with those doctors who are open to virtual engagement and in favor of remote patient consultations. The issue needs to be resolved soon, particularly for new product launch successfully – using digital platforms, as reported in recent surveys.

The survey reports retraining of ‘sales reps to become digital orchestrators’:

One such recent survey, conducted by Indegene, which was also reported by Fierce Pharma on February 01, 2021, digital dissatisfaction of doctors with pharma companies, has jumped during the pandemic. The rates of dissatisfaction with pharma digital interactions, across media channels, ranged from 23% to almost 50% of physicians. Some of the key findings of the study include:

49% of physicians are not happy with pharma’s social media engagements – perceived as less sophisticated when compared to expectations set by consumer companies.

Pharma is far from providing a satisfactory digital experience, as compared to other industries. The current dissatisfaction level where a higher percentage of doctors were dissatisfied, include marketing emails – 46%, telephone sales calls with sales reps – 42% and both webinars and websites – each at 39%.

In-person meetings dropped from 78% to 15% during the pandemic, but even now only 48% of doctors surveyed expect in-person engagements to continue in the post-COVID world.

Attendance at medical conferences also dropped from 66% to only 16% during the shutdowns and travel restrictions, but only 50% of HCPs now expect to resume in-person congresses after it’s safe to hold them.

The number of physicians engaged in remote sales visits increased from 11% to 47% during the pandemic, probably because there weren’t other alternatives available. Interestingly, one-third of physicians still plan to continue with virtual sales meetings even after the pandemic.

Most stakeholders are realizing, this is going to be the new normal, with senior pharma leadership also saying, ‘it’s never going to be the same as before.’

About 5 of the top 15 global pharma players are retraining their sales reps to become “digital orchestrators” and working to help them create clear and comprehensive digital communications for doctors.

Speedy resolution of these issues is likely making a substantial difference in improving pharma-to-physician interactions, particularly during new drug launches, in the days ahead.

Conclusion:

Success uncertainties in new product launches have always been a cause of concern for the drug industry, especially after having invested a substantial resource towards innovation and clinical developments. Interestingly, pharma players were mostly following ‘stick to the knitting’ dogma, as it were, in their launch planning. Despite the availability of sophisticated digital tools and analytics over the last several years, particularly in generating and accurate analysis of contemporary and credible data to gain insights, not much had changed radically. Suddenly Covid pandemic disrupted most market traditions, business processes, and the general belief on decision makers’ ‘gut feelings’ on customer behavior, market dynamics. Besides, the mindset of ‘doing better that what you have been always doing’, prevailed in many cases. In India, market research for most companies remained within the ambit of syndicated retail and prescription audit, despite frequent grumbling of many marketers on some critical findings of these reports.

The last one year has created more challenges in this area, although with a silver lining. A large number of drug companies have now stepped into the area of digital marketing – in varying degree, scale and resource deployment. This shift is expected to help reduce launch success uncertainties of new drugs. It will again, depend on how effectively the technology is leveraged by the cerebral power of astute markers.

Another article on pharma product launch, published by McKinsey & Company on December 15, 2020, also vindicated this point. It underlined: ‘As pharmaceutical companies reshape their commercial model to prepare for the uncertainties ahead, personalization and digital enablement will be crucial to launch success in the new environment.’

Amid these, as some surveys highlight, many doctors are not satisfied with the way digital technology is being currently used by pharma companies – to interact with them and cater to their information needs. With these ‘teething troubles’ being properly and promptly addressed, many drug companies, I reckon, will be able to remarkably reduce success uncertainties of new drug launches in the new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Data-giri’: Critical For A Rewarding New Product Launch

Posted on December 24, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Success in new product launches is a fundamental requirement to excel in pharma business – regardless of whether the drug is innovative or a generic one. For a novel, innovative molecule, associated risks are much higher, as it carries a huge amount of associated R&D expenditure.

The launch plan for a generic formulation or even a ‘me-too’ patented variety, can broadly replicate the first in the class molecule. Whereas, for any breakthrough innovative medicine – it’s a whole new ball game. There are virtually no footsteps to follow. Nonetheless, there is one thing common in both – a robust launch plan is pivotal to success, across the board.

In this regard, the March 2014 article titled, ‘The secret of successful drug launches’, of McKinsey & Company captures an interesting scenario: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.”

On the same issue, Bain & Company also drew a similar outline with its article titled, ‘How to Make Your Drug Launch a Success,’ published about three and half years later – on September 06, 2017. It reported: “Our research shows that nearly 50 percent of launches over the past eight years have under-performed analyst expectations, and more than 25 percent have failed to reach even 50 percent of external revenue forecasts.”

The bottom-line, therefore, is – even if the success rate of new product launches has marginally improved, for various reasons, there still isn’t much to write home about it. In this article, I shall deliberate what type of approaches, when used with powerful cerebral inputs, could possibly improve this rate – significantly and sooner. Could it be with ‘Data-giri’?

What is ‘Data-giri’?

A good question. ‘Data-giri’ is quite an unheard-of terminology, probably was first used by the Chairman of Reliance Industries – Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani, on September 02, 2016. This happened when he announced the forthcoming launch of his mobile network ‘Jio’. At that time, light-heartedly he said:”We Indians have come to appreciate and applaud ‘Gandhigiri’. Now, we can all do ‘Data- giri’, which is an opportunity for every Indian to do unlimited good things, with unlimited data.”

As is known to many, the word ‘Gandhigiri’ is generally used in India to express the power in the tenets of Gandhism. Similarly, the expression ‘Data-giri’ may symbolize the power that the effective use of the right kind and quality of ‘data’ could provide. Unleashing the potential of relevant and requisite data for value creation, would assume critical importance, even in drug launches, more than ever before.

‘Data-giri’ in drug launches:

Right kind and volume of relevant ‘Data’ is fast becoming an important marketing weaponry. Its variety and quality of usage in business, would ultimately differentiate between success and failure.

Today, data usage in pharma marketing can no longer be restricted to just retail and prescription audits, supported at times by a few custom-made marketing research initiatives. The data that I am talking about here, covers mostly real-life and ongoing data in many areas, such as customer behavior, their practices, thinking pattern, aspirations, together with associated changes in trend for each – captured right from the early stages. The cluster of customers includes doctors, patients, healthcare providers and all other stakeholders.

To unleash the hidden power of data for gaining a productive space for brands in customers’ mind, building an arsenal of data for engagement in pharma marketing warfare, is emerging as a new normal for pharma players.

Accordingly, the bedrock of any strategic plan is shifting from – key decisions based mostly on gut feelings, to all such decisions standing on pillars of a large pool of well-analyzed data. From a new product-launch perspective, the basic data requirements would encompass some critical areas, which need to be focused on. I would illustrate this point with a few examples, as below.

Basic data requirements for a new product launch:

One such example in the above area, comes from United BioSource LLC (UBC) – a leading provider of pharmaceutical support service. It highlights 4 real-time basic data insights as critical to a successful drug launch, which I summarize as follows:

What market share I want to achieve?
Where are my potential high-volume prescribers?
What are the characteristics of patients who will receive my drugs?
Which physician specialties would prescribe my drug – immediate, medium and long term?

Successful companies do three things right:

Another example on what successful companies do right comes from the above research report of Bain & Company. It found that companies with successful launches do the following three things right:

They differentiate their drug through messaging, post-launch data and services.
They create broad customer advocacy via a superior customer experience.
They organize their launch as a micro-battle and ensure continuous ‘frontline feedback’.

The paper included a few other factors as, comprehensive market research, key opinion leader advocacy and competitive resourcing. The authors observed that pharma executives grossly underestimate several key success ingredients, including customer advocacy and organizing each launch as a micro-battle, with a real-time dual-feedback mechanism involving all concerned, to facilitate prompt intervention whenever required.

From both the above examples, none can possibly refute that without a meticulously created ‘data arsenal’, these exercises are feasible, in any way, for a rewarding new product launch outcome.

Data is fundamental to create a Unique Customer Experience (UCE):

As I wrote in my previous article, the expertise in creating a Unique Customer Experience (UCE) or aUnique Patient Experience (UPE) for a brand, would eventually separate men from the boys in the game of gaining product ‘market share’. Crafty use of data is fundamental for moving towards this direction.

One of the crucial requirements for UCE or UPE is taking a significant share of mind of consumers. This is possible by designing data-based cutting-edge differential advantages of the brand over others. In pharma marketing battleground, this could be done either – with only tangible brand features, or mostly with intangible benefits and perceptions, or an astute mix of both.

Data – essential to measure deviation against the strategic plan:

During any new product launch-phase, it is essential to capture and accurately measure all actual deviations against plan, taking place on the ground at each pre-defined milestone. The exact reasons for each need to be ferreted – both below or above expectations, for immediate necessary actions. This is important, as various studies indicate that the performance trend of a new product in the first six months from its launch, is a good indicator of its future performance.

All types of customer engagements, including selection of communication channels and platforms, should be ongoing research data-based. I emphasized this point in my previous article, as well. It was reiterated that ‘omnichannel content strategy’ for improving patient engagement and providing UPE, across all touchpoints in the diagnosis and treatment process, should be created over the bedrock of high-quality data.

Time for a switch from SOV to SOC:

Creating greater ‘Share of Voice (SOV)’ for a new brand, especially during its launch phase, would no longer work in pharma. This approach is based on the key premise of ‘Jo dikhta hai wo bikta hai’. This often-used Hindi phrase when translated into simple English, may be expressed as: ‘That which is seen is sold.’

In the pharma context SOV may be explained, as I understand: The percentage of total sales promotion and marketing activities for a brand within the sum total of the same in the represented therapy area. It is usually determined by measuring some key parameters, such as frequency and reach of doctors-call, or customer-contact, or even its rank in ‘top of mind brand recall.’

Greater SOV can make marketeers believe that enough is being done by the company to benefit potential brand consumers, which would help reaping a rich harvest. It may also reflect how busy they are with the execution of all planned-activities. On the other hand, consumer-experience may not be quite in sync with the intent and belief of the marketeers. They may not find enough value in the conventional brand marketing process. This is likely to happen much more in the future, as most consumers will want to experience a unique feeling of being cared enough by the company, while moving through all the touch points of the treatment process.

This trend calls for a major shift in pharma marketeers’ approach – from creating a greater SOV to offering greater SOC (Share of Care). I highlighted the importance of providing ‘care’ through several of my articles in the past, published in this blog. One such is titled “Creating A ‘Virtuous Cycle’ Through Patient Reach and Care”, published on April 09, 2018.

Conclusion:

The critical switch from SOV to SOC involves imaginative application of complex data of high quality.

A well-thought-out plan to fetch out critical answers aiming to provide UCE or UPE, will involve in-depth analysis of voluminous data of high quality, through modern-day analytics. From this perspective, fast learning of the art of ‘Data-giri’ is becoming a critical requirement for new product launch success in pharma, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on August 6, 2018 by Tapan Ray

The above comment, although sounds a bit harsh, was made recently by none other than Scott Gottlieb - the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States. He expressed his anguish while explaining the reasons for a delayed launch of several important biosimilar drugs.

We know, this new genre of drugs has a potential to be a quick game changer, significantly improving access to affordable biologic medicines for many patients. Unfortunately, much desired accelerated progress in this direction, got considerably retarded in the face of a strong headwind, craftily created by the innovator companies, as is widely believed. There are various ways of creating the same. However, the two major ones can be ascribed to:

Getting caught in the labyrinth of complex patent challenge.
General apprehensions of many doctors on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars as compared to reference drugs.

This is happening in major markets, including India, in varying degree, though. In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, starting with the largest pharma market of the world and then focusing on India.

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

“Americans could have saved $ 4.5 billion in 2017, if all of the FDA-approved biosimilars were actually available in the United States, instead of getting delayed because of litigations or other agreements.” The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States – Scott Gottlieb, reportedly, made this comment on July 18, 2018.

Gottlieb referred to some of these as a “toxin” that have prevented other drug makers from launching biosimilar medicines. He accused the manufacturers of pricey biologic medicines of using “unacceptable” anti-competitive tactics to keep competitors off the market. These cost Americans billions of dollars – the report highlighted.

These tactics, as the US FDA commissioner said, are being deliberately used by the innovator pharma and biotech companies and can be corroborated with several examples. One such is the fact that despite the expiration ofthe ‘composition of the matter’ patent for Humira (adalimumab) in December 2016, its ‘non-composition of the matter’ patent would expire not earlier than 2022. The company has therefore made settlement agreements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis, delaying the launch of adalimumab biosimilars until January 2023.

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

Both these are happening for original biologic and biosimilar equivalents, often by the same manufacturers. For example, the Reuters report of October 02, 2016, titled ‘Big Pharma vs Big Pharma in court battles over biosimilar drugs’ highlighted, although Novartis and Amgen are at each other’s throats in court over the Swiss drug maker’s Enbrel copy, but the two are still cooperating on a drug for migraines.

“One of the biggest surprises has been the number of innovator Biopharma companies, like Amgen, now developing biosimilars to compete with the products of other innovator companies,” the article observes. It also reports that Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Biogen are also embroiled in lawsuits over biosimilars.

This trend vindicates that the line dividing makers of brand-name drugs and copycat medicines is blurring as companies known for innovative treatments queue up to peddle copies of rivals’ complex biological medicines, Reuters noted. Consequently, they are now doing both – protecting their high-price products from biosimilars drugs,while simultaneously challenging rivals’ patent claims.

There is another interesting side to it. Notwithstanding, biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologic drugs that could improve patients’ access to expensive biological medicines, prescribers’ perception of biosimilar medicines are still not quite positive, just yet.

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

To illustrate this point, let me quote from recent research findings in this area. One such is the May 2017 study on “Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.” The key points are as follows:

Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.

71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.

Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.

The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

Overall, medical specialists held positive attitudes towards biosimilars, but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from the original biologic. Several experts believe that constantly highlighting the fear factors against biosimilar drugs, such as possible risks of interchangeability with reference product, or immunogenicity related serious consequences, though very rare, are fueling the fire of apprehensions on the wide use of biosimilar medicines.

However, several reviews, like the one that I am quoting here finds that ‘switching from the reference product to related biosimilar drug is not inherently dangerous.’I discussed this issue, with details in one of my articles, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

As the US-FDA says: “Patients and their physicians can expect that there will be no clinically meaningful differences between taking a reference product and a biosimilar drug when these products are used as intended. All reference products and biosimilar products meet FDA’s rigorous standards for approval for the indications (medical conditions) described in product labeling.”

The key point to take note of is that the US drug regulator categorically reiterates: “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

Although, there are no specific data requirements for interchangeability of biosimilar drugs with the reference product, as mentioned in the latest Indian Guidelines on similar biologic, other visible and visible barriers are restricting the rapid growth of drugs belonging to this genre.

An interesting research study finds, like many other drugs, the cost of biosimilars is a major barrier to the rapid growth of the market in India. The Deloitte Report, titled “Winning with biosimilars: Opportunities in global markets” also articulated: “Approximately 70 percent of the country’s population is considered rural and will focus on the cost of therapy – a 20-30 percent discount on originator biologics may not be sufficient.”

Moreover, many patients who are on original biologic drugs, costing higher than related biosimilars and want to switch over to affordable equivalents, are not able to do so. In many cases, doctors’ do not encourage them to do so, for various reasons, including the general assertion that original biologic drugs are more effective. India being considered as the global capital of diabetes, let me cite an example from this disease area, just to drive home the point.

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

Just the last week, I received a call from a friend’s wife living in Delhi who wanted to know whether Lantus 100 IU/ml of Sanofi can be replaced with Glaritus 100 IU/ml of Wockhardt, as the latter costs much less. I advised her to consult their doctor and request accordingly. She said, it has already been done and the doctor says Lantus is a better product.

To get a fact-based idea on what she told me, I referred to two circulars of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) – one for Glaritus and the other one for Lantus and found that both are under drug price control and have respective ceiling prices. As both the circulars are of 2009, these may probably be treated as an indicative price difference. NPPA notified price for a 3 ml cartridge of Glaritus reads as Rs.135. 24. Whereas, the same for Lantus was mentioned as Rs.564.84.

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

US-FDA has already reiterated, “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

However, to get India-specific, evidence-based information in this area, I checked, whether Lantus has any clinically proven therapeutic superiority over Glaritus. Interestingly, I came across the results of a 12-week study concluding that biosimilar insulin glargine, Glaritus, is comparable to the reference product, Lantus – providing a safe and effective option for patients with T1DM. Nevertheless, the researchers did say that more studies are required in this area.

The core question that needs to be addressed why is the doctor’s perception so different and the reasons for the same?

Conclusion:

In view of all that has been discussed in this article, I find it challenging to fathom that in the absence of any credible and conclusive specific study, how could a doctor possibly infer that higher priced imported original biologic drugs are generally superior to lower priced biosimilar equivalents? More so, when in India, there are no regulatory issues on interchangeability between original biologic and its biosimilar equivalent.

Or for that matter, a branded generic product is superior to all other equivalent generic drugs without a brand name? This can happen, especially when the vested interests actively work on ensuring that such a perception gains ground, boosting the sales revenue and mostly at the cost of patients’ interest.

As one would witness in many other spheres of life that creating a blatantly self-serving, positive target audience perception, by any means, primarily aimed at destroying the same of others, is assuming increasing importance. Are we seeing the reflection of the same, even in the field of evidence based medical science?

I reckon, it raises a flag for all to ponder, particularly after reading the recent candid comments of the US-FDA commissioner, as quoted above.

Could this be one of those ‘Toxins’, which delays success of biosimilar drugs?

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on April 2, 2018 by Tapan Ray

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers. Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families – spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”

Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”

However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging. Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: launch

Impact of The Cost of Pharma Marketing Failure On Patients

Using Selling Simulator For New Drug Launch In The New Normal

More Challenges For Brand Launch Success In The New Normal

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models