Pharma Reform

The J P Morgan Healthcare Conference is, among other things, an annual four days of back to back 30 minute presentations by Pharma, biotech, device companies, CROs, and a diversity of healthcare institutions.  C-level presenters, mostly CEOs, trying to persuade analysts and potential investors that they have the business model designed for increasing shareholder value, some bolstered by forward looking statement disclaimed historically based promises for product approvals, revenue and earnings growth,  dividends, and stock buy backs.

The conference is the premiere healthcare conference in the industry and has become “old home week” for industry executives to reconnect, schmooze, and initiate discussions for potential deals.  Getting an invitation is near impossible if you are not among the presenting companies or on the JP Morgan A-list.  I am neither, so I spent last week listening to all the webcasts that are available for the Pharma and biotech company presentations.

Perhaps the single most stunning, yet less obvious (non- investor perspective) “take away” for me was how rapidly Big Pharma is moving away from Primary Care.  With almost 75% of prescriptions now being filled with generic drugs, the trend may not be that surprising.  What is surprising is that the pace of proactive strategic abandonment of Primary Care is far more dramatic than what I believe most people in the industry would want to admit or even realize.

This trend really got my attention when companies with traditional Primary Care portfolios blatantly stated or clearly outlined that they have strategically refocused their pipelines and commercialization efforts to target specialty markets.  With very few exceptions, company presentations were absent references to products or commercial strategies targeting the Primary Care market.  Oncology, neurology, psychiatry, rheumatology, and dermatology seem to be the focus of attention unless you had a Hepatitis C compound in your pipeline.

Again, the interest in specialty products is not surprising.  They command higher prices, yielding higher margins with less onerous managed market intervention into prescribing practices.   From a commercial perspective, specialists represent a smaller, more easily targeted and sales force friendly customer base.   Specialty market physicians and their patients also seek out and are more receptive to disease and treatment information making promotional education a viable and efficient tactic.

The implications of this trend away from Primary Care are clear.  Fewer sales reps needed for calling on Primary Care.  Less need for expensive Primary Care sales and marketing support activities such as purchasing mass market prescription data, coordinating the complexities of territory management and sales reporting, and dealing with sales force related employee relations issues.  It also means fewer industry sponsored educational programs for Primary Care.  Fewer Primary Care clinical trials.   And,  fewer new Primary Care products means Primary Care physicians and their patients will have to be satisfied and content with the treatment options currently available to them.

The real message here is that while Primary Care has been at the foundation of Big Pharma growth and financial success in the past and there may well be exceptions in the future, the importance and interest of Primary Care to Big Pharma is diminishing quickly.  If your expertise or responsibilities include pharmaceutical sales and marketing to the Primary Care market, I believe your days are numbered and you probably have fewer days than you might think.  Specialty products and markets are where the action is and where the industry is headed and it is moving fast.   mike@pharmareform.com

First, I am not going to defend the FDA or ignore its organizational dysfunction and seemingly antiquated review processes.  No doubt, the agency is underfunded and lacking in the necessary expertise to carry out its broad and geographically disperse responsibilities.   At the same time there are steps the pharmaceutical industry could take to help increase FDA productivity.

Historical precedent would suggest that pharmaceutical companies are more interested in getting products to the market than making sure their products are safe, effective, or even needed.  They tend to do the absolute minimum to get through the regulatory approval process (fastest, easiest indication first), hoping to argue there way through questionable safety data and relying on marketing to find expanded revenue opportunities in patients for whom they have little or no proof of efficacy or safety.   Some of the antics reported in the trade and lay press would suggest that pharmaceutical companies are continuously trying to find new ways to “game” the system.  If you need the details, there is a good review of the past forty years of industry missteps and flagrant disregard for regulatory expectations in the book Pharmaplasia™.   It is clear that the FDA has been put on high alert police mode by what historically has appeared to be an out-of-control, intentionally non-compliant, almost defiant pharmaceutical industry that can’t be trusted.

In this context, is it any wonder that the FDA is skeptically cautious, more demanding for proof of claims, and sometimes even slow and seemingly uncommitted when it comes to product approvals and issuance of guidance documents yet deliberate and critical, albeit intermittent and inconsistent in their enforcement?

Here are five steps the pharmaceutical industry could take to help improve the regulatory process and FDA efficiency.

1. Focus on Innovation
2. Makes safety issues easy for the FDA to understand
3. Make manufacturing quality an organizational priority
4. Commit to ethical and regulatory compliant marketing and sales
5. Establish a base of credibility

Focus on Innovation

Despite the sunk costs of discovering and developing a product that companies hoped would turn out better than it did, don’t bog down the FDA review process with products that have little or no clinical benefits over what is already available on the market.  If you feel compelled to bring a comparable product to market, don’t try to make it sound better than it really is to substantiate a higher price.  Again, trying to angle for a labeling claim advantage that doesn’t really exist consumes FDA time and resources.

Make safety issues easy for the FDA to understand

It is mind-blowing to me that pharmaceutical companies can get to a final advisory board meeting prior to an expected approval and find out there is a concern and unanswered questions about an animal toxicology study or clinical finding?  Well, maybe the company was hoping it would just slip by and nobody would notice the data or they thought they could argue their way through the questionable or disturbing data.  Why not be proactive, anticipate the concern and just get the data to prove it’s not an issue?  Well, maybe companies still believe in the “don’t look for it unless it is a regulatory requirement” theory because they might find something they don’t like or can’t explain.  I appreciate the need for speed in development but you have at least 3 to 5 years after a product starts clinical studies to sort out any safety issues.  That is, if you really want to take the risk to understand the basic sciences of the concern or potential problem.

Make manufacturing quality an organizational priority

First, the answer to industry manufacturing issues is not lower quality standards, fewer FDA inspections, or less rigorous, less critical inspections.  In fact, I am a proponent of maintaining high quality standards,  more frequent and more rigorous inspections, including of foreign facilities.

As challenging as pharmaceutical manufacturing can be, I don’t see why pharmaceutical companies should expect anything other than a clean slate, no 483′s,  when the FDA inspects their facilities.  With appropriate management manufacturing expertise and robust quality systems in place, avoiding 483’s should not be a matter of chance or wishful thinking but rather a matter of fact.  Clean, high quality, cGMP – compliant manufacturing would make FDA inspections (and follow-up) easier, less laborious, and less time consuming.

Commit to ethical and regulatory compliant marketing and sales

“Pushing the regulatory envelop” and “off-label” promotion can drive revenues and increase your market opportunity but also puts tremendous additional workload on the FDA.   So much so that it is clear that pharmaceutical companies have taken advantage of this burden by trying to be clever in their advertising and promotions knowing full well the FDA can’t police everything and the chances of being caught are remote.  Even if caught, the consequences are minimal (a “slap on the hand” in the form of a letter) unless the Department of Justice pushes for some financial penalty.  And then,  it just becomes a cost of doing business.  Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies may feel they will be at a significant commercial disadvantage if they don’t “push the regulatory envelop” because “everybody is doing it.”

An industry-wide commitment to ethical and regulatory compliant marketing and selling would make non-compliant outliers more obvious and allow FDA to focus resources  on the more egregious and potentially harmful marketing and sales activities.

Establish a base of credibility

If the pharmaceutical industry were trusted, credible, and committed to regulatory compliance the FDA would not have to spend as much time, effort, and resources trying to sort out the “gamers” from bona fide efforts to bring safe and effective innovative new products to market, to maintain high quality manufacturing standards, and to market products in compliance with the approved label claims.  Yes, I believe there are companies and their CEOs who profess this to be their intent, but the historical record suggests there are few who have been able to deliver or credibly live up to this commitment.

mike@pharmareform.com

This may sound simplistic and obvious.  But, have you noticed lately that pharmaceutical companies appear to be struggling with a confusing array of seemingly contradictory strategic choices?  Some of these choices leave even the most knowledgeable industry followers wondering and speculating about the rationale behind the decisions.

Should they get bigger, should they downsize?  Should they acquire, grow organically, or divest? Should they be “pure” pharmaceutical plays or diversified healthcare companies?  Should they continue to exploit the US market or expand into emerging markets?  Should they rebuild and restructure R & D or move to a more flexible outsourcing model?  Should they focus on diseases, products, or technologies?  Are regulatory compliance, manufacturing quality, and integrity important for building trust and credibility or are they “envelops to be pushed” for competitive advantage and financial gain?  Strategic and tactical choices that can affect business today and well into the future.

So what’s the big deal?  Don’t all companies go through this?  Why is this important?

It’s important because, when a company determines who they are, finds its purpose, and develops a passion for what they do; strategic and daily operational decision making become easier and are more likely to deliver the organizational goals and objectives that support the company purpose.  This corporate understanding of “self” includes a deep seated set of behavioral expectations, values, and principles by which the company operates and does business.

Definition, consistency of behavior, and organizational alignment allow employees to embrace and support the corporate purpose in their daily activities.  Decisions become easier as choices and options either fit or don’t fit the behavioral values or purpose.  More importantly, employees, prospective employees, customers, collaborators, and investors all know what to expect from the company.

Despite all the mission and vision statements in their lobbies, I believe many of the Big Pharma companies today have lost their purpose and are confused about their ”self.”  With a fixation on near-term financial performance (their apparent purpose), they seem to be struggling to find the “quick fixes” to business success in the evolving new healthcare market.

Most pharmaceutical companies would never admit they have lost their purpose.  At the same time, if they were to explore this fundamental business principle, many might learn that even their management teams are uncertain, if not finding total organizational disagreement about who they are and what they do.

mike@pharmareform.com

The commentary and highlights of pharmaceutical industry challenges noted in Duff Wilson’s article “Patent Woes Threaten Drug Firms” in The New York Times (3/6/2011) and the Morgan Stanley report “An Avalanche of Risk? Downgrading to Cautious” come as no surprise if you have read the book Pharmaplasia™.  This disconcerting pharmaceutical industry situation has been decades in the making and unfortunately, will take decades to turn around.

Those looking for or postulating near-term quick fixes from strategic restructurings, mega-mergers, technology acquisitions, or breakthrough serendipitous discoveries to resolve the industry dysfunction will be sadly disappointed.  As described in Pharmaplasia™, the problems in the pharmaceutical industry are deep rooted and involve more than just a lack of  R & D productivity.

Sure there are going to be the occasional successful new product introductions that give us hope that the industry is recovering but even those introductions will have been the result of decades of development work and there will be too few to really make a significant impact on restoring healthy consistent revenue growth for the industry.  For the pharmaceutical industry there are no quick fixes and it could take decades for the impact of the multitude of strategic efforts today to really begin delivering the types of financial results expected from the magnitude of investment being made by the industry.

In addition to fixing R & D, the pharmaceutical industry business model must become more efficient (increase operational productivity and reduce waste), must be more responsive to healthcare market needs, and must replace traditional sales and marketing tactics with healthcare market embraced programs.  Success will depend on competent leadership that is more interested in satisfying evolving new healthcare provider needs and patient well-being than “driving revenues”, satisfying Wall Street, and building personal financial wealth.

In the end, a more prosperous future for the pharmaceutical industry will come from discovering and developing truly innovative new treatments that provide clinically meaningful benefits over currently available therapeutic alternatives.  This will take a major change in R&D philosophy with a much more comprehensive basic sciences approach to finding preventions, treatments, and cures for diseases rather than relying on historical “tweaking of chemistry” and “trial and error” approaches of matching compounds with postulated disease targets.   mike@pharmareform.com

Visionary, courageous leadership, R & D retooling, and a new business model are usually the answers given for what is needed to resolve the pharmaceutical industry’s current state of dysfunction.  I believe that unencumbered performance and productivity levels of front line employees is the foundation for resolving many of the issues facing the industry today.  And, I am not suggesting industry people are not working hard today.  So what do I mean?

Industry reports, Wall Street commentary, media exposure, and trade journal articles continue to paint a pretty depressing picture for the pharmaceutical industry. Declining revenues, thinning pipelines, prominent blockbuster products coming off patent, an inordinate number of disappointing clinical trial results, and inexplicable regulatory rejections are just a few of the issues haunting Pharma executives.  Collateral damage from mergers and acquisitions, plant closings, downsizings, and continued regulatory and legal consequences from questionable, if not illegal, activities.  The state of the pharmaceutical industry seems more than just a little challenging as a place to work.

In the midst of this challenging environment, pharmaceutical executives need the support and high level performance from their employees more than ever before.  Unfortunately, executive credibility among the rank and file may be somewhat compromised by uncertainty precipitated by their actions of the past and more recently, the pick slips handed to many of their fellow co-workers.  With the continued threat of even more cost cutting and downsizing,  inspiring and maintaining employee morale will take more than visionary leadership and executive cheerleading.

The single biggest factor company executives have to deal with as they try to manage through to prosperity is the psyche of their employees.  What if I’m worried about my job, the financial viability of the company, the stock price (my retirement), more pipeline failures, litigation losses, and bad press?  Can I really be performing at my highest level?  Do I even care?

So, when are people most productive and performing at their highest level?

When they feel good about themselves, their job function, and their company.  When they are well trained and have the expertise to perform at a high level.  When they have the right mindset about who they are, the role they play in what they are doing, and how well they are doing it.  When they feel they can still grow in their jobs, know they can learn and feel good about finding new ways to do it better.  When they don’t feel like their job is a job but rather what they do makes a significant contribution to the good of the company.  When their efforts and performance level are acknowledge in a meaningful way.

How does your company deal with these issues?  Do company executives and managers have a psyche improvement plan?  Do they have the training to help employees create and develop the right mindset and reach these higher levels of performance?  Or,  are they just hoping things will get better?   mike@pharmareform.com

We are definitely living in a “Just Do It” global economy that rewards action and speed of execution.   This sense of urgency is reinforced by our instant access to new information on the internet and capabilities such as high speed trading on Wall Street.  Service providers and advertisers reinforce this need for speed and create universal expectations with offerings to get it done faster, quicker, and in less time.  In fact, we can’t seem to get things done fast enough, all in the name of taking advantage of a fleeting opportunities and staying competitive.

Almost nothing of importance in the pharmaceutical industry happens fast yet an incessant sense of urgency almost seems to be a badge of honor and is often applauded by Wall Street.  There seem to be a pervasive need to get things done quickly at pharmaceutical companies to create a competitive advantage (first to market) and potentially increase the commercial opportunity (more time left on the patent to market the product).

But, is having this sense of urgency always a good thing? Let’s take a look at four areas where an indiscriminately managed sense of urgency can lead to inferior, if not disastrous, results for a pharmaceutical company.  A reckless sense of urgency in research, manufacturing, commercialization, and employee development all carry significant potential liabilities.

Looking for quick hits in discovery research, rushing products through clinical development and even quickly killing product candidates early in development can all lead to disappointing results, even for products that might have otherwise done really well.  Missed therapeutic applications, overlooked safety issues, and product failures in late stage clinical trials can be symptomatic of making urgency and speed a priority in research.

Manufacturing operation with a heightened sense of urgency may be able to get up and running quickly or increase production output but run the risk of operational errors, increased waste, and fostering damaging quality issues.

Similarly, when commercial plans and tactics are deployed without due processes in an effort to get it done or to make a change quickly, marketers run the risk of medical-legal compliance liabilities, market miscommunication, misdirection of the sales force, and potentially slow adoption or even instigate rejection of the product by the market.

Also, when individuals who have accelerated promotions to higher levels of corporate responsibilities before they are truly ready, they are probably not thinking about the potential liabilities of premature advancement. Unfortunately, the realities of their inexperience can quickly catch up with them,  resulting in mistakes and poor decisions that have increasingly greater and longer lasting impacts on the company and the people who report to them.

I’m not suggesting the pharmaceutical industry and executives abandon this sense of urgency but rather to apply it discriminately and manage it carefully.  Not everything should have the same heightened sense of urgency and those that do require a commensurate high level of attention to detail with a disciplined, realistic assessment of expectations and potential liabilities.  Somebody needs to be asking; “Are these timelines necessary and realistic?  Why? And For what end result? “  With these timelines; “What are we missing here?” and “How do we mitigate the risks?”   mike@pharmareform.com

As owner of a pharmaceutical company faced the following scenario, what would you do?

• Many of your products are losing patent protection

• Pipeline is slow to replace older, off-patent products

• Market changes and regulatory constraints are negatively impacting sales

• Traditional advertising and promotion are becoming less effective in driving revenue

• Sales force operating costs are a major expense (becoming harder to justify)

• Your company faces prosecution for allegations of illegal sales and marketing activities

• Customers perceive little or no value from sales visits

• Your sales people don’t get sufficient time to make sales presentations to key customers

• Sales people are suing you because they now claim to be hourly employees

• Industry gossip boards are filled with complaints and discontent from your sales people

What do you think you would do?     mike@pharmareform

I really appreciate all of you PharmaReform readers who have purchased Pharmaplasia™.  Thank you.

I’m sure many of you realize how hard and seemingly impossible it is at times to affect the magnitude of change we have been talking about for over a year now at Pharma Reform and as described in Pharmaplasia™.  This is especially true in large organizations where the changes have dramatic financial implications for the company, puts careers and the livelihood of so many people at risk, and that are clouded by uncertainty at every step of the transformation.  Yet a more prosperous pharmaceutical industry for the future will require dramatic change.   Some people won’t want to change while others will just complain that things must change but they’ll feel helpless in being able to affect the change.

As a reader of Pharma Reform you have probably even thought, “this is all well and good Mike but… how do I get my management and corporate executives to start thinking differently about these issues and the need to formulate plans that make sense for the evolving new healthcare market?”

For those still contemplating the purchase of Pharmaplasia™, I am certain that as readers of Pharma Reform you would relate to the suggestions and recommendations proposed in Pharmaplasia™ but more importantly, you’ll be well informed and inspired with confidence to begin making your case for change where you feel you can have an impact.  But, how do you do that without sounding like a “whiner” or feeling like the “lone soldier?”

OK.  Here is a self serving but low risk strategy to help you at least get your management to start thinking about what this evolving new healthcare market really means to your company and what they can be doing about it.  If you have already bought a copy of Pharmaplasia™ and read it, this is going to be easy.  If you haven’t bought and read Pharmaplasia™, that’s the first step. Buy a copy and read it.  Wait…I’m not done yet.  Hang on.  This is not just about selling more books, although that would be nice.

If you agree that your company could benefit by at least exploring some of the suggestions and  recommendations in Pharmaplasia™ or  from just talking about the issues, pass the book on to your manager (or somebody else who you feel could help make a difference) with the simple recommendation that Pharmaplasia™ presents some interesting perspectives that are worth reading about.  That’s a pretty benign, low risk commentary and referral.  Then follow up to see what they thought about it and see if they think it’s worth discussing further or doing something about.

If nothing else, Pharmaplasia™ gives you a great opportunity to instigate thinking about the future (rather than day to day activities) and have a non-judgmental discussion around specific issues that might pertain to your company, to better understand your management’s thinking and to explore their strategic rationale.  If you can get the book back from them, you can then pass it along to another person who could help make a difference.

OK.  If you keep passing it around like this I might not sell as many books but that’s not the point.  Neither is agreeing with everything in the book.  The point is to stimulate thinking about your company in the context of the evolving new healthcare market and encourage discussion (not complaining).  Perhaps you will identify some areas where you can take easy first steps to make a change for the better or perhaps even get to the point where it makes sense to “Invite Mike to Speak.”

So. You can remain frustrated, complain all you want, and see what happens or you can make this small effort to contribute to change and maybe you’ll be surprised by the initial impact you can have, even in a large organization.

mike@pharmareform.com

In the last post we discussed how Big Pharma might have avoided having to lay off so many of their loyal employees had they done a better job of managing their business for the long-term.  Well, easy to look back and criticize but how about looking forward?

Here are some things for Big Pharma executives to consider as they restructure for the future:

• No single blockbuster product can fix a dysfunctional pharmaceutical company.  It can only buy time to make the inevitable difficult but necessary changes.
• The pharmaceutical market will become increasingly global with less regional variation in treatment practices, regulation, and pricing.
• Unsubstantiated value of seemingly unjustifiably high prices will be met with market rejection, outright price controls, government price negotiations, and higher rebate expectations.
• Relative to Big Pharma pipeline needs, Biotech will have a finite supply of clinically meaningful differentiated innovative products available for acquisition
• Traditional marketing and sales activities will have little impact on prescribing behavior which will be more influenced by scientific rationale, demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit, and the impact on overall healthcare costs of treating the patient
• Prescribing will be increasingly managed with “best practice treatment guidelines” prompted and monitored for compliance through e-prescribing technology
• Electronic medical records with medical information systems driven algorithms will allow for real world assessments for determining relative therapeutic benefits and healthcare cost implications of treatment options
• Financial incentives, cost management benefits, and more effective products and programs will drive a revitalized interest in making preventive medicine and medically prescribed life style changes a priority
• Product and treatment assessments will be more rigorous, more sophisticated, and less easily influenced by Pharma companies unless they have  compelling real world clinical data to support their claims
• Comparative efficacy will become a regulatory and healthcare market expectation
• Therapeutic options will include stem cell, gene therapy, and synthetic biology- derived treatments.  Some may ultimately eliminate the need for chronic treatment in small molecule mass markets.
• Drug-device and delivery systems will target treatments to specific disease targets, increasing efficacy at lower doses while reducing the potential for side effects and adverse reactions
• Companion diagnostics and personalized medicine will be a regulatory, market, and healthcare provider expectation
• Reliable, high quality manufacturing that ensures consistency and safety will be a differentiating feature for pharmaceuticals, especially for generic drugs
• Affordability will eventually mean denying insurance coverage (private or government) for high priced drugs with marginal therapeutic benefit, especially those with minimal end of life benefits
• To maintain profitability under intense pricing pressure Pharma companies will be forced to dramatically reduce their operating expenses (well beyond their current thinking)
• Big Pharma companies that maintain their large organizational size will have less pricing flexibility and will be hampered in their ability to deliver innovation, ensure customer satisfaction, and avoid regulatory and legal missteps

So what to do now:

• Pharma recruiting, training, and talent management must improve with a focus on expertise, competence, and integrity.  Hire and develop “the best” (e.g., world class scientific expertise, visionary leadership with integrity, highly skilled operations personnel) rather than just finding somebody who has done or can do the job.
• Focus research on comprehensive understanding of diseases rather than just exploiting chemistry and disease targets.  Strive for preventions and cures rather than just developing another compound or molecule to get to the market.
• The number of pipeline projects is only meaningful in the context of new market expectations.  Products that can not deliver clinically meaningful differentiation should be objectively reevaluated for commercial viability in a more demanding healthcare market. Fewer development programs will make it past this assessment if companies are truly objective and critical in their evaluations.
• Pipeline target product profiles should define the potential “comparative efficacy“ and the meaningful clinical benefits relative to other therapeutic options
• Identify and develop plans for securing the specific data needed to substantiate the claims of efficacy, safety, and “value”.  This is not just to meet regulatory requirements but to withstand rigorous, more sophisticated managed market expert assessments.
• Make companion diagnostics a requirement for pipeline projects
• Develop managed market expertise throughout the organization not just as commercial function.
• Develop healthcare system collaborations that allow for understanding, designing, and executing comparative product and treatment assessments in different electronic medical records systems
• Assume none of the traditional marketing and sales tactics will work (including social media) and then prepare plans for promoting your products in this new healthcare market. For example, think about how electronic medical records and best practice treatment guidelines will influence e-prescribing.  How will you educate a physician population without traditional tactics?
• Assume that even your most aggressive cost cutting programs in operations will not be enough.  Root out legacy, non-essential expenses as if you were facing bankruptcy.
• All non-core competencies should be critically evaluated as outsourcing opportunities
• Invest in expertise, competence, integrity, and high performance systems and equipment to ensure consistent high quality manufacturing (if the company plans to continue manufacturing as a core competency). Invest and retool your processes now for the future.

Critical Success Factors

• Innovative new products with companion diagnostics
• Robust real world data to support clinically meaningful differentiation
• Organizational managed market expertise
• Talent management focused on expertise, competence, and integrity
• Low cost, efficient yet reliable operations
• Commercial programs designed to help healthcare providers and patients realize the full value of the company’s products
• Become a trusted and credible source of disease and treatment information
• Patient well-being must be a priority (e.g., patient safety more important than negative impact on sales or potential implications for litigation)
• Leadership and organizational integrity

The intent here was not to draft a business plan but rather to identify some of the predictable changes of the evolving new healthcare market that will impact Pharma companies.  This was merely to demonstrate that it is possible to anticipate the changes we see evolving in the market and prepare for them if we look forward and take action now.

Now, I’m sure some of you are thinking… ” do you think we are idiots? You made me read all this for nothing.  Obviously, the industry and its executives are doing this.  We have strategic planning groups of MBAs working full time on this stuff.”

Well, I’m pretty sure industry executives thought they were taking care of the future back in the mid-1990’s as well.

mike@pharmareform.com

Layoffs, divestitures,  and closing of facilities continue in the pharmaceutical industry and I don’t believe we are even close to seeing the end.  This is horribly painful and almost inhumane in some cases.  Big Pharma executives could have and should have seen that their business model, product pipelines, and more importantly, their balance sheet projections were not sustainable in the evolving healthcare market that was becoming increasingly managed, more cost conscious,  and more demanding for innovation, clinically meaningful differentiation, and proof of value (think about the recent public review of Provenge^®).

I believe the current layoffs are in large part a result of Big Pharma mismanaging the cash they were generating over the past two decades.  Innovation in R & D was not critical for market success when you could “tweak molecules” and drive sales of even marginally differentiated products with aggressive, and wastefully expensive marketing and sales tactics.  Efficiencies in operations were not a priority when you had so much cash coming in that the modest  savings generated by pseudo cost reduction programs seemed inconsequential and not worth the effort.  And despite laboring through annual departmental political battles for headcount requests, cash rich Big Pharma continued to add staff while still delivering Wall Street acceptable operating profits.

You can’t blame the economy for historically bloated operating expenses, diminished R & D productivity, or the billions of dollars spent on litigation, fines and settlements for questionable marketing and sales activities.  The patent cliff and the increasingly managed evolving new healthcare market were not only predictable but their impact could have been mitigated had executives worried more about long term strategies rather than focusing on meeting quarterly numbers to appease Wall Street and ensure their own personal financial security.

But now Big Pharma has no choice. There is no way for the slowing revenue growth to support the expensive, inefficient operating infrastructures they have accumulated over the last several decades.  Unfortunately, and even unfair perhaps, this means their front line employees will bear the brunt of the mismanagement.  Even more unfortunate, is the loss of jobs at Big Pharma at a time when unemployment is at an all time high and the global economy is struggling to recover.

Even without 20/20 hindsight, I believe the current situation was avoidable.  Had Big Pharma pursued innovation in the mid-1990’s rather than relying on “tweaking chemistry” just to get products to the market, managed their expenses when cash was plentiful, and had the foresight to begin adjusting their strategies and workforce for the evolving new healthcare market rather than trying to be the biggest Big Pharma you would not be seeing the layoffs we have been experiencing.

So what does Big Pharma need to do to make sure they realize the benefits of this painful but necessary downsizing?  We’ll discuss that in the next post. mike@pharmareform.com