Tag Archives: Ray

Indian Pharma’s Real Marketing Bottleneck Is Not Talent – It Is Trust: Why Gen X Must Be Given Strategic Control

Posted on by
Reply

Over-managed Gen X marketers, over-relied-upon experience, and why Indian pharma’s marketing speed problem is self-inflicted.

Executive Summary:

The purpose of this article is to provoke a necessary leadership rethink within Indian pharmaceutical marketing. Indian pharma is not short of talent; it is constrained by over-centralized control. As product life cycles compress and competition intensifies, Gen X marketers – arguably the most strategically equipped cohort – remain under-trusted and over-managed, positioned awkwardly between legacy leadership and execution-focused Gen Z teams. This article argues that excessive reliance on experience, rigid approval structures, and low psychological safety have become strategic liabilities. Drawing on global pharmaceutical practices and Indian industry realities, it makes the case for redefining decision rights, empowering Gen X with lifecycle ownership, and repositioning veterans as strategic mentors rather than operational gatekeepers. The intent is not generational advocacy, but to stimulate policy-level change that restores speed, accountability, and competitiveness to Indian pharmaceutical marketing.

The Paradox Indian Pharma Created for Itself: 

Indian pharmaceutical marketing today operates under a contradiction. While markets have become faster, noisier, and more competitive, decision-making authority generally remains slower, heavier, and more centralized. Product life cycles are shrinking, therapy classes are crowded, and prescribers are increasingly sceptical – yet marketing decisions still move through layers designed for a different era.

Caught in the middle is Gen X – neither protected by legacy authority nor limited to junior execution.

Thus, Gen X is not lacking capability in Indian pharma marketing; it is lacking permission.

This is not a people problem. It is an organizational design failure.

When Experience Becomes a Strategic Brake:

For decades, Indian pharma succeeded because experience mattered. Branded generics rewarded consistency, repetition, and field-force discipline. Senior judgment reduced risk.

But the environment has changed.

Globally, pharmaceutical competition has shifted from:

  • Volume to velocity
  • Promotion to precision
  • Annual brand plans to continuous lifecycle orchestration

In this context, experience that slows decisions is no longer a safeguard – it is a liability.

Global pharmaceutical leaders now treat marketing as a lifecycle governance function, not a downstream promotional activity. Marketing strategy influences indication sequencing, launch timing, channel mix, and post-launch defence. 

This is where Gen X should be indispensable.

Why Gen X Is Structurally Best Suited for Modern Pharma Marketing:

Gen X pharma marketers occupy a unique strategic position. They have:

  • Managed multiple launches and mature brands
  • Lived through regulatory tightening and compliance escalation
  • Transitioned from field-centric to omnichannel engagement
  • Learned to integrate data analytics with physician insight

As reported, in companies such as Pfizer and Novartis, Gen X leaders routinely shape:

  • Early market narratives
  • Indication prioritization
  • Launch sequencing
  • Post-launch optimization and brand defence

Marketing is embedded into development and lifecycle decision-making, not consulted after the fact. 

In much of Indian pharma, however, Gen X remains execution-heavy and authority-light.

The Uncomfortable Question: Are Veterans Over-Managing the “How”?

A necessary but uncomfortable question must be asked:

Has Indian pharma institutionalized over-management in the name of mentorship?

In many organizations:

  • Brand strategies are inherited, not debated
  • Messaging frameworks are pre-approved templates
  • Deviation from precedent is equated with irresponsibility

Veteran leaders add immense value – but judgment adds value only when it enables thinking, not when it replaces it.

Thus, I reckon: Experience adds value only when it enables judgment – when it replaces thinking, it becomes a strategic brake. 

Indian pharma still favors instruction over inquiry.

Indian Reality: Pockets of Progress – Not a System:

Some Indian companies are evolving – unevenly.

Sun Pharma, particularly in specialty and complex therapies, has reportedly moved toward:

  • Greater brand ownership at business-unit level
  • Faster strategic recalibration
  • Reduced micromanagement in select portfolios

But these are exceptions, not institutional norms. 

Across much of the industry, Gen X marketers are still measured primarily on sales outcomes, while being denied influence over:

  • Launch timing
  • Market shaping
  • Competitive response architecture

Accountability without authority remains the dominant design.

What Must Change: Structure Before Culture:

If Indian pharma expects Gen X to deliver speed, quality, and competitive edge, change must be structural, not motivational.

1. Redefine Marketing Decision Rights

Marketing must co-own:

  • Launch sequencing
  • Indication focus
  • Lifecycle extension strategies 

2. Replace Launch Committees with Lifecycle Councils

Committees reward caution. Lifecycle councils reward speed to insight and rapid iteration.

3. Separate Compliance from Creativity

Compliance should define boundaries—not become a veto point for every decision.

4. Measure Strategic Impact, Not Just Sales

Evaluate Gen X marketers on:

  • Market penetration velocity
  • Brand resilience
  • Competitive defence effectiveness

Sales numbers are lag indicators.

The Missing Enabler: Psychological Safety:

Perhaps the most under-discussed constraint in Indian pharma marketing is psychological safety.

In many organizations:

  • Failed ideas outlive successful ones
  • Questioning senior views is discouraged
  • Playing safe becomes the dominant career strategy

As I have seen: In many Indian pharma companies, the safest marketing strategy is not the smartest one – it is the least visible one.

Why This Is a Policy Issue – Not a Generational Debate:

This is not about Gen X versus Gen Z. Gen Z will eventually redefine execution.

But today’s competitiveness depends on how effectively Gen X is trusted with strategic ownership. 

India’s ambition to move:

  • From volume to value
  • From generics to differentiated and novel therapies
  • From local brands to global credibility which cannot be realized with permission-driven marketing leadership.

Let me underscore: This is not a generational argument. It is a competitiveness argument.

Conclusion: 

From Control to Trust – Before the Market Decides 

Indian pharma does not lack experience. It suffers from over-reliance on it.

The choice is clear:

  • Trust Gen X with authority and accountability
  • Or preserve comfort at the cost of speed, relevance, and growth

In a market where the fastest learner wins, excessive caution disguised as wisdom is the most dangerous strategy of all.

Author’s Intent: This article is written to stimulate a leadership rethink in Indian pharmaceutical marketing – shifting the conversation from control to trust, and from inherited experience to earned competitive advantage.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors

Sources and References:

  • McKinsey & Company
    – Pharma launch excellence, lifecycle management, decision velocity, organizational agility
  • Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
    – Pharma go-to-market transformation, omnichannel marketing, decentralized decision rights
  • Deloitte Life Sciences & Healthcare
    – End-to-end product lifecycle strategy, RWE integration, digital marketing maturity
  • Harvard Business Review (HBR)
    – Psychological safety, leadership trust, intelligent failure, innovation governance
  • IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science
    – Global pharma trends on brand sustainability, post-launch optimization, competitive dynamics
  • Annual reports and investor presentations
    – Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca (public disclosures on lifecycle strategy and marketing models)
  • Indian pharmaceutical industry analyses
    – Public commentary and business reporting on Sun Pharma and Indian specialty pharma evolution

Why India Encourages Healthcare Innovation – but Refuses to Copy the Western IP Model

Posted on by
Reply

Debates on pharmaceutical innovation often polarize quickly into pro-IP and anti-IP camps. This article deliberately avoids that binary. It examines why India encourages innovation while resisting blind replication of Western IP frameworks—and why that distinction matters for healthcare outcomes.

Innovation in healthcare is no longer optional for India – it is imperative. Demographic shifts, epidemiological transition, rising patient expectations, and fiscal constraints demand continuous therapeutic advancement. On this, there is rare unanimity: policymakers, clinicians, domestic pharmaceutical companies, multinational corporations, and patients all agree that innovation must be encouraged.

Yet a persistent paradox remains.

While multinational pharmaceutical companies push intensely for the replication of Western intellectual property (IP) frameworks in India, the Indian Government—despite being explicitly pro-innovation—has consistently resisted such replication in the pharmaceutical sector.

This divergence is neither accidental nor ideological. It is structural, historical, and strategic.

The Multinational Logic: Innovation Demands Strong IP:

For global pharmaceutical innovators, the logic is internally consistent. Drug discovery is expensive, risky, and time-consuming. Development timelines often exceed a decade, attrition rates are high, and capital recovery depends heavily on long periods of market exclusivity.

In the US and Europe, this risk is mitigated through:

  • Strong patent monopolies
  • Data exclusivity provisions
  • Patent linkage mechanisms
  • Broad freedom of pricing

Viewed through this lens, India appears under-protective. Provisions such as strict patentability standards, the possibility of compulsory licensing, and price controls are often portrayed as disincentives to innovation-led investment.

The conclusion frequently drawn is blunt:
Without Western-style IP protection, India cannot become a serious pharmaceutical innovation hub.

But what this conclusion overlooks is context.

The Indian Reality: Innovation Without Exclusion:

India’s resistance is not to intellectual property itself—it is to uncritical replication.

Western pharmaceutical IP regimes evolved in environments characterized by:

  • High per-capita incomes
  • Extensive insurance coverage
  • Mature healthcare infrastructure
  • Limited price sensitivity

India’s healthcare ecosystem is fundamentally different:

  • A majority of healthcare expenditure remains out-of-pocket
  • Insurance penetration is still uneven
  • Public health priorities outweigh lifestyle therapeutics
  • The state carries a constitutional responsibility for access and affordability

For the Indian Government, the central policy dilemma is not whether to reward innovation, but how to do so without converting access into privilege.

Blind transplantation of Western IP norms would almost certainly create innovation that exists—but remains under-utilized, accessible only to a narrow and affluent segment of the population. In a country of India’s scale and diversity, that is not a marginal concern; it is a systemic one.

Innovation for the Few, and the Cost to the Many:

Replicating Western IP orthodoxy would not eliminate innovation in India. It would redefine it.

Advanced therapies would be approved, patents granted, and portfolios expanded—but utilization would remain constrained by affordability. Innovation would shift from being a public health instrument to a market signal aimed at a limited cohort.

For a democratic state, this creates an uncomfortable contradiction: scientific progress without population-level impact.

Healthcare policy is ultimately judged not by the sophistication of molecules, but by outcomes at scale.

The Overlooked Risk: Weakening India’s Global Role:

There is a second consequence that receives far less attention.

India is not merely a domestic pharmaceutical market. It is a foundational supplier of affordable medicines to much of the developing world. Any IP regime that significantly delays generic entry does not stop at Indian borders—it reshapes global access.

Extended monopolies would:

  • Delay competition-driven price reductions
  • Reduce manufacturing scale efficiencies
  • Increase global dependence on a small number of suppliers
  • Undermine India’s role as the “pharmacy of the developing world”

Ironically, such a shift would weaken innovation itself. India’s pharmaceutical success has historically been built on process innovation, manufacturing excellence, and rapid diffusion of therapies, not exclusivity alone.

Section 3(d): India’s Most Misread Innovation Filter:

Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act is frequently cited internationally as evidence of an anti-innovation stance. In reality, it reflects a deliberate policy choice: to distinguish genuine therapeutic advancement from incremental commercial extension.

The provision asks a simple but consequential question:
Does this modification demonstrably enhance therapeutic efficacy?

This does not reject innovation; it prioritizes meaningful innovation. In a healthcare system where millions struggle to afford first-line therapy, rewarding marginal reformulations with decades of monopoly pricing is not neutral—it is socially regressive.

Innovation Is More Than Molecules:

At the heart of the debate lies a philosophical difference.

Western pharmaceutical innovation is predominantly molecule centric. India’s innovation tradition has been system-centric:

  • Cost-efficient manufacturing
  • Process optimization
  • Combination therapies
  • Rapid scale-up
  • Supply-chain resilience

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this distinction starkly. When global health demanded speed, scale, and affordability, it was India’s manufacturing and process innovation—not IP maximalism—that delivered real-world impact.

This does not diminish the importance of novel drug discovery. It contextualizes it.

A Deliberate Choice. Not a Defiance:

India’s refusal to replicate Western pharmaceutical IP frameworks is not defiance. It is design.

Design shaped by:

  • Economic diversity
  • Public health responsibility
  • Global dependence on Indian medicines
  • Democratic accountability

The question India is asking is not:
“Should innovation be rewarded?”

It is asking something harder:
“Which innovation, for whom, and at what social cost?”

That question cannot be answered by imitation alone.

Conclusion: 

Innovation With Balance, Not Orthodoxy

India is not anti-innovation. It is anti-imbalance.

By resisting blind replication of Western IP orthodoxy, India is attempting something more complex than copying established systems: building an innovation ecosystem that rewards discovery while preserving access.

The future of Indian healthcare innovation will not be judged by how closely it mirrors Western IP models, but by how effectively it serves patients at scale.

That, perhaps, is India’s quiet—but most consequential—innovation.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors 

Sources and References:

The Patents Act, 1970 (India) – Section 3(d) and related amendments

World Health Organization (WHO) – Access to Medicines and Public Health reports

WTO – TRIPS Agreement and Doha Declaration on Public Health

NITI Aayog – Reports on pharmaceutical innovation and healthcare access

OECD – Pharmaceutical pricing, innovation, and access studies

The Lancet Commission on Essential Medicines

Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) – Health financing and access research

Drug Data Exclusivity in India: Innovation Catalyst or Affordability Risk for Indian Pharma?

Posted on by
Reply

For over four decades, India’s pharmaceutical industry has been built on a powerful moral and economic proposition: that life-saving medicines should be affordable, accessible, and globally available from Indian manufacturing prowess. This principle transformed India into the “pharmacy of the developing world.” But as the industry now aspires to move decisively from generics to innovation, a new question has begun to unsettle policymakers, industry leaders, and public-health experts alike:

How should India protect pharmaceutical innovation without diluting its legacy of access?

It is this unresolved tension that has resurfaced sharply following a December 2, 2025, Economic Times report on the sharp divergence between the Ministry of Commerce & Industry and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare over whether India should formally adopt Drug Data Exclusivity (DDE) norms. What appears at first glance to be a technical regulatory debate is, in reality, a defining policy moment for the future trajectory of Indian pharma.

What Is Drug Data Exclusivity—and How Is It Different from Patents?

Drug data exclusivity, as we know, protects the clinical trial data generated by an innovator company from being referenced by regulators to approve generic versions for a fixed period – typically 5–10 years, depending on the country.

This protection:

  • Exists independent of patent status
  • Can apply even after a patent expires
  • Prevents generics from relying on originator data, forcing them to repeat costly trials

In short:

  • Patents protect inventions
  • Data exclusivity protects information

This distinction is vital – because exclusivity over data can delay competition even when the patent monopoly has legally ended.

How Data Exclusivity Is Often Used to Extend Market Monopoly:

Globally, data exclusivity has increasingly been used not merely as innovation protection – but as a commercial weapon to prolong monopoly pricing.

The Humira Case (AbbVie): A Global Cautionary Tale

Humira is one of the world’s best-selling drugs, generating over USD 200 billion in lifetime revenue. While its primary patent expired in 2016, AbbVie constructed a dense patent thicket supported by regulatory protections, delaying biosimilar competition for years in key markets. During this extended protection:

  • Annual treatment costs exceeded USD 70,000 per patient
  • Biosimilars entered much later than legally necessary
  • Healthcare systems absorbed massive avoidable costs

This pattern - where regulatory exclusivities outlive patents - is exactly what concerns Indian public-health policymakers.

Why the Debate Is So Sensitive in the Indian Context:

India is not just another pharma market. It is:

  • The largest supplier of generic medicines globally
  • A key provider of HIV, TB, oncology, and vaccine supplies to LMIC nations
  • The backbone of India’s own public health programs

Any policy that artificially delays generic entry directly impacts:

  • Government procurement costs
  • Insurance claim ratios
  • Out-of-pocket patient spending
  • Export affordability for Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia

In India, monopoly pricing is not an abstract economic concern – it directly determines treatment access at population scale.

Does India Need Data Protection to Encourage Innovation? Yes – but Carefully:

There is no denying a fundamental truth:
Discovering new drugs is expensive, risky, and capital-intensive.

Indian pharma’s next growth phase depends on:

  • New chemical entities (NCEs)
  • Biosimilars with true differentiation
  • Complex injectables
  • Cell & gene therapies

For this shift, global investors and MNC collaborators do seek assurance that proprietary data will not be freely copied immediately. The Commerce Ministry’s argument is therefore not without merit.

The real policy question today is not whether to protect data, but:

How much protection is necessary – without crossing into long-term price monopoly?

The Hidden Danger: Data Exclusivity as the New Patent Thicket:

India has already seen how evergreening strategies can extend monopolies through:

  • Secondary patents
  • Polymorph claims
  • Incremental formulations
  • Combination patents

If long periods of mandatory data exclusivity are added on top, India risks creating:

  • Dual monopolies (patent + data)
  • Effective market lock-outs even after legal patent expiry
  • Price protection without scientific novelty

In practical terms, this could mean:

  • Cancer medicines remaining expensive 10–12 years after original discovery
  • Biosimilars delayed despite manufacturing readiness
  • Insurance penetration becoming unaffordable
  • Public procurement budgets exploding

What Kind of Data Protection Could Work for India – Without Falling into a Monopoly Trap?

This is where India must design a bespoke regulatory architecture, not copy-paste US or EU models.

1. Limited Exclusivity Window Only for First-in-Class Drugs

India could grant 3–5 years of data exclusivity strictly for:

  • First-in-class molecules
  • Novel biological pathways
  • Orphan or rare disease drugs

Not for:

  • Me-too molecules
  • New strengths
  • New dosage forms
  • Fixed-dose combinations without therapeutic novelty

This ensures protection only where real innovation exists.

2. Automatic Public-Health Override Clause

India must retain the unconditional right to:

  • Waive exclusivity during public-health emergencies
  • Apply compulsory access for national programs
  • Support Jan Aushadhi-linked drug expansion

This keeps constitutional right to health superior to commercial protection.

3. No “Back-Door” Extension Beyond Patent Life

A strict rule must apply:

If the core patent has expired, data exclusivity cannot reset monopoly.

This prevents situations like:

  • Patent expiry in Year 20
  • Data exclusivity extending till Year 28

Such structures undermine the very logic of patent law.

4. Differential Rules for Small-Molecule Drugs vs Biologics

Biologics involve:

  • Higher R&D risk
  • Greater manufacturing complexity

India could explore:

  • Short exclusivity for chemical drugs
  • Slightly longer (but capped) exclusivity for biologic drugs
    - without mirroring western 12-year biologic lock-ins.

Why Blind Western Replication Will Hurt India:

The US and EU built their exclusivity regimes when:

  • Their innovation ecosystems matured decades ago
  • Public health spending was largely state-covered
  • Insurance penetration was near universal

India’s reality is different:

  • Out-of-pocket expenditure still dominates healthcare
  • Insurance depth is expanding but not universal
  • Government health budgets remain price-sensitive

A western-style exclusivity framework would therefore:

  • Raise medicine prices structurally
  • Shrink export competitiveness
  • Weaken India’s generics leadership
  • Strain Ayushman Bharat-type programs

Strategic Risk: India’s Export Leadership Could Erode:

Nearly 40% of US generics come from India. If:

  • Indian approval timelines slow
  • Domestic generics get delayed by exclusivity
  • Costs rise due to repeated trials

Then:

  • Latin America, Vietnam, and even Africa could gradually replace India as low-cost generic hubs.

Data policy, therefore, is not just a health issue – it is a geopolitical manufacturing strategy question.

A Balanced Policy Can Actually Strengthen Indian Innovation:

If calibrated well, data protection can:

  • Encourage Indian NCE discovery
  • Attract selective global R&D alliances
  • Improve valuation of Indian biotech assets
  • Keep public programs protected
  • Preserve generics growth

But if miscalibrated, it can:

  • Lock patients into long-term high-price regimes
  • Shut MSME generics out
  • Increase healthcare inflation structurally
  • Damage India’s moral leadership in access to medicines

Conclusion: 

India Must Choose Smart Protection, Not Blind Protection

The current Commerce–Health Ministry divergence reflects a deeper ideological conflict:

  • Commerce protects capital
  • Health protects citizens

India’s answer cannot lie at either extreme.

The country must refuse both:

  • Data anarchy that disincentivizes innovation
  • Data absolutism that entrenches monopoly

The correct path, in my view, lies in:

Time-bound, novelty-linked, override-protected, India-specific data protection.

If India gets this balance right, it can become:

  • A true bio-innovation hub
  • Without ceasing to be the pharmacy of the poor

That, I reckon, is the real opportunity before Indian policymakers today.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors

Sources:

  1. The Economic Times, December report on Commerce & Health Ministries split over Drug Data Exclusivity
  2. US FTC & Senate hearings on AbbVie–Humira patent thicket strategy
  3. WHO reports on TRIPS, data protection & access to medicines
  4. Indian Patents Act, 1970 – Section 3(d) & compulsory licensing provisions
  5. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) publications

 

India’s Healthcare Is Still Not Patient-Friendly – Why ‘Patient Centricity’ in Pharma Remains a Slogan More Than a System

Posted on by
Reply

Executive Summary:

Despite constant advocacy around “patient centricity,” India’s healthcare ecosystem – from pharma to hospitals – continues to show deep structural gaps. Safety failures, unethical marketing practices, opaque pricing, and hospital-level exploitation still undermine patient trust. This article uses illustrative (not exhaustive) examples to show how these gaps persist, and where genuine patient-friendly efforts do exist.

When “Patient First” Breaks Down: 

1. Safety & Ethics Failures:

India’s recent crises show that patient safety is still vulnerable to systemic weaknesses.

One of many examples demonstrating quality lapses:

  • In October 2025, India declared three pediatric cough syrups — Coldrif, Respifresh-TR, and ReLife — toxic and unsafe due to diethylene glycol (DEG) contamination linked to child deaths.
  • The WHO issued global alerts after detecting dangerous DEG levels.
  • State regulators admitted major inspection gaps, including unfilled drug-inspector vacancies.

This is one form of patient-unfriendly failure – but quality lapses have surfaced repeatedly in other categories of medicines too.

2. Unethical Marketing Practices — Still Alive Despite UCPMP 2024:

A representative example among many:

  • The Department of Pharmaceuticals found AbbVie Healthcare India sponsored a luxury trip for 30 doctors to Paris/Monaco — a clear UCPMP violation.
  • No meaningful penalties were disclosed, reinforcing that enforcement remains weak.

This case is merely one of many unethical influences still shaping prescribing behavior.

2.1 UCPMP 2024 Exists, but Enforcement is Toothless:

  • The UCPMP 2024 code outlines strict ethical rules for pharma.
  • But without statutory backing or punitive powers, the code’s deterrence remains limited.

This is just one sign of India’s “soft touch” regulatory culture.

3.. Hospitals & Doctors: Patient-Centric in Theory, Revenue-Centric in Practice:

Again, the following are illustrative examples, not isolated incidents.

3.1 Overbilling, Procedure Inflation & Revenue Targets

Numerous investigations and patient testimonies reveal:

  • Corporate hospitals often impose internal monthly revenue targets on doctors.
  • Unnecessary surgeries, implants, and prolonged hospital stays are pushed to meet business objectives.
  • Vendor-tied implants and consumables result in inflated pricing for patients.

These patterns show a recurring conflict between patient welfare and institutional profit.

3.2 Diagnostic Overuse Driven by Referral Incentives

  • Mandatory MRIs, CT scans or lab panels for non-critical conditions.
  • Referral chains that reward doctors or hospitals for test volume.

These widespread practices worsen India’s already high out-of-pocket spending burden.

4. Pharma’s Patient-Friendly Efforts: Encouraging, but Limited in Scale:

Many pharma companies run genuinely helpful programs — but they serve only a fraction of patients.

Below are examples among many such programs, not an exhaustive list:

3.1 Roche India — Blue Tree Program

  • Patient counselling, home-delivery support, and navigation for oncology patients.

3.2 Intas Foundation — National Patient Support Network

  • Chronic and rare disease support across 27+ states and 100+ hospitals.

3.3 Sun Pharma — Patient Support for Palbociclib + Mobile Health Units

  • Access initiatives plus rural MHUs serving underserved regions.

3.4 Pfizer India — PAP India App

  • Digital enrolment for patient assistance programs.

3.5 Cipla — Breathefree Initiative

  • Lung health education and inhaler-use training for asthma/COPD patients.

These initiatives demonstrate that patient-centricity is possible — yet remain limited in reach compared to the scale of India’s disease burden.

4. The Core Problem: Structural Incentives Aren’t Patient-Centric:

India’s healthcare suffers from a systemic incentives gap:

  • Pharma is rewarded for sales, not health outcomes.
  • Hospitals optimize for revenue, not evidence-based care.
  • Regulators focus on paperwork, not rigorous inspection.
  • Patients lack pricing transparency and grievance redress.
  • Outcome reporting by pharma support programs is almost nonexistent.

Until incentives shift, “patient centricity” will continue to be a marketing phrase rather than a structural reality.

5. What Must Change:

For Pharma

  • Publish measurable patient-outcome data from PAPs.
  • Link marketing incentives to adherence, satisfaction, and patient outcomes — not prescription volume.
  • Adopt independent audits for safety and access programs.

For Hospitals & Doctors

  • Prohibit revenue-linked professional targets.
  • Mandate transparent cost disclosures before treatment.
  • Establish patient-rights cells with independent oversight.

For Regulators

  • Give UCPMP statutory authority with real penalties.
  • Fill all drug-inspector posts and accelerate surprise audits.
  • Mandate public reporting of safety violations.

For Patients/Citizens

  • Demand transparent bills, treatment rationale, and alternatives.
  • Report overcharging and unethical promotions.

Conclusion:

India’s healthcare and pharma ecosystem will only become patient-friendly when safety, ethics, transparency, and accountability become non-negotiable pillars of the system — not optional CSR-style add-ons.

“Patient centricity” must shift from being a promotional narrative to becoming a structural design principle. Until then, the current contradiction will continue -loud advocacy, thin implementation, and uneven patient experiences.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.

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.

Key Sources:

  1. Roche India — The Blue Tree Program (official): Roche India corporate page. Roche India+1
  2. Intas Foundation — Patient Assistance Program (official): IntasFoundation.org. intasfoundation.org+1
  3. Sun Pharma — Palbociclib launch & PAP (press release): Sun Pharma press/materials. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries+1
  4. Pfizer PAP India — app and program (official): Pfizer India / Google Play listing / press. Google Play+1
  5. Cipla — Breathefree (official): Breathefree / Cipla patient site. breathefree.com+1
  6. Contaminated cough syrups & DEG child deaths (peer-review & Reuters coverage & WHO alert):PMC/NCBI article on Gambia incident (background), Reuters & WHO reports on 2025 India DEG incidents, BMJ coverage. BMJ+3PubMed Central+3Reuters+3
  7. State FDA inspection capacity & audits (Times of India coverage post-syrup crisis): reporting on inspector vacancies and limited audits. The Times of India
  8. AbbVie India foreign-trip investigation / DoP reprimand / related coverage: Times of India, New Indian Express and Economic Times coverage of the 30-doctor Paris/Monaco trip and ensuing probes. The Times of India+2The New Indian Express+2
  9. UCPMP 2024 documentation & commentary (DoP / legal FAQs): Department of Pharmaceuticals UCPMP material and Cyril Shroff client alert. Also Supreme Court push to give UCPMP statutory force (LiveLaw). Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas+2Department of Pharmaceuticals+2
  10. Academic/analysis on drug safety, DEG incidents & systemic failures: IJME, BMJ and other peer-reviewed commentaries on cough syrup poisoning, and reporting on systemic enforcement gaps. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics+1

In the Age of AI, Why Emotional Intelligence Is the New Competitive Edge in Indian Pharma Marketing

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s AI-driven world — where scientific excellence, product claims, and competitive pricing are no longer enough to differentiate pharmaceutical companies — Emotional Intelligence (EI) is rapidly emerging as the new strategic advantage in Indian pharma marketing. As doctors face shrinking time, patients demand empathy, and competition intensifies, EI is proving to be the missing link for building trust, deepening engagement, and achieving sustainable performance excellence.

Why Emotional Intelligence Matters More Than Ever in Indian Pharma:

Even the most advanced products or AI-powered tools cannot replace human connection — something that defines healthcare.

EI impacts every core dimension of pharmaceutical performance:

1. Restoring Trust in Doctor–MR Interactions

Doctors today expect representatives who listen and respect their time, not brand pushers.
EI helps MRs:

  • Sense the physician’s mood and priorities
  • Tailor dialogue to communication preferences
  • Build trust through authenticity and empathy

A high-EI interaction doesn’t “sell” — it solves.

2. Making Patient Engagement Truly Patient-Centric

Patients living with chronic illness carry emotional burdens.
EI enables:

  • Simplified, judgment-free communication
  • Recognition of fears and frustration
  • Better adherence through compassionate guidance

3. Lifting Internal Team Performance

High-EI leaders inspire productivity by creating psychologically safe environments — crucial in an industry with intense monthly expectations.

4. Strengthening Corporate Reputation

An EI mindset naturally drives ethical behavior, transparency, and patient-first decision-making in an era of growing scrutiny.

Present Reality: Indian Pharma Is Awakening to EI:

Historically, pharma training focused heavily on product knowledge and activity KPIs.
Today, however:

  • EI is entering training rooms, but inconsistently
  • Activity metrics still overshadow engagement quality
  • Digital transformation often lacks emotional design
  • Yet — early movers are showing how EI can create real competitive advantage

This shift marks the beginning of a more evolved era of Indian pharma marketing.

Real-World Examples: Indian Pharma Teams Practicing Emotional Intelligence:

Below are recent, documented examples where EI has been incorporated meaningfully into high-impact pharma initiatives.

1. Biocon’s Compassion-Driven Oral Cancer Screening Program

Through its community-based mHealth screening initiative, Biocon trained nurses and health workers to approach villagers with empathy — addressing stigma, fear, and anxiety around cancer.

EI in action:

  • Listening to personal fears
  • Delivering sensitive conversations culturally
  • Building trust in early detection

This empathetic approach dramatically improved screening acceptance.

2. Sanofi India’s Diabetes Health Managers

Sanofi deployed trained counselors who support insulin-dependent patients like a trusted guide — not a salesperson.

One such counselor, Awmi, helped a frustrated patient overcome fear, confusion, and adherence lapses by listening and simplifying routines.

EI impact:

  • Reduced anxiety
  • Better therapy adherence
  • Stronger patient–company relationship

A clear example of EI translating into outcomes and brand loyalty.

3. EI-Driven Oncology Engagement by Indian Pharma Teams

Oncology professionals in India increasingly focus on the emotional journeys of patients and caregivers.

Their approach includes:

  • Breaking information into emotionally digestible pieces
  • Addressing stigma, fear, and guilt
  • Supporting caregiver stress

EI here directly improves therapy acceptance and patient outcomes.

4. Novartis’ Arogya Parivar: Empathy at Scale

Arogya Parivar succeeds because it prioritizes understanding over messaging:

  • Health educators speak in regional languages
  • Communication is culturally tuned
  • Trust precedes product discussion

Empathy embedded in strategy strengthened both impact and sustainability.

5. Janssen India’s Holistic Disease-Management Programs

Janssen integrates emotional and psychological well-being into patient and community engagement, particularly in immunology and mental health.

EI isn’t an add-on — it’s part of their treatment ecosystem.

The Path Indian Pharma Must Still Cover:

To unlock EI’s full potential, the industry must address persistent gaps:

1. EI must evolve from “soft skill” to strategic capability

- EI should be treated as a differentiator — not a training checkbox.

2. KPIs must reward quality, not just quantity

- The industry must move beyond call averages toward relationship metrics.

3. Digital transformation must incorporate human-like empathy

- Pharma apps, CRMs, and patient platforms must engage with emotional nuance.

4. EI must be role-modeled by leadership

- Authenticity, empathy, and ethical clarity must flow downward from the top.

5. EI must become measurable and incentivized

- If trust-building behaviors matter, they must be part of the reward system.

Conclusion: 

EI Is the New Currency of Competitive Advantage

As the Indian pharmaceutical industry navigates shrinking access, rising expectations, and intense competition, emotionally intelligent engagement has become indispensable.

AI can enhance productivity.
But EI is what builds trust.

Companies that integrate Emotional Intelligence holistically — from field force capability to patient engagement to leadership culture — will not only outperform competitors but also elevate the quality and ethics of healthcare in India.

Those that ignore it will find themselves outpaced by a more emotionally attuned industry.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.

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.

Sources of Examples Cited:

  1. Biocon — mHealth Oral Cancer Screening Programme
    OPPI–EY Report: Reimagining Pharma and Healthcare in India (2023)
  2. Sanofi India — Diabetes Health Managers
    The Economic Times — “Pharma companies using health managers to help patients and earn revenues”
  3. Oncology Patient Engagement Trends
    TheOncoDoc – Redefining Oncology Pharma Marketing in India
  4. Novartis — Arogya Parivar Initiative
    Pharmaceutical Executive (PharmExec) – Country Report: India
  5. Janssen India — Holistic Disease-Management Programs
    PharmExec – Country Report: India

US Biosimilar Overhaul: A Breakthrough Moment or a Strategic Test for Indian Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

On 31 October 2025, the Economic Times (ET) headline— “US biosimilar norms to keep local drug cos in good health” - quickly became one of the most discussed topics across India’s biopharmaceutical circles.

For India, which is transitioning from a global generics’ powerhouse to an emerging biologics player, this shift is more than regulatory news. It marks a critical moment that could either accelerate India’s biopharma ambitions or expose deep structural gaps.

What Has the US FDA Changed?

The ET report highlights a few key regulatory shifts:

  • Reduced clinical trial requirements where scientifically justified
  • A more predictable and transparent review pathway
  • Lower development costs for manufacturers
  • Quicker regulatory timelines

These changes significantly lower the barriers for biosimilar entry into the US – the world’s most lucrative biologics market.

For Indian companies, this means faster commercialization of assets previously slowed by cost, litigation, and development complexity.

Why These Norms Matter Deeply for India:

1. The Big Leap Beyond Generics

India’s pharmaceutical success has historically been built on small-molecule generics. Biosimilars represent the next step – complex, high-value biologics requiring advanced R&D, analytics, and precision manufacturing.

A friendlier US regulatory landscape can:

  • Boost Indian biologics capabilities
  • Enhance India’s scientific reputation
  • Accelerate the transition from volume-based to value-based pharma exports

This is not incremental – it is transformational.

2. A Chance to Make Biologics Affordable – Globally and at Home

Indian biosimilars entering the US could push global prices downward, increasing patient access everywhere.

But the unanswered question remains:

Will India ensure the same benefits reach its own patients?

Historically, many biologics approved in India remain unaffordable. This opportunity must change that narrative.

3. Catalyst for Investment and Innovation

Success in the US market – considered the gold standard – often brings:

  • Investor confidence
  • International collaborations
  • High-value licensing deals
  • Technology transfer opportunities

If Indian firms reinvest this momentum into R&D, it can accelerate India’s shift toward a future where ‘innovated-in-India’ becomes as common as ‘made-in-India’.

4. Competitive Pressure on Originator Biologics

Lower-cost Indian biosimilars could challenge multinational biologics giants in their strongest market.

This may result in:

  • Reduced prices
  • Greater insurance coverage
  • Wider patient access

It positions India as a meaningful global competitor – not just a contract manufacturer.

But the Red Flags Are Too Important to Ignore:

A) Biosimilars Are Not Generics – Quality Risks Are Heightened

Biologics demand:

  • High-precision fermentation
  • Immunogenicity evaluation
  • Strong data integrity
  • Robust GMP compliance

Any compliance slip-up in the US biosimilar space could severely damage India’s credibility.

This is a risk India cannot afford.

B) Patent Barriers Will Still Be Tough

Even with simplified norms, US biosimilar entry often faces:

  • Patent thickets
  • Secondary patents
  • Litigation from innovator companies
  • Market-access hurdles

Indian companies will need smarter IP and litigation strategies – not just efficient manufacturing.

C) India’s Own Ecosystem Needs Modernization

India must strengthen:

  • Analytical labs for similarity assessments
  • Biologics manufacturing clusters
  • Cold-chain logistics
  • CDSCO guidelines
  • Pharmacovigilance systems

Without this, Indian biosimilars may flourish abroad while India continues lagging in domestic biologics availability and safety monitoring.

D) The Risk of Mission Drift

If export markets become the primary focus:

  • Domestic patients may remain an afterthought
  • Prices of biologics may not reduce meaningfully within India
  • Public health benefits may fall behind corporate goals

Balancing global ambition with national responsibility is crucial.

What India Should Prioritize Now:

For Indian Pharma Companies

  • Invest heavily in biologics R&D, analytics, and quality systems
  • Strengthen data integrity and regulatory compliance
  • Pursue strategic co-development partnerships
  • Ensure domestic market access for biosimilars – not merely exports

For Indian Policymakers and Regulators

  • Align CDSCO norms with US/EU biosimilar standards
  • Build biotech clusters and offer strategic incentives
  • Strengthen post-marketing surveillance
  • Use public procurement to promote affordable biologics for Indian patients
  • Encourage transparent pricing and competition

For Public Health Stakeholders

  • Monitor domestic pricing of biosimilars
  • Demand safety and immunogenicity transparency
  • Advocate access for oncology, autoimmune, and rare disease treatments

A Defining Moment: Opportunity vs. Responsibility

India stands at a strategic crossroads.

If industry, policymakers, and regulators move in alignment, India can become a global biosimilar powerhouse - known for quality, affordability, and innovation.

If not, this moment may turn into yet another case where India enables global affordability while failing to deliver it domestically.

“The true test of India’s biosimilar advantage will be measured not in US approvals – but in whether Indian patients finally gain access to affordable biologics.”

Quick Takeaways:

  • New US FDA biosimilar norms promise faster, less burdensome approval pathways.
  • Indian companies like Biocon, Intas, and Dr. Reddy’s stand to gain significantly.
  • But quality risks, patent barriers, and domestic-access concerns remain real.
  • India must upgrade its biologics ecosystem—not just chase US profits.
  • The real test: Will Indian patients benefit from this global opportunity?

Conclusion:

Closing Thought

The US FDA may have opened the door.
The world may be watching.
But only India can decide whether this moment becomes a turning point – or a missed opportunity.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.

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.

When Pills Betray Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Why India’s Drug Quality Crisis Demands a Mindset Reset?

A Familiar Headline, a Fading Sense of Shock:

It happened again.
According to The Economic Times (October 24, 2025), 112 drug samples failed quality tests in September — one even found spurious.

If that didn’t startle you, you’re not alone. These headlines have become as routine as morning tea. Public outrage brews for a moment, then cools before the next edition hits the stands.

But imagine if 112 aircraft failed safety checks in a single month — would anyone dare call that a “batch-specific issue”?
When it comes to medicines that enter human bodies and decide between sickness and survival, such excuses sound absurd. Yet, we’ve come to accept them.

That quiet acceptance is where the real danger begins.

When Data Lies, Patients Pay the Price:

As reported by The Economic Times on October 30, 2025, in a separate and alarming development — “Drug cos forging data for approval, mislabeling brands to be barred.”

If the first report showed what went wrong, this one revealed why - Forged data. Mislabeled brands. Corners cut in dossiers. It’s not just a lapse in manufacturing — it’s a collapse in ethics.

Let’s be honest: you can’t market “Make in India, Trust Globally” when the fine print whispers “Data Forged, Labels Fudged.” Somewhere between speed-to market and responsibility-to-patient, we’ve misplaced our moral compass.

And when that happens, it’s not just a regulatory failure — it’s a betrayal of trust.

Quality: Built In, Not Inspected In:

Each time such headlines appear, the reflex is predictable — emergency reviews, press statements, promises of stricter enforcement. All necessary. Yet, all reactive.

Because quality cannot be inspected in after production — it must be built in before it begins.
And that calls for something no checklist or audit can enforce: a fundamental change in mindset.

  • A corporate mindset that values patient safety above quarterly profits.
  • A regulatory mindset that prizes prevention over post-mortem.
  • A leadership mindset that refuses to normalize mediocrity when human lives are at stake.

This is not a question of capacity or compliance — it’s a question of conscience.

“You can’t inspect quality into a pill — it has to be built into the process, the mindset, the culture.”

From Blame Games to Shared Accountability:

Every time this issue resurfaces, the blame carousel spins:

  • Regulators point to resource gaps.
  • Companies point to complexity.
  • Everyone points to the system.

But systems don’t act — people do.

A regulator’s vigilance cannot replace a company’s integrity. Nor can corporate SOPs mask ethical indifference.

India’s recurring quality crises demand not louder warnings, but shared accountability — an honest partnership between regulators and industry that treats every tablet as a promise, not a product.

If we achieve that, the next set of headlines won’t read “112 Drug Samples Fail.” They’ll read: “India Sets New Global Benchmark in Drug Quality.”

A Dose of Humor — and a Hint of Hope:

Someone once quipped, “In India, we don’t recall drugs — we recall excuses.”
Clever. Painfully accurate.

But here’s the hopeful twist: India has achieved the impossible before.
We built vaccine networks the world now depends on.
We made medicines affordable to millions who once had none.
We can certainly lead in quality — if we decide to make integrity non-negotiable.

The prescription isn’t complicated:

  • Less denial, more diligence.
  • Fewer circulars, more conviction.
  • And a mindset that views every patient not as a market opportunity — but as a moral responsibility.

Because every failed sample isn’t just a number — it’s a risk to a trusting patient who believed the system would protect them.

It’s time it truly did.

“When data lies, patients pay the price.”
“Quality in pharma isn’t a regulatory requirement — it’s a moral one.”

Conclusion:

The Bottom Line

India has earned its title as the pharmacy of the world.
Now it must earn another — the pharmacy the world can trust.

That journey doesn’t begin with another inspection or circular.
It begins with a mirror — and a mindset.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.

 

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.


Sources & References

  1. “112 drug samples fail quality tests in September 1 found spurious: Govt” — PTI / ET Manufacturing (The Economic Times), October 24, 2025.
  2. “Drug cos forging data for approval, mislabeling brands to be barred” — The Economic Times, October 30, 2025.
  3. Background: Business Standard reports on CDSCO alerts and enforcement updates, 2024–25.

 

Beyond the Business Card: What Retirement Truly Gives Back

Posted on by
Reply

A thought-provoking LinkedIn post by a highly accomplished veteran of the pharmaceutical industry — long retired, but still as insightful as ever — recently caught my attention. It sparked a series of reflections on an issue that deeply resonates with the evolving dynamics of our industry. That inspiration led me to write this article — and here it is.

When the Rush Finally Stops:— A reflection on life’s quieter rewards after leaving the corporate race

After decades in a demanding corporate life — where every day revolved around deadlines, decisions, and discussions — retirement often arrives as an unexpected silence. The phone calls slow down, invitations fade, and the once-crowded calendar turns blank. For many, it feels unsettling at first, as though the world has quietly moved on. Yet hidden within that quiet lies one of life’s most meaningful transformations.

The Habit of Pretending to Be Busy:

In the early phase, many retirees still pretend to be busy. It’s not deceit — it’s conditioning. After years of being constantly in demand, the idea of doing nothing feels almost unacceptable. So, they talk about “projects” and “commitments,” reassuring both themselves and others that they still matter. But over time, this need to appear busy fades. What remains is a deeper calm — the confidence that life need not be full to feel fulfilled.

The Gift of Time — and Freedom:

When the external noise subsides, the first gift is time — the one thing we always chased, yet never truly owned. Mornings become unhurried, walks feel longer, and even silence feels alive. Time, once ruled by deadlines, now flows freely — not as emptiness, but as freedom.

Rediscovering the Person Behind the Position:

Freed from professional identity, one begins to rediscover the person behind the position. For years, we defined ourselves by what we did; now we ask who we are. In that quiet self-inquiry begins a journey toward authenticity and inner clarity.

Staying Productive — But with Purpose:

Many top corporate leaders, used to constant relevance, seek new ways to remain productive — serving on boards, mentoring, writing, or starting ventures. The motivation shifts from power to purpose, from profit to impact. It’s no longer about proving worth, but about creating value that feels personally meaningful.

Relationships That Truly Matter:

Relationships too become more genuine. The ones that remain are not transactional but real — based on warmth, not utility. The circle may shrink, but it deepens. And solitude, once feared, becomes a trusted companion — giving space for reflection, gratitude, and creativity.

Conclusion:

A Return to Life, Not a Retreat from It:

Ultimately, retirement, I reckon, is not a retreat from life, but a return to it. One may lose attention and activity, but gains something far greater — awareness, authenticity, and quiet contentment. It marks not an ending, but a beginning that finally belongs entirely to you.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.
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.