Pharma Reform

I have always been perplexed by the contention that we need less government regulation and more lenient regulatory enforcement in this country, including in the pharmaceutical industry.   Proponents of less government regulation often make their case by proposing to “get government out of private sector business and let the market decide.”  They point to the unnecessary costs, business hardships, and ineffectiveness of government regulation.

We hear about “too much government” until something happens.  Something bad enough to negatively affect a large number of people.  A financial system meltdown, security breach that compromises their safety, or when people take advantage of them through deceptive marketing practices or fraud.  You really hear about the need for more government when people die unnecessarily due to a faulty or poorly manufactured product or a blatant disregard for health and human safety.  Then you hear “where is the government?” “isn’t there a law against that?” and “I’m going to sue.”

For years I have wondered how compounding pharmacies that scale to the size of drug manufacturers could operated without FDA oversight of their manufacturing processes.  Just leave it to State Boards of Pharmacy to monitor.  How “nutritional supplements” could make the health claims pharmaceutical companies could not make without rigorous clinical trials and FDA approval.  Do they really do what is claimed and do no harm?  How device companies could merely claim their product was “substantially equivalent” to an already marketed product to get on the market.  Does it really matter that pharmacies can sell drugs over the internet?  Why should I need a prescription?  Does it matter that the pharmacy operates out of another country or that the drugs I get are counterfeit?  Should it really be ok to create billion dollar blockbuster prescription drugs by marketing them for unapproved claims for patients who might be putting their lives at risk for no benefit?  Less government regulation and limited enforcement make these all possible, today.

The pharmaceutical industry and healthcare market have proven that business enterprises and individuals will push the limits of the law and even ignore the law to make a buck.  That doesn’t mean we should just get rid of government regulation.  In fact, less government regulation and diminished enforcement merely create even more opportunities without negative consequences for fraud, for dangerously marginalizing manufacturing quality, and for the unscrupulous to take advantage of consumers, regardless of how informed or well educated the consumer might be.   Less government regulation and limited enforcement in a “buyers beware” market is not an acceptable commercial environment, especially for the pharmaceutical industry where patient health, safety, or lives are at stake.

So what’s my conclusion?  We need government agencies to do a better job of enforcing the laws that are already in place. We need them to work with law makers to eliminate laws that are no longer doing what they were intended to do when they were adopted.  We need law makers to do a better job of drafting legislation (have you ever read a page of Final Rules in the Federal Register?) to protect consumers.  But what we need most is for businesses and individuals to quit “gaming the system” with wealth building strategies based on taking advantage of lax regulatory enforcement and the unaware or mislead consumer.  mike@pharmareform.com

Pharmaceutical companies are held legally and financially accountable for making sure their drugs are used appropriately and that physicians and patients are aware of and understand the risks associated with their prescription drugs.

Product liability litigation against pharmaceutical companies often feature how the pharmaceutical company insufficiently or inaccurately informed physicians  (often highlighting what the sales representative said or didn’t say and the brochure used) about the appropriate use of products (right patients, right dose) or communicated misleading understatements or outright omissions of the risks associated with prescribing those drugs.  Companies who can demonstrate they did everything they could to accurately and comprehensively inform the prescribing physician, especially about the risks involved in the plaintiff claims, are generally afforded some degree of legal protection under what is called the “learned intermediary” doctrine.

An increasing number of healthcare systems, hospitals, and academic medical centers are banning pharmaceutical sales representatives from their institutions.  Some group practices and even individual physicians are also placing restrictions on pharmaceutical representatives.  The intent is often to control the influence of sales representatives on physician prescribing but also to preclude representatives from distracting physicians and consuming practice time with interactions that are perceived to have little or no value.

Whatever the reason for limiting sales rep access to physicians, I am wondering how pharmaceutical companies could possibly be expected to fulfill and demonstrate their “duty to warn” responsibilities when institutions and physicians have decided to ignore and outright refuse one of the historically most effective means of communicating product information.  Will the package insert information now be the basis for appropriately “informing” the medical community and satisfy the “learned intermediary” doctrine?

Again, I am not a lawyer but I wonder what the courts and patients are going to say when a pharmaceutical company facing a “failure to warn” product liability charge demonstrates that their package insert clearly delineates the appropriate use and potential risks and they did everything they could to get the information to the physician but they were banned or denied access.  What are physicians going to tell their suing patients when the pharmaceutical company representatives testify that they tried repeatedly to get time with the treating physicians  to discuss the risks and benefits of the drug but were prohibited by policy and rejected at the office or hospital.

If healthcare systems and physicians make the decision not to include pharmaceutical company representatives in their drug education process are they also assuming more liability when pharmaceutical companies defend themselves by demonstrating that healthcare systems and physicians “chose” not to be informed or educated by the company?   They may in fact feel this is no big deal, they’ll just do their own educating.  But if physicians and healthcare systems assume this responsibility and take the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical company  “off the table” , are they really ready to assume the financial consequences or will patients seeking compensation and their lawyers be less quick to file these product liability suits?

mike@pharmareform.com

The US government driven (CMS, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) incentivized push for electronic health records (EHRs) has mostly focused on the business logistics of tracking healthcare delivery and associated costs.  And while the proposed Accountable Care Organization concept deepens the utility of EHRs to include quality and clinical outcome performance metrics they also have implicit goals for managing and controlling costs.  Under the guise of better healthcare at lower cost, my impression is that most healthcare systems are probably looking at this more in the context of making sure CMS or insurers are comprehensively billed and that they have a way to verify billing accuracy and any incentive payments have been rightfully earned.

I wonder if we will ever get to a point of exploiting the clinical information hidden in these electronic data files.   Could EHRs ever lead to better real world data to support evidence based medicine?  With millions of patients in the “real world” data sets over an extended period of time you would think that figuring out “best practice treatment guidelines” would be better served than by a couple of clinical trials with a few hundred or even a couple thousand carefully selected patients studied over a relatively short period of time.  Want comparative effectiveness?  You would think this could be determined with the electronic data on thousands if not millions of patients rather than a small statistically designed trial in a single institution or small number of sites.  EHRs could also be useful for identifying treatment trends or determining where companion diagnostics might be most helpful.

The challenges of HIPAA compliance, research regulations, and bioethical considerations are beyond my area of expertise but I feel it would be a unfortunate if they stood in the way of being able to use this valuable information.  There must be ways to design and execute this type of research without compromising patient confidentiality and ensuring patient safety.  I also appreciate the pitfalls, limitations, and scientific critiques of retrospectively data mining to assess and evaluate clinical data.

The value of EHRs goes well beyond the financial implications and benefits.  To realize their clinical potential the data must be accessible; it must be analyzed and accurately interpreted.  This will require a new breed of clinicians with specialization in the design, execution, and reporting of EHR clinical study data.  Clinical interpretation of the data will require therapeutic area expertise, an appreciation for statistics, and a comprehensive understanding of the data set and the nuances of the data limitations.  These are not part-time jobs but rather new job functions (staffed with expertise) that add cost to healthcare initially with cost benefits coming in the form of more cost effective, better treatment outcomes in the future.

The danger will be in executing poorly designed,  “quick and dirty” reviews and clinical assessments without expertise which can lead to misleading or wrong conclusions and potentially adverse or costly recommendations … purportedly supported by data.   mike@pharmareform.com

Comparative effectiveness studies like the recently reported SATURN study comparing Crestor^® (rosuvastatin) with Lipitor^® (atorvastatin) sponsored by AstraZeneca may on the surface appear to be a big win for patients (and prescription drug providers) especially those awaiting generic versions of Lipitor (anticipated by the end of this year).  The reported preliminary topline results show a numerical advantage favoring Crestor but no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of the study (change from baseline in percent atheroma volume (PAV) in a ≥40 mm segment of the targeted coronary artery as assessed by intravascular ultrasound).

The apparent implication from these results is that there is no difference between Crestor and Lipitor and therefore, when available, generic atorvastatin will work just as well as the brand Crestor.  Extrapolating this “no difference” conclusion for a single endpoint to the totality of efficacy for atorvastatin could result in significant cost savings for patients and providers of prescription drug benefits.  You would think this is great news for patients but I believe the ramifications of this study go well beyond cholesterol lowering agents and the impact on future sales of Crestor.

Because of the investor interest, high media visibility, the enormous healthcare cost savings potential, and the mass market served by cholesterol lowering agents I believe there will be significant fallout from this study that is not necessarily beneficial to patients.

First, there are undoubtedly going to be patients who could benefit from Crestor rather than atorvastatin but who will not be given that option.  Smaller patient populations may never be studied well enough to determine if there really are patients who might benefit from one product or another in the face of large comparative trials showing no statistically significant difference.

Second, company executives have always been, but will now be even more, reluctant to sponsor comparative effectiveness studies for established products even when they feel they have an opportunity to demonstrate a difference (as I believe was the case for AstraZeneca).  The requirement for “statistically significant” clinically meaningful differences may be too high a hurdle (and represent too much risk) when complex trial designs are expected to prospectively identify a specific primary endpoint for a patient population with considerable variability.  We may, in an ideal world, feel we know enough about biology, disease pathophysiology, pharmacology, and the nuances of patient populations to be able to precisely design these definitive trials, but we probably don’t for most diseases.

Third, pharmaceutical companies may prematurely stop developing drugs they feel might not be able to demonstrate statistically significant differences to available therapeutic agents.  This would have been a catastrophe for antivirals HIV/AIDS treatments which we now know work best as cocktails of several products rather than one being “statistically  significantly “ better than another.  To further complicate this, regulatory approval studies are designed to establish efficacy and safety, not superiority.  I believe the need for demonstrating a statistically significant difference to meet market expectations and regulatory requirements for making a superiority claim (or to potentially gain approval) will make drug development near impossible where products already exist and efficacy is well established.

And if you are thinking about developing an as effective but “safer” product, good luck.  Regulatory requirements for claiming “safer” are even more challenging and from what I have seen, near impossible.

Lastly, this market expectation for demonstrating “superiority to available treatments” and regulatory requirements for making those claims, I believe will result in fewer therapeutic options for treating specific diseases (think antibiotic drug development over the past decade).  We are getting to a point where if a product is already available to treat a disease,  clinicians and payers want to know if your new product is better.  You would think this is not an unreasonable expectation, but it is an expectation that increases the cost, complexity, and uncertainty of drug development.

At the same time, pharmaceutical companies that demonstrate statistically significant differences for their branded products in comparative effectiveness trials will be able to command “super premium pricing” with an almost monopolistic “treatment of choice” position for the duration of their patent.  When a product demonstrates a clear benefit (statistically significant) over other treatments the bar is  raised for subsequent new products to demonstrate statistically significant superiority.  For products with trial supported superiority, regulators will have no choice but to allow superiority claims,  physicians will have little choice but to prescribe the product, and payers will have little choice but to provide reimbursement.  Unfortunately,  this also dampens drug development interest in therapeutic categories that already have well established “treatments of choice.”

And while we may have more effective and potentially safer products in the future,  if you think prescription drug prices are high now, just wait for these products that establish “treatment of choice” with clinically meaningful statistical differences.    mike@pharmareform.com

One would think that by implying your prescription drugs keep people healthy and out of the hospital you could also imply and conclude that drug treatment will lower overall healthcare costs for those patients.  The pharmaceutical industry has implied this for decades.  And, this may actually be true in many cases but the evolving new healthcare market is becoming much less receptive to what would seem to be obvious and will be demanding more and better data to support any claims of improving clinical outcomes at lower cost.   Interestingly, some healthcare providers have already determined this is not just a pharmaceutical industry issue.

For example, pharmacists for years have claimed that they can help patients avoid medication errors and improve patient care through patient counseling and follow up.  They are often the only healthcare provider with that opportunity once a prescription is written, especially for chronic conditions.  Seems logical that pharmacists obviously play an important role here.  But then you read the recent study that suggests that mail order pharmacies may do a better job of lowering costs while improving clinical outcomes than local pharmacies.  Whether or not this study can be replicated or validated remains to be seen but it represents how it is going to be better to have data to support your position than to rely on implication.  Think about pharmacists who now are trying to make their case for improved clinical outcomes with counseling at the local pharmacy.  What data do they present to refute this mail order study?

Similarly, Express Scripts® recently reported on several research studies that demonstrate the ability of Pharmacy Benefits Managers to lower costs and improve clinical outcomes.  Again, even as part of the “managed market,” Express Scripts® felt compelled to support their benefits claims with data.

Why is this important?  Because pharmaceutical companies who still feel they can use traditional marketing and sales advertising and promotion to imply being able to lower costs while improving clinical outcomes  without actually having the data are going to have a much more difficult time convincing decision makers and selling their products.  More importantly, pharmaceutical companies that develop the real world data to support their claims for improving clinical outcomes and lowering overall healthcare costs (and not just shifting costs to another part of the healthcare system), will find a more receptive audience and create a significant competitive advantage.

We are entering a time where the healthcare market will expect you to prove (“show me the data”) that you (as a healthcare provider) or your products or services are delivering demonstrated (data driven) real world clinical outcomes that reduce overall healthcare costs.   mike@pharmareform.com

In an earlier post we discussed the role of the clinical pharmacist in the evolving new healthcare market.  Medication therapy management as required by CMS as a part of Medicare Part D plans is a good example of where and how pharmacists can and are expected to help improve adherence and therefore clinical outcomes while potentially lowering overall healthcare costs.  Given the healthcare failure statistics we  previously discussed it’s hard to imagine that medication therapy management really gets all that much attention from pharmacists or pharmaceutical marketers.

A recent featured article in Health Benefit News highlights the success WellPoint has experienced in a pilot program to enlist and pay pharmacists for more attentive “medication therapy management.”  They were able to demonstrate increases in adherence which not surprisingly translated to better control of disease symptoms for hypertension,  hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.   While pharmacy costs went up they also “saw a great reduction in hospitalizations.”  Overall, in the one year study, they saw cost neutral results, but concluded “it’s going to take more than a one-year time frame to see dramatic changes in cost.”

The healthcare market (with pressure from government, payers and insurers) is getting more aggressive about delivering better clinical outcomes as one way to help increase quality and lower the cost of care.  So whether it is through Accountable Care Organizations, Integrated Healthcare Systems, or just enhancing outcomes from solo or group practice settings, I believe pharmacists will play an increasingly important role in medication therapy management, especially adherence-enhancing programs.   Pharmaceutical marketers who view the retail or hospital pharmacist as merely a dispenser of medications and cursory counseling will be putting their products at risk of competitive erosion and never meeting their full commercial potential in the evolving new healthcare market.

So what’s a pharmaceutical marketer to do?

Well, how many pharmaceutical marketers have assessed (not just mentally speculated) how their product might perform in this type of a trial or study?  How many have commissioned similar types of studies?  How many marketers have partnered with healthcare provider systems to determine the adherence value (clinical outcome differences) between adherent and non-adherent patients and what the value proposition could be?  How many marketers have actually met with pharmacists about their evolving role? How many have started to work with pharmacists on developing educational programs and materials for their products?  How many have pharmacist training programs for their patient education programs?  More importantly, how many pharmacists are considered high priority calls for your sales representatives?

I think I just heard somebody say…”of course we are doing all this.”

Great.  Now, are you doing it as  just another marketing tactic?

I might suggest that if you are doing it to genuinely help patients, pharmacists, and healthcare provider systems achieve their goals, you will find a much more receptive audience, ready to embrace your efforts and make meaningful contributions to your product success without feeling compromised.      mike@pharmareform.com

When I first read through the 65 performance metrics outlined in the ACO draft proposal from CMS (Table 1, pages 174-194) it was easy to imagine how drug treatment could help healthcare providers in an ACO meet or exceed some of their performance expectations.  Based on studies that have already been done, including regulatory clinical trials, it is clear that making sure patients are getting the right drug, in the right dose with supportive patient education and adherence programs could have a dramatic impact on improving clinical outcomes while reducing overall healthcare costs.  But pharmaceutical marketers will want to look beyond just matching and aligning their products’ regulatory claims with these performance metrics to find the hidden opportunities to deliver maximum value and patient benefits.

Healthcare failure statistics (e.g., hospital related infections, treated but uncontrolled diseases, lack of responsiveness to treatment, complications of multi-drug treatment, and patient non-adherence to treatment) while disconcerting, have often been ignored or just taken for granted.  But, these types of numbers can give clues as to where prescription drug treatment could help healthcare providers in ACOs (or other healthcare provider systems) improve the quality of care and clinical outcomes in cost effective ways.

Across healthcare, the list of failure statistics seems never ending from clinically inappropriate drugs or dosing being prescribed to adherence related issues, outright medication errors, and patient disappointment with the explanation about discharge medications.  Even a cursory internet search of product relevant disease states will yield a wealth of failure statistics that could potentially be improved, many simply with the appropriate use of  prescription drugs.

Don’t be discouraged by the variability of the statistics for any given problem.  The precision of specific numbers is not important because at this stage you are looking for clues for where you might be able to make an improvement.  You’ll get real world hard numbers from the healthcare provider sites you work with to develop your baseline data.

You should be able to put together a disease and treatment statistical profile for each of your products.  What I am suggesting is going beyond the global numbers of patients and market shares traditionally used for determining opportunities and driving forecasts.  You need to dig deeper to find the performance improvement opportunities, the types of patients or situations that represent less than satisfactory healthcare performance.   Here are a couple of examples:

Hypertension:

There are plenty of safe and effective prescription drug treatments available, including generic drugs.  When you take a quick look at the overall average numbers there might not seem to be much of an opportunity for significant performance improvement.  After all, 68% of adult hypertensive patients are being treated with anti-hypertensives and 64% are achieving blood pressures less than 140/90mm Hg (controlled).   But a closer look reveals that the percentage of treated patients is much low in younger patients (age 18-59), especially men (47%) and Mexican Americans (50%).  The percentage of controlled hypertension is also lower in older patients (58%) than in younger patients (72%), in general.  Insurance coverage has also been identified as a factor with 71% of uninsured hypertensive non-elderly adults uncontrolled.  More striking is that 52% of those with private and 45% with public insurance remain uncontrolled.

Pneumonia:

Again, at first glance one might find it hard to suggest there is an opportunity for performance improvement when you read that over 60% of elderly patients receive pneumococcal vaccine.  But a closer look reveals that the percentage of adults aged 65 years and over who had ever received a pneumococcal vaccination was 39.8% for Hispanic persons, 64.9% for non-Hispanic white persons, and 44.5% for non-Hispanic black persons.  More importantly, despite vaccinations and effective antibiotics there are still 52,000 deaths related to pneumonia in the US every year.

Depression:

While there may be considerable opportunities realized by encouraging more patients with signs and symptoms of depression to seek treatment, here are some statistics that would suggest there are even opportunities within the treated patient population.  Only 24% of depression patients recover following 16 weeks of drug or psychotherapy and remained well during 18 months of follow-up and  50% of depressed patients treated by medication relapse within two-years.

My intent here was not to provide an exhaustive statistical profile for these diseases but rather to demonstrate that previously ignored or taken for granted healthcare failure statistics, especially those related to treatment  failure may represent new ways to help healthcare providers achieve their quality and clinical outcome performance metrics.  It may take some investigation into the reasons behind some of these numbers but if they are patient selection, dosing, or adherence related, you could be onto something.

Developing a useful value proposition and supportive data will require identifying the specific failure-based  statistic opportunities and then determining with provider systems which improvements will make a difference for them and what data could be developed to demonstrate meaningful improvements.  Keep in mind, healthcare provider systems will now have electronic medical records to help track and follow interventions (e.g., education and adherence programs) and patient responses to treatment.

Again, this goes beyond marketing your regulatory claims for safety and efficacy.  It also takes some research beyond traditional market profiling in a marketing plan.  It will require creativity to interpret the ACO performance metrics in the context of how your products will be assessed and how your product might be able to improve some of the relevant healthcare failure statistics.  These healthcare system improvements in quality or clinical outcome performance metrics not only benefit patients but could have significant financial implications for healthcare providers.  mike@pharmareform.com

In the previous post we discussed the CMS proposed ACO concept for developing healthcare provider systems that engage individual healthcare providers with “shared savings” incentives to improve the quality of care delivery and clinical outcomes as defined by 65 performance metrics.

Some pharmaceutical industry executives, healthcare providers, and even patients may view these performance metrics as a biased, bureaucratic process for defining medical practice and imposing the “cheapest, least expensive” treatment options.

Whether or not the ACO concept survives in its current form is not important, but rather, I believe it represents the next level of managing healthcare delivery that can not be ignored.   I believe the draft ACO concept also represents an important new context for how pharmaceutical companies need to be looking at developing, marketing, and selling their prescription drugs.  Here’s why…

For decades the pharmaceutical industry has boasted about cost savings, cost-effectiveness, and the pharmacoeconomic value of prescription drug treatment.  Professing that prescription drugs can reduce overall healthcare costs by avoiding the ancillary costs associated with chronic diseases, reducing office visits, keeping people out of the hospital, and most importantly, preventing and curing diseases.  And despite the industry’s best efforts, these claims and propositions have seemed to nebulous, lacking in credible data, and therefore mostly fell on deaf ears within traditional healthcare provider systems.

In an ACO-type healthcare delivery system, these value propositions have real meaning, especially as they relate to the defined performance metrics.  With electronic medical records, insurers, payors, and providers will now have more robust information systems to track and report performance of prescription drugs and validate the value propositions in their own healthcare system.  That means marketing and research must be aware of how their products will now be assessed against these performance metrics and design clinical trials that go well beyond establishing regulatory claims for efficacy and safety.

Getting your product identified as a “treatment of choice” in a performance metric would be the ideal and almost assure commercial success for a prescription drug in that healthcare system.  In fact, pharmaceutical companies who align their products and deliver data driven proof for improving healthcare delivery performance metrics as defined by ACOs will find healthcare provider systems more than willing to encourage the use of their products over other, less performance impacting therapeutic options.  Rather than trying to find ways to limit the use of seemingly expensive new products, this new perspective provides rationale for healthcare provider systems to proactively promote the use of prescription drugs that can help them meet or exceed their performance goals in a cost-effective way.

In the next post we’ll explore how healthcare statistics can provide an interesting platform for driving prescription drugs in this new performance metric, ACO-type healthcare provider market.   mike@pharmareform.com

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has prompted CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) in the US to draft a proposal for establishing Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s).  This draft proposal outlines a concept for enrolling patients into healthcare provider systems (local networks of hospitals, physicians, laboratories, etc) to coordinate a continuum of care to keep patients healthy and to better manage their diseases for improved clinical outcomes at lower cost.

Included in this proposal are 65 performance metrics (Table 1, pages 174-194); specific quality and clinical outcome measures of care delivery.  Healthcare providers in an ACO will be required to track, record, and report their performance against these metrics to qualify for what’s called “Shared Savings” …  financial rewards … or essentially bonuses for meeting or exceeding these performance metrics, but they’ll also be subject to financial penalties for delivering expensive care or under-performance against these metrics.

What kinds of metrics are we talking about?

Well … some are more general … like the use of survey results to capture for example;

• The  level of satisfaction with physician – patient communications
• patient feedback about their provider experiences
• And whether or not the healthcare system has best practice processes in place like patient education, the extent of electronic medical records, and the use of e-prescibing

Other performance metrics are clinically oriented and much more quantitative, for example;

• The number of readmissions following hospitalization
• Healthcare acquired conditions (e.g., surgical or catheter related infections, pressure ulcers)
• The percentage of patients vaccinated or being treated with specifically identified treatments of choice ( e.g., beta-blockers, ACE- inhibitors, or ARB therapy for heart failure patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction, warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation)
• or the percentage of patients controlling their hypertension, blood glucose if they’re diabetics, or controlling their cholesterol levels

The ACO performance metrics go well beyond the tracking and reporting requirements hospitals now capture in their quality systems.   More importantly, these performance metrics are more likely to get the attention of healthcare system administrators and individual healthcare providers because they will be held financially accountable for delivering against these metrics.

While there is considerable debate about, and even resistance to,  the details of the draft proposal and uncertainty as to whether or not CMS can actually implement the ACO concept, this should not create a “wait and see” mentality for pharmaceutical marketing and sales.  The ACO draft proposal should be viewed as a feasible strawman proposal which will foster pilot programs at a few healthcare provider systems and will certainly elicit commentary and alternative proposals as to how to hold healthcare providers accountable for delivering higher quality care at lower cost.

In an earlier post we discussed the pharmaceutical sales and marketing challenges created by the complexity of ACO organizational structures and decision making processes. In our next post we’ll explore how this ACO concept and the 65 performance metrics could actually provide a platform to help drive revenues for pharmaceutical companies in this evolving new healthcare market.   mike@pharmareform.com

The increasingly influential role of clinical pharmacists in the evolving new healthcare market represents an opportunity for pharmaceutical marketers.   At the same time, to take advantage of this opportunity, pharmaceutical marketers will need to redesign their commercialization strategies and tactics.  Clinical pharmacists are not going to be receptive to traditional marketing and sales tactics.

Pharmaceutical marketers who lack sophistication and try to merely enroll clinical pharmacists as their sales advocates will be woefully disappointed.  Clinical pharmacists are well educated, well informed, and very analytical when it comes to evaluating therapeutic treatment options.  They have an insatiable need for clinical data to support not only efficacy and safety but also the value proposition for a product.

Pharmaceutical marketers should spend some time understanding the different roles clinical pharmacists might play in the evolving healthcare system and better determine the information needs and evaluation criteria used for assessing products in therapeutic categories that pertain to their marketed products.  More importantly, pharmaceutical marketers should understand the best ways for packaging and presenting their product information so as to assist clinical pharmacists with their product evaluations, presentations, and fulfilling their clinical responsibilities.

Assuming you have a high demand product that fills a significant unmet medical need, clinical pharmacists can play a critical role in making sure your product is available in their healthcare system, is a part of treatment guidelines and highlighted in any e-prescribing support systems they use to encourage appropriate use.  They can facilitate educational programs for physicians and patients to ensure that the right patients are considered for your product, are aware of any potential safety issues, and reinforce the value of your product relative to other therapeutic options.  Clinical pharmacists are also well qualified to be clinical care coordinators in Accountable Care Organizations, and are organizationally well positioned to ensure patient compliance and adherence while monitoring and tracking the financial benefits derived from appropriate use of the product.

So tactically, what does this mean for pharmaceutical marketers?  Here are some things to consider.  Who will be making your product presentations to ensure product inclusion on formularies and securing reimbursement?  Do they have the credibility and training necessary to discuss the clinical data and value proposition (e.g., outcomes and quality metric implications) without having to refer questions to the company Medical Affairs department?  Do you have a user-friendly, comprehensive product dossiers with any efficacy, safety, or value claims (including outcomes and quality metric implications) supported by published clinical data?  Can you provide clinical trial designs and templates for doing comparative efficacy trials for your product?   Can you customized your healthcare provider and patient education materials  for specific healthcare systems?  Are you ready with electronic medical records integration technology and patient care support apps for mobile devices (think e-prescribing and adherence support)?  Can you help with customized electronic models for tracking and analyzing improvement in outcomes and quality metrics consistent with the healthcare provider system goals and objectives?

Reception of these tactics will depend on the healthcare provider system and the clinical pharmacists but also the quality and value of the products and tactics being made available.  The key is for pharmaceutical marketing to align with and embrace the needs of clinical pharmacists and find ways to help healthcare provider systems accomplish their goals and objectives in this evolving new healthcare market.  Pharmaceutical marketers who figure this out can create a significant competitive advantage and enhance revenue growth, assuming they have the innovative products, the data to support their claims, and tactics that are supportive and embraced by healthcare provider systems.

mike@pharmareform.com