First, Pharma companies should not promote products for uses that are not approved by the FDA.  If a company is found guilty of “off-label” promotion, in addition to any corporate fines (which should equal total product revenues during the time of illegal promotion) , responsible individuals should be held legally accountable and convicted, with personal fines, disgorgement of incentive compensation during the time of illegal activities, and even incarceration if warranted.  No corporate settlements.  It is very likely that criminally charged front line employees directed or even trained to promote for off-label uses may be more than willing to offer up and provide evidence against culpable higher level executives who encouraged or approved of the promotion.  I’m pretty sure this would increase executive management oversight to ensure compliance.

To remove the financial incentives for “off-label” promotion, government programs (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and states) should not reimburse for unapproved uses of prescription drugs.  If the patient wants to pay for the unapproved use of a prescription drug that a physicians has prescribed, that should be their choice.  At the same time, that choice carries the liability that if something should go wrong; the only legal recourse for the patient should be to hold the prescribing physician and perhaps their healthcare provider accountable.  Because “off-label“ use is an informed decision, neither the patient nor the physician (or healthcare provider system) could sue the pharmaceutical company for any negative consequences resulting from the unapproved use.  Physicians who prescribe for unapproved uses but post a diagnosis that aligns with approved uses just so the patient can get it reimbursed would face fraud charges and be held personally liable.  Similarly, there would be no need for federal or state litigation against pharmaceutical companies for False Claims that inappropriately causing taxpayers to fund unapproved uses.

If physicians and patients have made a choice to use a product “off-label” and private payers (insurance companies, employers, or PBMs) choose to pay for the unapproved use then they should assume the same liabilities as stated above.  They are making an informed decision and the payer is agreeing with that choice by reimbursing for the unapproved use.  The patient could sue the prescribing physician, healthcare system, and perhaps the payer, but they would have no legal recourse against the pharmaceutical company should a harmful event occur from the unapproved use.

But what about all the “medically established” unapproved uses in treating things like cancer?  The same rules and legal liabilities should apply.  Physicians have the choice to prescribe, patients have the choice to take, and payers have the choice to reimburse for the unapproved use if they want to assume the liabilities with the inability to sue the pharmaceutical company.  If the medical experts, patient advocacy groups, or government programs and insurance companies feel a prescription drug should be approved and reimbursable for a particular use, they should petition the FDA and submit their clinical proof of efficacy and safety to obtain an FDA approved label claim for the product.

While preserving physician, patient, and payer choice these recommendations remove a major financial incentive (reimbursement) for pharmaceutical companies and increase the legal consequences for individuals who inappropriately promote for off-label uses of prescription drugs.  More importantly, it appropriately shifts product liability for unapproved uses to healthcare providers and payers.   www.PharmaReform.com

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

PharmaReform.com has explored a broad range of challenges and issues affecting the pharmaceutical industry.  The intent of the blog posts has been to encourage and stimulate thinking about how to address industry shortcomings while finding more patient- and healthcare customer-friendly approaches to marketing and selling prescription drugs in an increasingly complex business environment.

Reviewing the functional  diversity of running a drug company from manufacturing to research, the author provides an industry insider perspective to the commentary, suggestions, and recommendations for transforming drug companies into innovative profitable businesses in the evolving new healthcare market while reestablishing public trust and credibility.

Over 100 blog post articles, organized by topic (see Table of Contents),  are included in this e-book format (Amazon’s Kindle) providing a more convenient portable document for readers who prefer keeping, retrieving, and reviewing them as a reference.

mike@pharmareform.com

Anybody who has done pharmaceutical manufacturing, especially biologics or sterile injectable prescription drugs, knows how challenging it is to repeatedly get it done right in large scale.  From engineering and process controls to supply chain and inventory management to quality systems the expertise required to consistently produce high quality, regulatory compliant prescription drugs is perhaps one of the most unappreciated critical success factors for a pharmaceutical company.   If you can’t make it you can’t sell it.

This expertise is a core competency that has clearly been taken for granted by Big Pharma senior executives.  This lack of appreciation for manufacturing expertise is evident every time a pharmaceutical company faces a recall or needs to shut down due to “quality issues.”   Perhaps best exemplified by the now well publicized drug shortage situation, the inability to manufacture these life saving prescription drugs is putting patient lives at risk.   The lack of appreciation for the complexities and challenges of pharmaceutical manufacturing manifests itself in these shortages.

So what does it take to do high quality, safe, and regulatory compliant prescription drug manufacturing?  It takes a broad range of expertise (not just well trained technicians and operators), significant ongoing capital investment in facilities and equipment, and rigorous, almost obsessive quality systems.  These are not the places pharmaceutical executives  should be looking to cut costs.  And worse,  generic drug pricing generally don’t allow for the levels of continuous investments I believe are necessary in people (expertise), facilities, equipment, and quality systems.

But what about Big Pharma?  Well, who had the expertise?  Who had the robust quality systems?  I’ll even add … who had the proprietary insight into the nuances and complexities of making a particular prescription drug.  Big Pharma.   At least they did until they decided to take manufacturing expertise for granted.  Unfortunately, Big Pharma continues to close manufacturing facilities, outsource more to contract manufacturers, and retire or let go much of their manufacturing expertise.  And, this expertise and know-how doesn’t necessarily get transferred from Big Pharma to the manufacturers that will be making the generic versions of their products.

I often wonder how generic drug manufacturers or even contract manufacturers who take over manufacturing a prescription drug figure out, understand, and know how to deal with all the nuances and complexities of making a particular prescription drug.  Again, if you’ve done pharmaceutical manufacturing, you know how much is learned by doing hundreds and thousands of batches over years of experience.   Perhaps those who are challenged with making the drugs that are now in shortage are finding this out the hard way.  Unfortunately, it is patients who are now suffering and dying because pharmaceutical manufacturing is harder and takes more expertise than most pharmaceutical company executives appreciate.    mike@pharmareform.com

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

My intent was to call out the historical missteps of the pharmaceutical industry, provide some deeper organizational and business insight (rather than superficial sensationalized hype) as to why they happened, and identify a better path forward for pharmaceutical companies, especially in light of the evolving new healthcare market.   After a year and a half of grueling long hours of writing and editing I was told the work really begins after you have your book written and published.   I was stunned but can now tell you they were absolutely correct.  Marketing and selling books  is challenging and time consuming.

Recently,  a customer who was interested in purchasing a bulk supply for their pharmaceutical company alerted me to the fact that my book cost $49.99 on Amazon.  At the time I only had the Kindle e-book version available on Amazon for $9.99,  so I was totally confused.

So I searched Amazon.com and to my surprise, in addition to my Kindle version,  Pharmaplasia™ was listed as a “Collectable” (presumably because it was a signed paperback copy) and it was (and as of today,  still is) priced at $49.99.  Anybody who wants a signed paperback copy can send me a check for $49.99 and I’ll be happy to send you a signed paperback copy.

So last week I put the paperback copy up for sale at Amazon for $19.95 (plus shipping and handling) and unintentionally started a price war with my own book.  Within days, somebody decided to offer “new”, “never opened” paperback copies for $19.90.  This is really interesting because I have the inventory in my house except for those that I have sold (mostly through my website) or provided for review purposes or to friends and family.

So you don’t have to spend $49.   Pharmaplasia™  only costs $19.95 (plus shipping and handling) for the paperback and $24.95 (plus shipping and handling) for the hardcover.  Both are available by clicking on the Buy Now button to the right on this website.  The paperback and Kindle version are also available at Amazon.com.  And for those interested in discount pricing for bulk purchases for your group or company, please shoot me a note mike@pharmareform.com and I’d be happy to work with you on pricing and delivery.

mike@pharmareform.com

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

Ok.  I’m not an attorney but the recent U.S. District Court ruling (Kuzinski, et al. v. Schering Corporation, Civil No. 3:07cv233 (JBA), August 5, 2011) would seem to suggest that all pharmaceutical representatives will have to be classified “non-exempt” hourly employees and be eligible for overtime pay.

By the courts’ strict interpretation of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) definition, pharmaceutical representatives do not actually make sales. Basically, they do not “consummate sales or obtain contracts or orders” or “binding commitments for purchase” from the physicians they call on and therefore do not qualify for the “outside sales exemption.”  This is hard to argue when a Department of Labor FLSA literal definition for prescription drug “sales” would only occur at the pharmacy or within the supply chain (e.g., wholesalers, chain pharmacies, buying groups, and hospitals) through negotiation, contract, and transaction activities that do not directly involve pharmaceutical representatives.  Despite arguments about the regulatory requirements dictating the role of physicians in the prescription drug sales process, without a lenient interpretation (consideration for regulatory and prescription drug market limitations) of the FLSA definition, it is unlikely that pharmaceutical representatives could ever qualify under the “outside sales exemption.”

The court’s interpretation of “administrative exemption” as it pertains to pharmaceutical representatives, however, is even more disconcerting.  It seems that if you do any training, supply any company developed sales materials or territory management assistance, or provide any management oversight, the courts will determine that “the primary duties” of pharmaceutical representatives do not include the “exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.”  This would suggest that the only way to qualify for the “administrative exemption” is to make sure pharmaceutical representatives have complete autonomy (totally independent of any corporate input), do their own training and planning, do whatever they want in the territories that they define as theirs (on their own with no physician or account data supplied by the company), decide and say what they want about the products they choose to promote, and are not managed or supervised in any way.

While this may sound absurd, this is not meant as a sarcastic commentary and certainly is not meant as legal advice but rather a practical observation of how the courts seem to be interpreting the FLSA definitions for “outside sales” and the “administrative exemption” as they pertain to pharmaceutical representatives.  As a result, if the courts continue to rule on these grounds,  I believe pharmaceutical companies will have little choice but to classify pharmaceutical representatives as “non-exempt” hourly employees and will be forced to implement some of the types of tactics discussed in an earlier post.  mike@pharmareform.com

As evidenced by many academic researchers and their teams, it is possible to discovered relevant disease targets and disease altering compounds with far fewer research dollars than Big Pharma has been spending over the past three decades.  Big Pharma R & D budgets, however,  are a misleading indicator of investment in innovation.   In other words, when Pharma holds out the total amount they are spending on R & D ($68 billion), you have to know that only about 30% of that is for discovery and preclinical research.  Still billions of dollars for a disappointing drug discovery return on investment.

Here is another way to look at pharmaceutical innovation productivity.  Let’s say the average Big Pharma has a $1 billion per year to spend on drug discovery and preclinical research.  How do you think that compares to what academic labs (or start up biotechs for that matter) have to spend on discovery research?  Maybe a couple million dollars they have secured in government grants?  Yet, dollar for dollar, who’s delivering the innovation? And why?  An increasing number and percentage of innovative new drugs are being discovered in government or government funded public laboratories.

While they may have less money to work with, academic labs have three essential ingredients that increase the probability for innovative drug discoveries;  expertise, time, and a passionate focus for a comprehensive understanding of the science behind their work (e.g., disease, pathophysiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology).

This is not to say that all Big Pharma researchers lack these essential ingredients.  But even if they do have them, these attributes are mitigated by the distractions of organizational expectations, bureaucracy,  and time pressures to deliver compounds rather than understanding the science.  Perhaps most importantly, expertise in Big Pharma is often rewarded with more work (projects, administrative duties, or increased management responsibilities) that removes (mitigates) the expertise, or at least the focus of the expertise, from the day to day work of discovery research.

Sure, more money can facilitates innovative drug discovery but without expertise, time, and a passionate focus on the science, don’t expect to fill your pipeline.    mike@pharmareform.com

@ChristianeTrue

@kevinmd

@matthewherper

@Pharmalot

@Pharmaceutical

@cafepharma

Who do you follow that is really helpful in keeping you current?  mike@pharmareform.com

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

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

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 Journal of Medical Marketing (January 2011) has published an extensive (2+ pages), informative review of Pharmaplasia™, which is now available online.   The author concludes his review :

“As I closed the book for a second time, I felt like I’d had a friendly and useful conversation with an eloquent, intelligent and very experienced man who cared about pharma and had some useful things to say.  I’d have been mistaken to expect his book to give all the answers to the challenges faced by the industry, but if I’d hoped for a more modest but still worthwhile contribution to a complex debate, I’d have felt my time reading the book to be well spent.”

Brian D. Smith   Journal of Medical Marketing (2011) 11, 90 – 92. doi: 10.1057/jmm.2010.33

The Journal of Medical Marketing currently has a free trial so you can freely view the pdf file.

mike@pharmareform.com

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

I’m talking about the clinical pharmacists who evaluate and make formulary recommendations for treatment options within large healthcare systems, managed care, Pharmacy Benefits Managers, government agencies (think CMS), and at healthcare insurance companies.  I’m talking about clinical pharmacists who are rounding in the hospital with attending physicians; monitoring, evaluating, and consulting on drug treatment. And, I’m talking about clinical pharmacists who are delivering and managing chemotherapy and other intravenous drug treatments in the outpatient or home health settings.

Clinical Pharmacy’s power comes from the ability to influence formularies and reimbursement decisions, draft treatment guidelines, and recommend treatment choices.  They are frequently involved in clinical trials and may find themselves increasingly involved in designing, executing, and evaluating “comparative effectiveness” studies.

More importantly, clinical pharmacists could be in the best position of healthcare providers to monitor and manage patient compliance and adherence to treatment, ensuring that treatment outcomes and quality metrics improve, and patients realize the full benefit of drug treatment after the prescription has been written.

The intensifying cost consciousness of the managed healthcare market being driven by healthcare reform and the opportunity for financial incentives from Accountable Care Organizations will further elevate the relevance, importance, and value of the drug treatment expertise of the clinical pharmacist.

It is important for pharmaceutical marketers to understand and appreciate the increasingly influential role of the clinical pharmacist in the evolving new healthcare market.  See why in the next post.  mike@pharmareform.com

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

But …  what would happen if the branded product manufacturers (Big Pharma) started to “match generic drug prices” once their product patents expired?   As generic drugs of the branded product come to market, the branded product matches their price or even prices slightly lower than the generic drug to preserve their market share.    Surely, nobody could be a lower cost manufacturer than the innovator, brand manufacturer.

Let’s think about this. The branded company development costs are well behind them.  Manufacturing facilities, equipment, and staff are already in place.  Training, quality systems, and regulatory compliance requirements are also in place.  Operational efficiencies have been honed over years of production.  Branded manufacturers can certainly negotiate at least as good a terms on API (active pharmaceutical ingredients), packaging, and supplies as the generic drug companies.  And while branded manufacturers may have higher “overhead expenses” that’s an accounting allocation issue.  Building a patient base, marketing, sales, and supply chain logistics are already in place for the branded product.

The generic drug company on the other hand has to develop the generic product (formulation and establishing bioequivalence can be challenging), purchase and set up manufacturing capabilities (or retool what they have), source API, packaging, and supplies, put in place new manufacturing SOPs (standard operating procedures) and regulatory required quality processes.  They have to hire and train new personnel (or at least retrain current staff), develop their regulatory filing, and secure FDA approval.  They may even have to challenge the patent validity of the innovator product.  And once approved, they have to market to and negotiate with the supply chain and the managed market.  In the end, these are all new costs for generic drug companies that have to be covered in the price of their new product entry.

In the past, branded products matching generic drug prices would have meant leaving money on the table and forfeiting profits as generic drugs gradually made their way into the market over a period of years.  Today, however, it only takes a matter of months before a majority of branded prescriptions drugs can be converted to generics.

I’m sure somebody has already done the math on this from a Big Pharma profitability perspective but I still believe that “matching generic drug prices” could have value for patients and Big Pharma.   Matching generic drug prices would preserve a large patient base of lifetime revenue (albeit at lower margins) for the branded product.  It also rewards loyal patients with lower prices for the same drugs they may have been taking for years. It would certainly make it easier and more efficient for healthcare providers, patients, and the managed market in that there would be no reason to worry about changing patient prescriptions.   And, while Big Pharma might view this as “throwing in the towel” ,  this approach would be a challenging “game changer” for the generic drug industry.  mike@pharmareform.com

• Manufacturing Quality

Drug manufacturing is difficult, especially delivering lot-to-lot consistency for tablets and capsules and ensuring the sterility of injectable products.  One of the biggest concerns raised most often about the use of generic drugs is whether they are, in fact, the same as the branded products.  The FDA goes to great lengths to dispel purported generic drug misinformation and to provide definitive answers to common questions regarding comparability.  According to the FDA website:

“Health care professionals and consumers can be assured that FDA approved generic drug products have met the same rigid standards as the innovator drug. All generic drugs approved by FDA have the same high quality, strength, purity and stability as brand-name drugs. And, the generic manufacturing, packaging, and testing sites must pass the same quality standards as those of brand name drugs.”

I’m not sure how the FDA can possibly making sure “all generic drugs have the same high quality, strength, purity and stability as brand-name drugs.”  When you consider the increasing number of generic drug products being made available by more manufacturers (many, if not most, not even in this country), their assurance seems a bit definitive and even suspect (lacking credibility) given FDA’s already stretched resources and limited inspection capacity and capabilities.

Generic drug vulnerability in manufacturing quality comes with the potential for some well publicized cases of documented manufacturing problems, safety issues, or FDA warnings about any quality concerns that would compromise healthcare provider and public confidence in the efficacy or safety of generic drugs.  In fact, any concerns voiced by the FDA with regards to the use of generic drugs could destroy the confidence of an already skeptical patient population.

• Unsustainable low prices

Even though generic drug manufacturers have built their business models around being low cost providers they still must make a reasonable profit to stay in business.  It is important to note that drug manufacturing, especially sterile injectable drugs, is not cheap.  Regulatory compliance and cost of goods can still make pharmaceutical manufacturing expensive, even for generic drugs.

When the healthcare market (e.g., pharmacies, wholesalers, Pharmacy Benefits Managers) drives competitive prices down to a point where even generic drug manufacturers can no longer make a reasonable profit, fewer manufacturers participate in that market and ultimately the healthcare market becomes more susceptible to shortages for those products.  I believe this is a major reason for the current shortage of over 150 medically necessary drugs, many which are generic drugs.

So, generic drug manufacturers are vulnerable to the negative financial impact of unsustainable low prices.  When they decide to manage this by limiting or eliminating the manufacturing of low or no margin products they leave themselves open to criticism and diminished public confidence as more of the critical drug shortages start to be blamed on the generic drug industry rather than on Big Pharma (the perception today).

• Supply of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs)

As generic drug manufacturers squeeze their suppliers for lower prices, those suppliers also lose interest in delivering at those low prices and a cascade of events begins to drive a shortage of APIs when you need them.  Without the financial incentives (reasonable profits) to ensure supply availability, even API suppliers start to limit and maybe even discontinue making the lowest margin products on a regular basis in favor of higher margin opportunities.

Unlike in other markets, the regulatory and manufacturing challenges of pharmaceuticals makes it difficult and time consuming for new manufacturers (API or generic drugs) to step in and take advantage of these drug shortages.  Even if a new manufacturer were able to begin production, the finished generic drug’s price would almost certainly be much higher than the previous generic drug price.  Again, potentially irritating and alienating the healthcare market and patients.

• Burdensome Government fees

Additional fees levied on generic drug manufacturers (i.e., FDA reviews) as proposed by the Obama administration could erode the cost savings potential to the healthcare providers system.  Expecting generic drug companies to absorb these incremental fees could be counter productive (resulting in higher generic drug prices). More importantly, high fees across a portfolio of products could put sustainable profitability for smaller  generic drug companies at risk, even forcing some out of the market.

• Product Liability

As more products become available and more patients take generic drugs, product liability cases will inevitably increase for generic drug companies.  As a result, they may become more inclined to avoid or quit manufacturing products with the potential for an inordinate amount of litigation.  Again, with their low cost of operations and thin profit margin business models, repeated and protracted litigation for low margin products may not be financially feasible, will add to their overall cost base, and could negatively impact healthcare provider and patient perceptions of quality.

The potential liabilities for generic drug companies is especially noteworthy in light of the pending Supreme court review of whether or not generic drug companies can be held liable for “failure-to-warn” when they rely on the prescribing information developed by the branded drug company and approved by the FDA.   Should generic drug companies not prevail, it will open generic drug manufacturers to new potential liabilities and future litigation which could further compromise their low cost business models.

So, while the future looks very promising for generic drug manufacturers, it is not without challenge or risk.  For the market to continue to reap the financial benefits of a consistent and safe generic drug supply, generic drug manufacturers must guard against these vulnerabilities.  And as much as insurers and patients might enjoy the low prices we pay for generic drugs, the low prices only matter when the products are as effective as the brand, are safe to take, and are available when we need them.

mike@pharmareform.com

So why was I even paying $130 in the first place, when generic alternatives were available?  Well, when I had prescription drug coverage through my employer provided insurance,  my co-pay for the branded products was about $20.   I not only didn’t think about the actual price of the drug but I didn’t even care to know what it would have cost without insurance.   Generic drug alternatives didn’t enter the thought process.  Besides, how much lower priced could the generic drug be? More recently, until the price increase,  I just kept getting the prescription filled even though it seemed expensive at $130 per month.

Fortunately my physician agreed to try me on the generic alternative.  For once I also felt fortunate that I was not covered by a government program (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE) which would have made me ineligible for this savings club and these generic drug prices.  There is a wide range of therapeutic categories with over 400 generic medications available from this pharmacy prescription savings club priced at $12 for a 90-day supply (or $9.99 for 30 days).  Again, hard to suggest these prices are unreasonable and they certainly are not expensive in the context of most prescription drug price discussions.  Even without the savings club membership the price would have been less than $30 per month.

Despite the fact that over 70% of prescriptions in the US are now filled with generics drugs, I can’t help but to think from my own experience that there are still a lot of people who could financially benefit from a switch to generics.   I also believe healthcare reform will bring significant cost pressures to get more patients converted to generic drugs.  The Congressional Budget Office reported that in 2007, if all of the 45 million Medicare Part D prescriptions filled with multiple-source brand-name drugs (brand name drugs with generic alternatives) had instead been filled with their generic counterparts, an additional $900 million would have been saved.  And that is without considering therapeutic substitutions (as my case would be considered) or the potential savings from the blockbusters now coming off patent over the next few years.

The biggest downside for patients resulting from this healthcare market evolution to encouraging the use of more generic drugs is that if you need one of the innovative branded products for which there is no good generic alternative, you are going to pay much higher prices than you might have in the past.  If my generic cholesterol lowering agent isn’t as effective (or has more side effects) as the branded product I was taking, I’ll be back to paying the $140 per month.

I believe two factors will drive branded product prices higher with healthcare reform.   First, truly innovative treatments that deliver real clinical value and unique therapeutic benefits will command a premium price because they will be deemed worth paying for and taking.   Second, more generic drugs and more patients taking generic drugs will shrink the market for branded products to people who absolutely need the branded products.   Drug companies will have to exact their profits from fewer products that can deliver these unique therapeutic benefits to much smaller patient populations.   Companion diagnostics will further reduce these already small populations of patients, by identifying responders and eliminating those who might experience side effects.

So the good news for patients is there will be more generic drugs available at low prices resulting in lower costs to government programs (tax payer benefit), private insurance (keeps co-pays lower), and patients.   Pharma companies on the other hand will be able to, and will have to, charge even higher prices when patients need their innovative branded products.

Disclosure:  I am not compensated  by the prescription savings club.  The link is included here only as a reference.

mike@pharmareform.com