Compilation of pharmaceutical trends and strategies 2013
from Cutting Edge Information.
The report gives a quick overview of key areas a pharmaceutical industry has to tend to for its business..
Download link to the pdf of the report
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Pharma companies must adapt to vast changes in health care by forming long-term strategic relationships founded on joint value creation with customers.
Vast changes in the health care landscape worldwide are transforming customers. Treatment decision making is rapidly shifting from the individual physician to a diverse set of institutional customers, from hospitals to integrated care entities, and from payers to pharmacies and health-benefit-management companies. The pressure to deliver greater value is also driving this evolution. And while some customers are already more sophisticated than others, all are building experience and new capabilities to improve their economic performance and better manage patient outcomes.
The experience of hospitals offers a good example not only of how these market pressures are affecting institutions but also of the new ways in which institutional customers are responding to them. With health-care reimbursement levels shrinking, hospitals are consolidating, and they are building scale and expertise in the process. Most hospitals now employ a variety of analytical tools, such as benchmarks and studies, to evaluate price, cost effectiveness, and outcomes. They are also creating new positions in their management teams to bridge the traditionally segregated clinical and procurement domains. And they are launching or expanding efforts to assess medicines and procedures in their patient populations. Moreover, they are using the knowledge they gain through these efforts to improve formularies and treatment protocols.
The more sophisticated payers and integrated providers are also investing heavily in building capabilities. Increasingly, these customers are adopting a holistic approach to health care, partnering with pharmaceutical companies to improve outcomes, disease management, and compliance.
Despite these dramatic developments in the customer landscape, however, many pharma companies have yet to adapt their customer models. When key account management in the pharmaceutical industry is compared with that of other industries, including consumer goods and industrial products, it’s clear that most pharma companies are still lagging. Here’s why:
These weaknesses limit pharma companies’ ability to serve their largest, most complex customers effectively. Pharma companies are already losing out on opportunities to create value through partnerships with health care systems and the broader community of health care stakeholders, largely because such relationships require cross-functional capabilities.
Effective key account management, in our view, depends on cross-functional integration to deliver value. Many pharma companies do practice some form of key account management, but gaps exist in even the best-managed companies.
rob halkes's insight:
Key Account Management is for pharma the most difficult service to develop! It needs an internal collaboration between siloed departments that one hasn't exercised for the last 10 to 20 years.
Yet, there's no way out outherwise than to give your customers the right attention to get partnerships. A partnership that goes further than just drug promotion and delivery...
Evolutionary theory teaches us it is neither the strongest nor the most intelligent of the species that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. Ingredient suppliers, manufacturers, quality standards and audits, and logistics are just a few areas where we can expect to see many changes. Adapting to these changes will be critical to everyone involved in the process and in ensuring that medicines are delivered to patients safely and effectively.
The pharma supply chain has certainly undergone significant change in the last 40 years. In the 1970s and 1980s very little outsourcing was performed in pharma. Companies had separate domestic and international divisions, each with its own manufacturing. In the 1990s, API manufacturing became globalized, global quality standards were rolled out, and generic and biotech manufacturers emerged.
In the first decade of the 21st century, dosage-form manufacturing went global, companies instituted operational improvement programs, external supply departments were established, and outsourced products were managed more consistently. There was also greater scrutiny, with regulatory actions increasing exponentially. Business interruptions are now pervasive, with plant shutdowns resulting in drug shortages and higher manufacturing costs.
Take A Strategic Approach
Part of a strategic approach involves the preparation of a strategic plan. Several factors should be considered when preparing this plan. Counterfeiting and diversion are things the industry has to attack smartly and aggressively. To do this effectively, everyone in the supply chain has to be held accountable. Counterfeiters must be identified and prosecuted wherever in the world they happen to be. We must also devise creative solutions to fight counterfeiting quickly and effectively. These solutions must be supported by everyone, including regulators.
Pharma companies must take needed steps to reinvent outsourcing. To assist in managing suppliers, firms should establish a set of GSPs (good supplier practices). Part of this is developing a set of metrics for suppliers and improving the way customers and suppliers communicate with each other. Cracking down on poor cGMP practices will require drug developers to support the audit services industry and the push for manufacturing uniformity. This should consist of an alignment of standards for product classes, consistent penalties for risky behavior, a drive for consistency across regions, and a consolidation of industry support organizations. We also need to see stronger integration of information technology in the supply chain, a seamless integration of data with suppliers, and investment in continuous manufacturing, electronic batch records, automated processes, and other IT advancements we have seen in other industries.
Finally, there needs to be a greater focus on getting operational excellence right. Manufacturers must attack variability, waste, and inefficient processes with a vengeance. Managers must engage and motivate employees from top to bottom, while focusing on mindsets and behaviors. A focus on training will be essential, and when new ideas are adopted, they cannot be hypothetical. Managers must make sure the improvements are actually happening on the factory floor.
Are You Making Progress?
Critical drug shortages should be rare, and customer service metrics should indicate a 99% or greater shipment completion rate. The pharmaceutical industry should be managing suppliers better than any other industry in the world. When regulatory actions have been all but eliminated, medicines are available to all at an appropriate cost, and when we have altered the risk/reward situation for diverters and counterfeiters, we will know we are making progress.
If changes are done correctly, drug manufacturers will not only secure their supply chains and reputations, but also will have the highest levels of compliance and customer service. The result will be safer medicines, fewer adverse events, and lower costs for pharma.
rob halkes's insight:
Supply chain innovation in pharma, not the highest priority? Still a "need-to-inspect" in light of outsourcing, counterfeit, customer services, cGMP and GSP. Also an area for co-creation ;-)
A lot can be misconstrued in the silent world of the Internet. While online technology has changed the communications paradigm, it also has resulted in bad information, embarrassing typos, factual errors and malfeasance.
Fake Web sites, botched emails, rambling blogs and photo abuse appear in cyberspace every day. Most of it is innocuous. But the stakes are higher for the medical community as it adapts to and enters the digital realm.
“In today’s world, in addition to traditional sources of medical product information, patients and health care providers regularly get information about FDA-regulated medical products through social media and other Internet sources, and those technologies continue to evolve,” wrote Thomas Abrams, of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, on the FDAVoice blog. “But regardless of the Internet source used to communicate about medical products, the public health is best served by clear, accurate, truthful and non-misleading information about them.”
The agency has acknowledged the convenience, importance and popularity of social media as a resource for the medical community and industry-at-large by developing a set of best practices for current and future sites. The best practices come in the form of two proposed guidances, the goals of which are to help companies state the purposes of their products with the utmost honesty.
Both guidances relate to medical devices and prescription drugs.
“These documents strive to ensure that the information provided by drug and device companies is accurate and will help patients to make well-informed decisions in consultation with their health care providers,” Abrams wrote.
The first guidance addresses posting information to Twitter and paid-search sites that have character limits. The task of presenting the benefits and risks of a product in 140 characters or less can be daunting – and dangerous. Both sides of the story need to be told, and a link or a phone number should be provided to give consumers a way to get more information from the company or an additional source.
The second guidance recommends ways for companies to correct information relayed about their products online, whether in a blog or on a Facebook post, whether negative or positive.
“We developed these new guidances, in part, to respond to requests for best practices from companies and other stakeholders,” Abrams wrote. “We gave careful thought to our draft recommendations, and we understand technology will continue to evolve.”
Because of the inherent risks posed by medical devices (defects) and prescription drugs (addiction), and their respective benefits (improved lifespan and disease prevention), the agency prioritized the proposed guidances.
“As a regulatory agency, we are committed to ensuring that the information about these products that their manufacturers and distributors direct at patients and health care providers is accurate and balanced,” Abrams wrote.
In the wake of some of the biggest pharma deals of the year, industry marketers gathered to discuss their digital strategies at iPharma 2014. Like its sister sector, healthcare, pharmaceuticals has been slower to adopt new media and technology than consumer goods, but industry leaders now recognize the significant impact online activities have on their brands’ reputations. Despite regulatory challenges, the presentations all focused on positive—and possible—shifts communicators can make to better serve patients and physicians. Here are some guiding questions based on the speakers’ presentations you can use to focus your marketing and strengthen your brand.
1. Are you interacting with your patients online?
As consumers ourselves, we know the power of online interaction and how it drives customer behavior. Digital health is no different. One study showed that 95 million Americans use smartphones for health info, a 27 percent increase from last year. Patients also spend nearly 52 hours per year reading health information online. [...]
2. Are you using data to target your marketing efforts?
Whether it’s studying your customers’ online behaviors or tapping into predictive analytics, big data is a key way to stretch your marketing dollar. Technology now even allows you to pinpoint the smartphone users near a particular doctor’s office. [...]
3. Are you communicating clearly with your team about your brand?
Great brand strategies resonate through all levels of an organization, from research and development to human resources. [...]
4. Is the customer at the heart of your marketing plan?
To often, brands misstep by placing themselves at the center of a strategic marketing plan. They ask, “What information do we want to give?” rather than ”What information do our consumers want to hear?” [...]
5. Are your communications authentic?
Storytelling has become a key component of marketing and branding in recent years. Some of this is a result of the 78 percent of internet users who watch or download videos online. Videos that go viral often tug at our heartstrings but only resonate when the storytelling is original or authentic.
6. Are you building programs for short-term results or lasting impact?
Because everything is changing so rapidly in the pharma space, marketing KPIs are often skewed for quick, c-suite-approved results: “likes,” on Facebook, “retweets,” etc. These results are not insignificant, but they aren’t necessarily indicators of longevity. [...]
7. Are you listening?
To your patients? To your physicians? To your employees? What are your customers looking for? Seek to assuage anxiety by providing answers, comfort, or community via content marketing, videos, and website development. Katharine Patterson, Global Communications Manager for GE Healthcare, closed her presentation with a simple but powerful directive, “Be a human first. Then a marketer.”
rob halkes's insight:
Yes, Great rules and principles for the health industry, also so long known already. But indeed, they are still worth telling. It is not that they have been adhered too yet by the industry ;-)
Apple put up its big show at its world wide developers conference on Monday. Also to present its Healthkit and Health application. Actually a hub, like your Apps are on your phone or tablet.
See the highlights of the presentation here o Youtube, health talks starts at 1:25' ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGic9Ylcync
rob halkes's insight:
Goes without saying. Apple's "Healthkit" amazing. Bringing health parameter data together, AND aligning and integrating these with some of us, like the Mayo clinic, while RadboudUMC was mentioned too.
Now, as "traditional health care providers", we are in to the competition with Samsung and Apple regarding health care. But through them with selected health care providers, as well. These might get first response privileges from Apple: responding to customers worries about their data, even facilitate "preemptively" responding without being asked, to users with alerts, or ".. you better connect with us" - messages.
Imagine how disruptive that is..
Are you shocked? Well this is what was immanent. But there are angles that are still rather easy to overcome.
For instance, Apple's application seems to be still a hub, instead of an integrated platform: that is, it connects and relates, also even provides interaction facilities, but it will still be the same image of my iPhone with all its apps.. It is not (yet) an integrated ehealth platform.
There are your opportunities.
In this frame, I might say: it's my alert to you: get in touch, see my email here ;-)
The FDA’s long awaited social media guidance published in draft form early this year is long on reach and short on specifics; the largely negative reaction from the biopharmaceutical industry reflects this.
If you just read the headlines of the various government enforcement actions that have been brought and settled in the past few years, you are invariably led to conclude that biomedical drug and device firms are renegades who willfully ignore government oversight in pursuit of profits. Of course they are in pursuit of profits, like all businesses, and therefore some regulation is important to ensure that truthful information is conveyed to patients, physicians and payers. But this very same regulation ought not preclude or inhibit manufacturers from providing the most current, accurate information available – who else but the manufacturer is more likely to have such information in the first place? I have written about this in the context of the off label promotion issue broadly, and I believe the same principle should apply to all forms of company communication.
Instagram and other Social Media Apps (Photo credit: Jason A. Howie)
With this in mind, a news flash that may not be evident to our public servants toiling away in the government bureaucracy: social media is a popular and increasingly important means of communicating information. Shockingly, even doctors and patients use it. A recent survey of physicians found that over 50% of practices responding used Facebook as a platform, and 87% those physicians under the age of 55 used some form of social media. With the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requiring increased use of digitalized data under the Meaningful Use guidelines, one might say that the government is actively encouraging certain actors in the healthcare system to increase their use of technology to enhance patient engagement.
But drug companies, not so much. A study announced earlier this year by IMS Health found that only 23 of the top 50 global pharmaceutical companies made regular use of social media. A more recent survey by the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development found that the use of social media in clinical research is minimal – so much so that most companies have yet to develop policies and practices in this area. The survey found that only one in five firms that employ social media have used it to engage with patients, leaving it to third parties like patient advocacy groups or limiting their forays to banner advertisements.
The FDA’s recalcitrance in issuing guidance has been part of the problem. Back in 2008, when I held a visiting academic post at Oxford, I spoke with Jeremy Mean, the UK official who works with the British Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and is responsible for regulating these very same promotional and marketing practices by these very same companies. In September 2007, now nearly seven years ago, he already had addressed formally an industry gathering to discuss the challenge of regulating social media communications. He noted that while we know how to regulate labeling and promotional material, we are less certain as to how to evaluate “everything in between.” Still, even with this admitted uncertainty, Mean went on to discuss his preliminary views on web communications with industry representatives. The FDA’s culture and history suggests that it is simply not willing to engage with industry in a collaborative effort to wrestle with the ambiguities presented by technological advance. We are all the poorer for it.
Logo of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The symbol represents the American People sheltered in the wing of the American Eagle, suggesting the Department’s concern and responsibility for the welfare of the people. The logo is the department’s main visual identifier; the seal is now used for mainly legal purposes. The color can be either black or reflex blue. More information here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
With its draft guidance, the FDA seems determined to put the genie back in the bottle, as it would make every utterance by a drug or device company subject to scrutiny to determine if it is outside the agency approved indication(s). Physicians have the prerogative to prescribe medications for unapproved uses, and often ask for guidance in prescribing and seeking reimbursement coverage for their patients, but companies are unable to freely advise on such issues other than in the context of a Medical Affairs representative responding to a specific inquiry from a practicing physician. Social media offers an opportunity for companies to provide background on medical practice and clinical developments, but the FDA’s draft guidance seems to go beyond the regulation of “labeling” or “advertising” as these terms are defined under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to reach other types of communication.
Moreover, the guidelines raise the specter of the FDA expanding the scope of its purview to deem loosely or unaffiliated speakers as coming under the “influence or control” of the company – and therefore subjecting the company to liability for social media postings by a much broader range of actors than simply those who are authorized representatives of the pharmaceutical company’s Medical or Public Affairs groups.
This is touchy issue for many reasons, but just for fun, let’s wrestle with a philosophical question. Should a company be held legally responsible for any actions taken or statements made by any and all employees and advisors that may relate directly or even tangentially to the company’s business?
Admittedly, corporations struggle with this question on their own. Most executives recognize that they cannot control their employees, particularly outside of the work environment. Yet they often hew toward a fairly restrictive position based upon heightened concerns of liability and government regulatory oversight. Some appear to cling to the belief, however outmoded, that management indeed can control the company’s message and reputation by controlling on line communications.
Here is a example of how some companies have approached the issue:
Although Public Affairs is solely responsible for developing and executing corporate communications on behalf of the Company, employees may post or engage in other social media activity on their own behalf outside normal working hours. That said, it is important to acknowledge that employees who choose to do so may be seen as representing the Company, especially if the subject matter in any way relates to the Company, its business, its reputation, the science underlying our products and compounds, or public policy issues of concern to the Company or the biopharmaceutical industry generally. As such, employees should avoid posting or engaging on social media outlets on a topic, or in a manner, that may reflect negatively on the Company.
In other words, we all know that we really can’t stop you from posting but . . . please please please don’t talk about the company. This has prevailed in many corners of the biopharmaceutical industry, where the rants of disgruntled sales representatives appear daily in living color on CafePharma, while the complexity of the safety and efficacy profile of approved drugs together with the limited space offered in some social media formats (e.g., Twitter) have handicapped efforts to communicate effectively with patients.
This is understandable, particularly as it concerns employees or agents who really don’t know what they are talking about. But to the extent that corporate instincts are reinforced by an overly restrictive FDA, this is not necessarily a good thing.
Do we want to foster a dynamic marketplace of ideas where fulsome communication is supported? Do we really believe that a government agency can – or should – control the information that is available to physicians and patients? And if, in the company’s opinion, the posted information is wrong headed, do we want companies to act in good faith to correct the error?
will watch with interest to see if the industry comments affect the final guidance. But the draft suggests that the agency is holding tight to a twentieth century command and control mindset, and is resisting mightily the sometimes uncomfortable reality of twenty-first century technology and its implications for healthcare communications.
Via Plus91, Rémy TESTON
rob halkes's insight:
It isn't easy, I guess, for an authority like FDA to make leaps towards a new business model, when this model is not yet followed by the majority of those they overview..
What it is in care, co-creation? See here:
Doctors in China are making strong use of smartphones for professional purposes, according to a new report.
The Manhattan Research Study from Decision Resources Group found that 80 per cent of physicians in the country now own or use one of the devices.
The analysts said in the topline figures they released that smartphone use covers a variety of activities and that consequently pharma marketers must tailor their approach when developing smartphone content aimed at doctors in China.
The figures put the country on a par with the US, where doctors' use of smartphones – through growing rapidly over the last few years – seems to have plateaued.
Meanwhile, the detail that Decision Resources shared from its Taking the Pulse Global 2014 report also showed that doctors in Brazil don't think pharma is making the best use of tablet detailing.
Three quarters of the doctors in Brazil surveyed said they had seen a tablet-wielding rep in 2014 but Decision Resources said satisfaction rates with the technology remains relatively low.
“Content and user-experience need to improve in order to enhance tablet-rep campaigns and increase physician satisfaction,” the analysts concluded.
Meredith Ressi, VP of marketing innovation solutions at Decision Resources, said: “Many companies now centralise digital best practices through global centers of excellence, while also giving local affiliates the flexibility to tweak their approach and asset mix to suit local market demand.
“These findings highlight the necessity of this tailored approach and can help multinational companies inform these priorities by market.”
rob halkes's insight:
It is still a lot about promotional effort. Surely, a baseline, but what about interaction and communication - it is difficult isn't it?
See how the process of development could be:
In case you haven’t heard: Samsung is now a pharmaceutical company, or at least on the point of becoming one. Subsequent to its having invested at least $2b in biopharmaceuticals, the South Korean giant will be bringing a biosimilar version of Amgen’s Enbrel to market in 2016.
In 2016, a company best known for its consumer electronics and heavily invested in mobile health is going to start producing pharmaceuticals, and will apparently begin by bringing a treatment to market which will presumably make it a dominant force overnight in the two disease areas in which Enbrel has indications, namely moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.
The implications of this for legacy pharmaceutical companies are wide-reaching and significant. Let’s consider a few of them (I anticipate updating this post over the next few months):
- Samsung now has more touch points across the health ecosystem than any other pharmaceutical company. ...
- Samsung’s total focus on customer experience and design makes it a credible champion of the participatory patient’s interests. ...
- Hundreds of millions of people carry this pharmaceutical company’s brand with them day and night. ...
- Consumers will think of Samsung as a consumer electronics company that makes pharmaceuticals. ...
- Samsung will be the first consumer technology company to enter the pharmaceutical marketplace, but it will not be the last.
If this thought doesn’t focus legacy pharmaceutical companies into throwing everything they have into reforming themselves as social business, nothing will. The survival of even the largest companies is far from certain when giants such as Samsung have set their sights upon entering the industry.
Samsung doesn’t think like a pharmaceutical company.
Pharmaceutical companies better start thinking like Samsung.
rob halkes's insight:
Great blog by Andrew Spong, keen enough to see the great potential.. very much inspiring to all of pharma ;-)
Must read, and still more: must think!
This study analyses how 14 OECD Countries refer to “value” when making decisions on reimbursement and prices of new medicines. It details the type of outcomes considered, the perspective and methods adopted for economic evaluation when used; and the consideration of budget impact. It describes which dimensions are taken into account in the assessment of “innovativeness” and the consequences of this assessment on prices; it confirms that treatments for severe and/or rare diseases are often more valued than others and shows how countries use product-specific agreements in an attempt to better align value and price.
The main objective of this report was to explore value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals. In principle, value-based pricing (VBP) can offer better value-for-money for purchasers of pharmaceuticals. It also gives clear signals to pharmaceutical companies that they will be rewarded if their products address the priorities of the purchasers, so in the longer run may reorient pharmaceutical innovation in a more cost- effective direction. However, it is easier to talk of rewarding ‘value’ than it is actually to do so. Is it value to the purchaser that should be the basis of decisions (i.e. some combination of the increase in health and the reduction in other health spending) or the value to society (which would also take into account increased labour force productivity of those who are less sick and those who no longer care for others, amongst other things)? Is there ‘value’ in innovation itself? Countries which use value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals do not make the same choices as to how to determine value. Furthermore, countries which do not have value-based pricing per se may take into account some of the elements used in economic assessments of value in making their decisions. This report attempts to shed light on what impact these different choices make to reimbursement decisions and prices.
Read on in the downloadable PDF!
Please cite this paper as:
Paris, V. and A. Belloni (2013), “Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing”,
OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63, OECD Publishing.
rob halkes's insight:
Very insightful research!
Just for your appetite, I quote two relevant conclusions:
Pharmaceutical companies need to stop simply paying lip-service to patients and radically alter their business models if they are to meet increasing global demand while improving patient outcomes, says KPMG....
Ultimately, we need to change our perception of the pharmaceutical ‘value chain’ to a new ‘value ecosystem’ which puts the patient and the customer at its centre, with other business services wrapped around their needs. Some companies have already started to grasp the nettle and are moving in the right direction – for instance, one life sciences company we spoke to is currently working on an innovative approach to diabetes,” he noted.
Read more at: http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/14-04-08/Pharma_business_model_must_change_radically_KPMG.aspx#ixzz2z2QMSx6t
@PharmaTimes on Twitter
Via Andrew Spong
rob halkes's insight:
Indeed the pharma model needs to be build on an comprehensive view on pharma's role, actions and services in the market. See a draft version to this here:
Patients who take medications as doctors direct may save as much as $7,800 each year.
An Eyeforpharma report has some great information on adherence. There are many reasons given by patients for not adhering to their prescribed treatment. The most obvious are that they simply forgot to take their medicine. This generally corresponds to only about 30% to 40% of cases. In other words, up to 70% of non-adherence is voluntary; people decide not to follow their therapy, either discontinuing it altogether (i.e. not being persistent) or not taking it as often as they should (non-compliant). Why?
Different studies supply different answers to that question, but they can generally be grouped into the following categories:
The relative importance of these seven factors vary greatly across different patients, geographies and pathologies. Any effort by the pharmaceutical industry to support patients must first understand what they need, what the specific drivers are for non-adherence in the case of the treatment in question
Consider these faacts:
"US physicians spend on average 16 minuteswith a patient, but only 49 seconds explaining new treatments"
Of those 49 seconds, are spent talking about directions for administration and about side effects, while a clear understanding of side effects before initiating treatment has a positive as opposed to a negative effect on adherence.
Increased adherence to hypertension and cholesterol medicines would reduce healthcare spending by $4 to $5 for every new dollar spent on medicines.
A 10% adherence to asthma medications was associated with a nearly 5% decrease in total annual medical spending.
Patients who take medications as doctors direct may save as much as $7,800 each year.
rob halkes's insight:
The issue of adherence behaviour to therapy by patients begins with the conceptualization of what one understands with it: Is it just an order, or object for discussion, perhaps to tailor it to patients abilities.. Or shouldn't one think that if patients do not as they're told, they must take the consuqeunces...
The report suggests that it is not as simple as that. Necessary to know!
As it is about phama's products, I do think that this is a fundamental tasks to help their clients, the prescribing doctors, to help their patients in this!
Executive Director Murray Aitken discusses the convergence of healthcare & technology.
Riding the Information Technology Wave in
Life Sciences: Priorities, Pitfalls and Promise
This report provides a view of how the current technology wave—defined in terms of cloud- based storage, new applications, systems integration, and embedded analytics—will be harnessed by life sciences companies in their commercialization activities and why this is necessary for these companies to succeed in bringing innovative diagnostic and treatment options to patients.
Life sciences companies are in the midst of riding the technology wave that has already transformed many industries. They are using technology to bring new types of value to health
rob halkes's insight:
The transformation of the way life sciences companies do business in this new century is not easy and certainly not only a matter of technology application. But technology is a sure issue in this transformation. One key condition is the need of a concept of how to do this. Based on such vision the company can pretest (conceptually) whether there is a chance to better outcomes, value to both customers and patients, and a better return, hopefully sustainable, too.
Integration is a key element to this both within and outside the organization. But most of all competence to change must drive it all!
Are life sciences being disrupted too? Surely. It makes it all much easier when "one" would acknowledge this and responses accordingly.
See my writings about it here: www.healthbusinessconsult.com
The best customer relationships have always been based on a high level of trust, built upon a strong understanding of real customer needs. Novel digital technologies now enable the pharma industry to efficiently listen to each and every doctor, laying the foundations for success.
True pull-marketing needs individual customer segmentation
For the pharmaceutical industry, digital technology has enabled much more efficient and regular connectivity with its principal customers – the prescribers. But this increased level of dialogue between doctors and pharma is only useful if it is on mutually beneficial terms. Doctors want specific pieces of information, at the right time and via the right channels. The pharma industry wants to ensure doctors are clear on the benefits of its products.
Via Dinesh Chindarkar
rob halkes's insight:
For pharma, there's more to redefine their engagement with doctors, than just listening. I suggested a specific path to develop such:
.. A survey shows sales rep bans are accelerating, while also pointing to a limitedtime opportunity for pharma to become a significant partner for healthcare systems.
[..] the latest edition of his firm's survey his group compiled with Capgemini Consulting shows that change in certain aspects of the pharma commercial space is happening very, very, quickly— but he says the industry is not doing enough to adapt its promotional strategies to address a healthcare environment dominated by cost-conscious medical groups and performance-focused federal health programs.
But first, a little math. This years survey showed that 32% of physicians said they cannot talk to reps, compared to 27% last year. Apply this limit to doctors in organized health systems, and the restrictions become even greater: 42% of doctors affiliated with integrated health networks say they are not allowed to see reps—a 17% increase since last year.
Malloy told MM&M his group was surprised by how quickly the no-access population jumped since last year and said it probably reflects a higher pace of change than the industry is aware of. Further, he said the industry is wrongly using the same perspective it uses to woo doctors to court payers and integrated networks. He said that this is a pretty big problem because organizations don't need breakfast meetings, portals or newsletters. Instead, he said groups need technology and that pharma has an opportunity to “bring that expertise on how to use digital tech [like EMRs] effectively.”
The Quantia/Capgemini data indicate that getting the integrated-system approach right is only going to become more urgent: 2014 data suggest 57% of physicians now work within an organized provider system, like an Integrated Delivery Network/Health Network and 44% of doctors said they are working for organizations that are moving towards an Accountable Care Organization model, which generally means implementing even more restrictions around rep-doctor contacts and greater formulary control.
Malloy said this same data also outlines how pharma can become part of the health conversation by uniquely partnering with administrators and doctors[...]
The provider angle requires a rethink about what it means for a drug manufacturer to become a resource for health professionals.“Administrators don't have good relationships with their doctors... they have trouble communicating with the doctors they have acquired through acquisitions,” Malloy said, and noted that he sees an opportunity for pharma to position itself as a healthcare partner invested in the overall patient experience as opposed to a single condition. He that this change requires having reps address different levels of expertise—nurse practitioners, for example, instead of just doctors—and providing educational support that is not just pinned to a manufacturer's product.[..]
This concept hits on one the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics mentioned in a recent write-up about the importance of the patient journey, which IMS said is about more than Googling symptoms and potential physicians and includes the full experience—physician education, doctor-patient relationships and back-of-the-house considerations like formularies and the regimens physicians will be able to offer during exams.[...]
Malloy said being the go-to that puts all of these pieces together is a time-sensitive opportunity and unless pharma figures out “how to work with systems so they can directly and indirectly influence [the way] formulary management systems... are structured,” the impact will be harsh: “All the decision-making will be taken and pharma won't be able to influence it.”
rob halkes's insight:
It is clear: the rep function of pharma is getting outdated, unless... We knew that, did we?
Malloy suggest a new approach which is in essence about delivering services that clients might really need beyond just information on the drug.
But, based upon my own experience in updating the promotional approach of pharma companies, I'm not very enthusiastic about the suggestions made here. Think for instance on the need for internal alignment, in my view the most difficult issue for change to current pharma companies, ..
rob halkes's insight:
A sure thing.. pharma's fundamental change is underway. The question is how to make it true within the organizations. I suspect a difficult change process is immanent, as I 'm currently well underway with such in pharma companies.
THE CORPORATE REPUTATION OF THE MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY —THE PATIENT PERSPECTIVE (3rd EDITION)
Report published by PatientView, June 4th 2014
London, June 4, 2014. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView March-April 2014 global survey exploring the views of 408 international, national, regional, and local patient groups from 54 countries (86% from Europe), and with a wide range of differing medical specialties. The report provides feedback on the corporate reputation of the medical device industry during 2013-2014, as well as the performance of 28 leading medical device companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation: patient-centredness; patient information; patient safety; useful products; transparency; and integrity. Results are compared with industry and corporate performance in the previous two years.
For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which medical device companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups. 28 companies are examined in the report.
See the complete press release !!
The 2014 survey is an exact repeat of studies carried out in2012 and 2013, allowing the progress of the medical device industry (and individual companies) to be tracked over the three-year period.
- 2013-2014 results put the medical device industry first among all healthcare industries (but by default). 60% of the patient groups responding to the 2013-2014 survey state that multinational medical device companies had an “Excellent” or “Good” reputation that year, the same percentage as in 2012-2013, and higher than in 2011-2012 (when only 53% stated as such). [..]
DENMARK’S COLOPLAST IS ONCE AGAIN OVERALL NUMBER 1
Fresenius Medical Care
rob halkes's insight:
Great Insights into the corporate reputations from the best performing Medical Device Industry in patients' perspectives!
Kudos to Coloplast, ConvaTec and St.Jude Medical.
Sorry to see Philips healthcare just at the 10th place.
Sweden seems to be the best country for Medical devices Industry..;-)
Not all available market research is created equal," says Rich Meyer, author of DTC Marketing Blog. According to Meyer, "some research is a must have and provides insights, but there is also a lot of available research that doesn’t clarify findings and is written by journalists not people will real world pharma business experience." He goes on to rate various sources of pharma marketing research (here).
See further read on blog!
rob halkes's insight:
Great review by John Mack, @pharmaguy of these trend "researches". Due to his investment in time, we can state: trend reports? "C-meh" ;-)
Jonathan Bush tells it like it is to pharma by Lois Drapin, CEO, The Drapin Group LLC See the whole blog here - I just take some quotes..;-)
First, let’s not forget his reasons for being there. As he stated, ‘I am the proud owner of Epocrates, Epocrates, Epocrates (product announcement).” But now let’s take that a bit further. He presented himself as a pharma outsider. Indeed. And pharma is now finding itself more on the outside of the healthcare delivery process than ever before. ..
“Our business model, said Bush, “depends on the patient doing the thing that the doctor wants… in order for us to get revenue. So we may use a web app, carrier pigeons or trained llamas to get that outcome in the office, to get that patient to come into the office or a patient paying the bill or a patient picking up their prescription, or a patient coming back after an abnormal blood test. That is the revenue event for Athena, not the app. “..
Pharma needs a conversion: “Pull the good thing through”
According to Bush, and you could hear a pin drop in the crowded room, pharma needs to “converts its incredible set of cures into a sustainable new business model in this era.” In fact he had already made this statement: “There are fetters to the business model that will pull the good thing through….and this …whole sub-sector is a casting about for a business model to pull the good thing through.”
…hospitals exit the theater. 2013 is well over 150 mergers now where there are only 4,350 hospitals left and now we are down to less than 1800 decision makers in the entire two trillion dollar market or something like 1,700 and some actual buyers. ...
According to Bush, these enormous systems are faced with a similar dilemma. “Hospitals are realizing that they actually can’t produce enough sick people by buying up primary care doctors to do this so they’re sort of struggling with ‘How am I going to expand the number of patients that I touch this hospital with?’..
Bush asked the pharma marketers in the room to not only focus on hospital days, but on hospital stay. Here is the three-step process he admonished the community to take:
According to Bush, athenahealth has a ‘higher percentage of patients connecting to our clients online than anyone else…much higher that Kaiser…which used to be number one at this.” What’s in the secret sauce?
Pharma marketers are taking a new wave of “beyond the pill” marketing solutions into healthcare. Is this really new? ... I think it’s time we stopped using marketing buzz words to describe what pharma needs most. What pharma needs most, according to Bush, is a sustainable business model that pulls “the good thing through.”Lois Drapin, MPS-H.S.A.
rob halkes's insight:
Actually, What Bush addresses in his speech regards the renewal of the value proposition of pharma: innovate value to physicians and to patients.
There are lots of examples for this - See here for instance.
The other site of the endeavour to pharma is the question of how! That's not an easy one: it means to rearrange the organization and its routines into performing selected and focused activities to different accounts - it means pharma needs to learn how to differentiate its pharma market approach.
I witness these projects and coach them. It takes some nerve to dare, but when a company can put it through, it will collect the returns.
Ask me, when you don't believe it. ;-)
Medical affairs teams are playing an increasingly critical role for pharmaceutical manufacturers. They are in a prime position to navigate the industry's continued transition from merely selling drugs to playing an integral role in the efficient workings of healthcare systems. Not only do medical affairs personnel sit at an interface between the R&D and commercial spheres, but represent the voice of the company in communication with a growing range of stakeholders.
As with other stakeholders, pharma's relationship and means of communication with physicians has evolved significantly in recent years, with medical affairs teams playing a pivotal role in this shift. As the role of the typical sales representative has diminished, medical affairs personnel have emerged, largely in response to regulatory changes that require a clear firewall between promotional and non-promotional activities. (italic added by Rob Halkes)
With the role of medical affairs largely defined by their non-promotional duties (thought leader management, medical science liaison, medical education and information, clinical research operations and outcomes studies, for example) and interaction with a large number of stakeholders, pharma has endured some difficulties in measuring the success and value of these teams.
FirstWord's latest Physician Views poll seeks to gain some insight into how physicians value the role that medical affairs personnel play. Specifically we asked US and EU5-based oncologists:
How important they view medical affairs teams in enabling effective communication between physicians and pharmaceutical companies?
Which activities undertaken by medical affairs teams they consider the most valuable?
What skills they value the most from a medical science liaison (MSL)?
What their preferred frequency of contact is with medical affairs professionals?
What areas they think pharmaceutical company medical affairs teams must focus on in order to deliver better service to physicians?
You will be able to read the results and analysis on Friday.
Results and related analysis will be published for FirstWord Pharma PLUS subscribers to read, with the opportunity for non-FirstWord Pharma PLUS subscribers to purchase these findings. To be notified when poll results and analysis become available, please click here.
As always, FirstWord would very much like to receive your feedback and suggestions.
rob halkes's insight:
I do not often support commercial rerports, but this seems to be deliveering good knowledge on how pharma must and is changing. I do hope it sheds some light on how difficult that appears to be to most pharma companies. Well let's see what comes out of it.
"The pressure to transform will come from all stakeholders, not just technologies"
Many articles, conferences and presentations have been shared about the impact of digital on the communications of pharmaceutical products, how it has reinvented medical education, the role of the patient in our new interconnected world, the usefulness of social networks, viral marketing or even advanced analytics and big data. But in each case what we are really talking about is the trend behind some of the coming challenges and opportunities for our industry.
Digitally-driven transformations have changed entire industries along with the demise of once-mighty corporations, including such household names as EMI music, Polaroid, Kodak, Woolworths, Thomas Cook, Blockbuster and Encyclopaedia Britannica many of whom have radically restructured, or in some cases, gone into bankruptcy, as new digital entrants have disrupted their traditional business models. This disruptive thinking, defined by economist Joseph Schumpeter as the 'creative destruction' of established businesses, has led to new business practices.
In the pharmaceutical industry many companies have taken large and commendable steps by adopting new technologies, developing digital assets and even listening to social media conversations on their products or disease areas. But often these adjustments to the new digital realities capture only a fraction of the shifting value as many organisations are challenged to do no more than inch toward digital, especially since nobody knows when, or from which source(s), the next disruption will come. It is clear that today's digital disruption involves not only evolving technologies, but a revolution in the way that patients, physicians, carers, scientists and others use technology. Innovation in communications today includes not only digitising content, but also interactions, experiences and relationships, digital networks and cloud computing for example offer access to large amounts of processing power and systems to screen potential new drugs, analyse complex diseases and develop new pharmaceutical products and services.
These innovations and others to come will help shape our industry for tomorrow, not just processes but relationships and even existing business models, thus the pressure to transform enterprises will come not just from technologists or number-crunchers but all stakeholders.
It is an exciting future for those who can identify the right opportunities and trends relevant for our industry and with the passion to implement these ideas in their organisations.
The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views, strategies or opinions of Roche (!!)
rob halkes's insight:
Insights from someone from within the Pharma industry unburdening his soul. Truly, indeed pharma is going digital but they are still way behind of what could be, and in my view what's necessary to do in the perspective of new interaction characteristics with customers and end users. I've seen lots of projects and know how things can go slowly, iunaligned or even not at all. It is no sinecure!
Let me tell you about it ...
Boehringer Ingelheim has announced that it intends to make drug data from clinical trials stemming back to 1998 accessible as part of efforts to improve research transparency within the industry.
The move is part of a collaboration with fellow pharma companies Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche and ViiV Healthcare on an online platform to handle requests from researchers for trial data.
Boehringer's chairman Dr Andreas Barner made the announcement at Boehringer's annual company meeting yesterday, following up from a commitment to transparency announced at the same meeting in 2013.
Dr Barner, who also heads R&D at Boehringer, explained that the online platform - available at clinicalstudydatarequest.com - currently contained 50 trials available for which to request patient-level data, but the plan is to reach 500 from all involved parties.
“That's quite a job to achieve. but we have to do it in interest of what data and information can be shared with others,” said Dr Barner.
“We have always argued in favour of transparency and now want a more scientific discussion on the level of trial data and have therefore joined up with several research-based pharmaceutical companies in order to make clinical trials data and documents available to a wider public.” ....
read on in the original post here
rob halkes's insight:
Great to see real development in sharing clinical research data!
This presentation by Valérie Paris was made at the 2014 Global Forum on Competition (27-28 February) during the session on competition issues in the distribution of pharmaceuticals. Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/competition/globalforum
rob halkes's insight:
Great research from Valerie Paris, describing different value design process due to pricing/ market price regulations . Is it time to get one standard for Europe?
The air of despondency that is descending over the pharmaceutical industry’s use of social media is perverse.
It has nothing to do with a putative (and also fictive) absence of interest on the patient’s part in connecting with the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry’s reluctance to utilise social media outside the anodyne contexts of corporate communications is in my opinion ‘perverse’ in its primary sense: it manifests a wilful determination on pharma’s part not to do what is expected or desired of it by patients.
A new agenda
Let’s begin by assuming all drugs in any given disease area are equally efficacious, have the same characteristics, and cost the same.
That is, of course, enough to send any pharmaceutical marketer into a swoon.
They live demonstrate that this is not the case. Or, rather, they lived, past tense, to do so.
However, in social environments (among others) this is the actually-existing state of affairs.
Why? Because in contexts where promotion (i.e. head-to-head studies) is not allowed, pharmaceutical companies must look to other factors to distinguish themselves from their competitors.
Being a visible, reliable, trustworthy participant in conversations on the social web is an ideal place to demonstrate this – and it is possible.
A three point programme to effective pharmaceutical participation in social environments
Is it really as easy as this?
Honestly? Yes, and no.
You’ll need to be able to discern and avoid the bumps in the road you will encounter, but such insights only come from experience, and in order to acquire experience, you need to be an active practitioner.
It’s time to start being one.
rob halkes's insight:
Indeed, a must read to the health industry, not just pharma. Andrew stimulates to be as brave to take the journey into practice. Several aspects will come up, but the main thing is to put it through.
Every year, the board game community BoardGameGeek (BGG) holds an annual convention called BGG.con. It’s pretty much paradise for US unplugged gamers: a library of over 3,500 titles, round-the-clock sessions, vendors, and more.
BGG.con is usually held in at the Hyatt Regency Dallas Fort Worth International Airport hotel.
Glenn is a board game fan, and a member of the BGG community.
Glenn is also an employee of the Hyatt hotel and resort chain.
Glenn wants his fellow community members to have a good experience when they visit the place where he works, and proactively reaches out to pre-empt as many issues as it is feasible to address.
BGG community members express their appreciation verbally within the thread he starts, and also shower him with thumbs and ‘geek gold’ (we gamers had a virtual currency long before Bitcoin ;)) ..
What can pharma learn from this?
Let’s start by reviewing the landscape.
I’m hoping that it’s obvious enough to those who haven’t sacrificed their intellect on the altar of madness presided over by the high priests of multi-channel marketing (MCM) that pharmaceutical marketing is undergoing a saltational evolution.
It is happening rapidly.
It is taking place everywhere.
Its effects are already being felt.
Far from rising to the challenge for the most part the pharmaceutical industry has yet even to recognise the changes that are taking place around it, let alone progress beyond acknowledgment through denial, then disdain, then acceptance, and finally to action.
Setting aside the usual conservatism, reticence and risk-aversion that is the industry’s default mode, for the most part pharmaceutical marketers haven’t ‘got what it takes’ to interact authentically with patients.
I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense.
Rather, I mean that they have neither lived with, nor had first-hand experience of the disease areas they work in.
They should consider themselves lucky that this is so.
However, there are plenty of people who, unfortunately, do have the requisite experience: patients.
Hyatt’s Glenn is a trusted, authoritative, respected voice within BGG because he is one of the community.
Pharma needs fully-disclosed patients on the payroll who were community members before they were employees. People who are known, credible, and capable of reducing the gap between the people who make the drugs, and the people who take the drugs.
In order to be plausible, pharma’s claim to be patient focused needs to be borne out in a practitioner-led reality. There need to be patients on the board, patients on brand teams, patients present everywhere the industry is, informing every aspect of its strategic and tactical activities.
Pharma doesn’t just need to ‘listen to the patient voice’; pharma needs to have a patient face.
That’s asking a lot of the patient, of course. They’re shouldering the burden of responsibility regarding reputation risk.
However, if pharma-patient relations are going to thaw, the industry needs to represent itself within patient communities through patient employees. There’s no other way that it can legitimately take part, anyway.
Regardless of how attractive it may look to the industry in principle, MCM is far from future-proof. Personally, I’d argue that it’s already dead, and that it was always broken as a concept.
Because to speak of the ‘authenticity’ of a message expressly designed to be redistributed in more than one context is a contradiction in terms.
How authentic can an exchange be that is pre-formatted? Shaped, nuanced, with all the colour and life that the spontaneity of reacting to the opinions of others in real time confers wrung out of it?
In concept and in practice, MCM is an anachronism in the social age.
If you don’t accept that, then be prepared to explain why.
MCM may look good in a deck, but arrows and flow charts do not build relationships: people do.
Whilst digital technologies enable global, near-instant one-to-many communications, relationships are still built on a one-to-one basis. In different countries; in local languages; at a national, regional, and local level.
The bigger the Internet and social web becomes, the tighter our focus will need to be on the emerging communities around us.
The global brand plan is now local.
rob halkes's insight:
Patients indeed would be the best advocates to the use of medicines. They are the very persons that are able to speak about the medicine in its practical therapy context.
Great suggestion Andrew! It surely is one of the largest but best changes tot the current health industry.
Though changing industry dynamics may call for a focus on cost containment in the short term, biopharma companies can emerge with new strategies that are again oriented toward non-price value and growth.
The biopharmaceutical industry is at a transformative point in its history. For decades, the industry has had an outstanding run of success, finding therapies for some of the most significant health issues of our time and generating strong returns as a result. These successes, both medical and business, were predicated on a strong model of productive R&D generating innovative products that drove growth and delivered considerable value to patients. Now, however, disruption and challenge are found throughout the industry in its thinning pipelines, expanding lists of stakeholders, narrowing distribution channels, and increasing regulatory and value requirements:
The industry is not at a standstill and is far from losing its profitability, but the pace of growth has slowed (figure 1) and margins have shrunk, causing biopharma leaders to consider how to best position their companies for success. The attractive business environment of the 1990s and 2000s is gone and in its place, a more complex, less certain, and likely more volatile operating environment has emerged.
As this situation has unfolded, ... read on here
rob halkes's insight:
The Pharma industry needs a reorientation to its total business: not an easy thing to do. The more so, while it has been performing the same routine in business for the past two decades at least.
Do Pharma top managers know their own inhibitions? Would they recognize when they misperceive old certainties as "quality for tomorrow"?