Dec8

Biosimilars: You Won’t Feel a Thing (For Now, Anyway)

With the recent launch of Zarxio™, the pharmaceutical industry has been buzzing about the impact of biosimilar products. But how quickly will biosimilars enter the US market, and will their impact be as strong as some forecasts predict?

Biosimilars are made through a more complex process involving living cells as compared to generic versions of small molecular products, which use an exact copy of the chemical makeup of the original. Because manufacturing techniques are considered proprietary, there are slight differences between reference products (the original, branded product) and the biosimilar, thus the first set of hurdles to rapid uptake.

FDA guidance has defined requirements for a product to demonstrate biosimilarity to a reference product; however, final guidance around interchangeability and labeling of biosimilars remains open. The gap in defining interchangeability opens a host of clinical hurdles that biosimilars will face in patient and physician adoption, adding layers of complexity to diseases and treatments that already require heavy time investments around treatment decisions. Indications for biosimilar products may be different from the reference product; multiple biosimilars may be considered equivalent to the reference product, but not to each other; sub-populations, including treatment-naive or -experienced patients, may have different responses to reference vs biosimilar products.

Beyond clinical hurdles, regulatory and payment hurdles are additional speed bumps that biosimilar products will need to pass. Unlike the European Union, where biosimilars have been available for years and there are centralized price and access controls, the US market is more fragmented and local pricing and reimbursement will impact prescribing. The recent consolidation of large payer organizations nods to stronger bargaining power for drug pricing, but discounts for biosimilar products are not expected to be as steep as price differences for traditional small molecule products. Novartis has said they will sell Zarxio™ at a 15% discount compared with Amgen’s Neupogen® making it a lower-cost alternative, but requiring large volume shifts before significant savings will be realized. Even in the European Union, biosimilar pricing has been modestly lower than reference products, price erosion has been gradual, and the shift of market share to biosimilar products has varied widely across therapeutic categories.

Additional legal challenges will likely also slow momentum of biosimilar products. Although patent infringement rulings were in favor of Novartis, nuances in the manufacturing of biologics will continue to introduce new hurdles for biosimilars –disclosure on proprietary manufacturing processes that impact the efficacy of biologic products will continue to provoke relations between pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of biosimilar products. Beyond the legal risk required, the high cost of manufacturing biosimilars will create additional barriers to entry.

In favor of biosimilars are provisions within the Affordable Care Act (the 2010 passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act opening the door for biosimilars), payment reform and bundled payments supporting physician use, and the increased scrutiny on the value of healthcare in the United States.

Other questions remain open: will patient education and support for biosimilars match the reference product, or will specialty pharmacy and large health systems pick up patient support services? How will the integrity of pharmacovigilance be impacted when switching has occurred? What will happen when physicians need to overturn automatic substitution for a specific patient, despite interchangeability?

The introduction of biosimilars has opened the door for many changes to our healthcare landscape, with the promise of large savings in the future. Yet there are many questions to be answered and changes to be made across a large and fragmented system before biosimilars take a majority share, spanning legal and regulatory hurdles, clinical considerations, manufacturing challenges, pricing and contracting incentives — So for now, you probably won’t feel a thing.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Access, Branding, clinical trials, Design, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, medical affairs, Pharmacists, Research | Tagged | Comments closed
Nov30

Modernizing Healthcare Communications

Blog-Summit 160x160Remaining Relevant In an Age of Ubiquitous Information

Last month, Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide hosted our first marketing summit in collaboration with eConsultancy. This conference was initiated to bring healthcare leaders, marketers, and innovators together to discuss the changes that need to be made to build more effective patient communications. The summit showcased a massive well of talent, enthusiasm, and vision our industry has already in its ranks and a vision to deliver relevant healthcare information to patients and caregivers.

The Shackles of Our Own Making

Several years ago, healthcare marketing was years behind in its adoption of technology. Where many packaged goods brands had already adopted mobile, social, and eCommerce solutions, healthcare and pharmaceutical brands were still working with self-addressed postage solutions and print-your-own coupons for patients. Today, we are moving at a much faster pace, but there is still room for improvement.

Healthcare and pharmaceutical leaders are no longer trying “me-too” solutions to compete with consumer brands. We are now writing our own rules. Many brands are leveraging both the healthcare start-up culture and our “veteran” status to build strong partnerships for companies new to the space. We are also taking on the burden of regulation with a new vigor — by educating our teams and developing thought leadership around managing communities. We are also playing to our strengths and authority in disease categories and research. We are innovating in this landscape in spite of the burden of being “regulated brands.”

Digital is not separate

Digital is not a separate marketing platform. People don’t generally view experiences with their smartphone, TV, magazine, or desktop computer as unique “experiences” or “channels they engage.” They do see themselves as intelligently choosing the optimal channel to achieve a goal or move back and forth between mediums. This is normal, healthy, and a clear sign that these mediums and their users have matured. Its unfortunate that many clients and agencies compartmentalize their strategies and plans. Regardless of age, our patients are going to begin to question and express frustration as to why different channels have their own messaging, tone, and offers (in the case of coupons or reimbursement).

This is a pain point for the agency as well. If we are unable to unify our messagingand present a fully informed, multi-channel brand experience, we not be prepared to engage the next wave of the “digitally native” patient. We will also miss the opportunity to align the multi-generational conversation that will be more and more common as the digitally-centric children evolve into caregiver roles for the exploding baby boomer population. Our role as healthcare communicators is to unify channels and bring a channels agnostic message to our audience.

What is changing that model

There is a bright future ahead: Stimulus from the start-up community, a new type of self-educated patient, and a trend towards wellness in our culture are all fueling a new kind of healthcare marketing. This new perspective is focused on content and delivering a value that is rooted in supporting the patient with what pharmaceutical and healthcare brands can provide best — information about their products, the efficact of those products, and guidance to help patients manage their therapy through pharmaceuticals.

It may seem trite, but content is truly king. For brands looking to reach patients, content, when executed properly, is channel agnostic, portable, and scalable to every stakeholder in the chain of care. It is also something that can unify the phases of a patient journey and support a segmentation model for improved ROI of paid media

To not be lost amongst the WebMD’s, Dr. Oz’s, and patient influencers of the world, brand leadership needs to develop a vision for their brands. Specifically, a content strategy that will result in an “ownable” space that is the brand’s own and provides a strong foothold for patient interaction and discovery. From this place, brands can carve out a meaningful role in the patient’s journey that builds trust and provides a valued source of information about the product, disease state, and broader meaning to wellness in the patient’s life.

Changing the healthcare marketing model

The presenters at the Ogilvy CommonHealth Marketing Summit represent leadership from every facet of our industry. Each of them, from the perspectives of technology, content, company they work for, or patient service, all echoed the same refrain: The healthcare industry is at a pivot-point. Patients have access to a near infinite amount of information of varying degrees of utility. Our physician population is under new types of pressure to care for patients while managing group policies, provider requirements, mounting financial pressures, and patients equipped with massive amounts of their own data. Let these challenges be a call to action for marketers and content creators: Our focus needs to be building communications that are relevant to each phase of a physician’s journey and creating content based on the authority we have as drug manufacturers or brand management experts.

See more insights and opinions from the Ogilvy CommonHealth Marketing Summit at https://tagboard.com/OCHWWSUMMIT/245462?.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Branding, Content Strategy, Creativity, Data, Digital, Digital Advertising, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Social Media, Strategy | Tagged | Comments closed
Oct20

Do we need a healthcare awards show?

Health_AwardsWith all but one or two award shows done and dusted for the year, I can honestly say that I have been delighted to see the standard of creativity in healthcare grow from strength to strength. It’s been inspiring, but at the same time it’s been frustrating.

Recently I judged at one of the major healthcare award shows along with some of the industry’s best—people I respect deeply.

We had some interesting conversations around a few of the entries. The main discussion point being, is this really health?

Saving dogs, a hashtag for mums about how amazing their child is, helping hungry people or recruiting medical staff for the armed forces—for me seems broader than health or not even health at all.

We did discuss the fact that it lifted the game in terms of thinking and execution, but it was acting as a guide stick of where we need to be rather than being a true health entry.

But do these types of entries make the interactive visual aid that has been under the red pen of medical advisors feel boring? Does it make the print ad idea that has made it through the treacherous journey of a pharmaceutical marketing department and research group feel flat? Does it make the medical education program that the regulatory body has scrutinised to the inch of its life look dull?
The answer is yes.

There is no place for pharmaceutical work in a current healthcare awards show. If it isn’t bringing you on the brink of tears or changing the world as we know it, it won’t get a real look in. It will be blindsided.

So should we have a healthcare awards show? Why not simply have a health category in the mainstream shows?

Think we know the answer to that one.

The bigger question is (and part of the reason why award shows were there in the first place), how are we going to lift pharmaceutical communications to a better standard? How are we going to inspire true healthcare agencies that live and breathe health every day?

I believe they deserve to be judged in a very different way.
The idea and great execution, without a doubt should be there. But pharmaceutical communications goes deeper than that. It’s the strategy that creatively and intelligently weaves its way through the minefield of regulations and treatment indications. The medical writing that’s taken highly scientific information and made it code-compliant yet highly persuasive to a cynical physician.

So with all this in mind, I believe we do need an awards show for healthcare, but it has to be very different from the shows we currently have. They are mostly celebrating work that’s for the good of man (or animal) kind and I believe you could tack anything to that and call it health.

Pharma is a weird and wonderful world and a very specialised one, so when it comes to judging creativity, should it not be seen through a slightly different lens?

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in advertising, agency life, awards, behavior change, Branding, Clients, Creativity, Culture, Design, Great Ideas, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Innovate, Marketing, Media, Medical Education, Medicine, Physician Communications, Strategy | Comments closed
Aug5

Immunotherapy: Has the Answer to Cancer Been Inside Us All Along?

Immunology Blog Image EDThis year over 1.6 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and nearly 600,000 people will die from the disease. That’s over 1600 people each day. The need for innovative therapeutic approaches to treat cancer has never been higher. To help fight the tumor, oncologists are literally looking within at new immunotherapeutic approaches aimed at unleashing the body’s own natural defenses.

The idea of immunotherapy isn’t a new one. Since the first studies of antibodies began in 1891, researchers have continued to investigate the potential of the immune system. But the idea held little more than promise.

But all that has changed.

Numerous breakthrough advancements in immunotherapy, with unprecedented results, have propelled the entire class forward. At this year’s Annual Meeting of the American Society of Oncology (ASCO), immunotherapy took front and center. Thousands upon thousands of oncologists crammed the educational sessions for just a glimpse of some of the new data being presented, CNN ran headline news stories from the congress, and even patients are aware and asking their physicians about the new therapies being researched.

Across the board, the pharmaceutical industry has started to mobilize behind the potential of immunotherapy unlike anything else seen before. Most of the major pharmaceutical companies already have one or more new drug candidates in development—and if they don’t, they are aggressively exploring opportunities to catch up.

Over 800 Clinical Trials With Immunotherapy Products
At present there are 844 ongoing or completed clinical trials with immunotherapy drugs across a wide range of tumor types. These trials include some of the most challenging cancers associated with the worst prognoses, like lung, stomach, brain, and melanoma. And new trials with new products and new regimens are added almost daily.

$35 Billion in Projected Sales
Analysts believe that annual sales for immunotherapy products in oncology will reach $35 billion a year.

60% of Cancers Will be Treated With Immunotherapy

Researchers believe that immunotherapy may become the dominant form of treatment in oncology, with nearly two out of every three cancer patients receiving some form of immuno-based therapy within the next decade.

While these numbers are staggering, the greatest benefit may be for the patients diagnosed with cancer. The early results from the emerging next-generation immunotherapy agents have rightfully captured the hopes of both patients and oncologists. With continued research and a little luck, these treatments may provide more than a treatment for a cancer, they may offer a cure.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in clinical trials, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Medical Education, Medicine, Physician Communications, Strategy | Tagged , | Comments closed
Jun22

Google Changes Search Ad Format For Pharma Brands

Search-For-PharmaGoogle has announced that it will be updating the Google Search ad format it offers to healthcare and pharmaceutical brands. This change affects support for pharmaceutical brands with black box warnings and those that require adverse event information as part of the ad.

URL architecture for black box brands

As of July 20, 2015, Google will be moving to a common AdWords format that no longer supports an additional line of copy and additional URL for black box brands and those requiring adverse event language. This is an evolution that is optimized for its paid search marketing solution that has been available to pharmaceutical advertisers for the last five years.

An example of how a brand might be using search engine marketing in Google AdWords before and after the July 20th update:

Pre-July 20th AdWords Example:
Brand Ad 1
Post-July 20th AdWords Example:
Brand Ad 2

 

 

 

What does this change mean for pharma brands?
Brands that are currently using Google AdWords for marketing will need to consider a rewrite of existing creative and landing pages. The pages that the new AdWords ad links to will need to prominently feature adverse events information for the product. This will require revisiting of search marketing strategies as well as potential user experience and design changes to optimize inbound traffic from paid search campaigns.

Brands currently using paid search programs with Google should leverage Google’s Sitelinks feature, which provides several links to content within a product website within the AdWords format. Product managers and agencies should also reinvest in paid mobile search with this change, as there is a broader efficiency with this change in having a single ad format for all platforms (desktop and mobile search).

Post-July 20th AdWords Example with Sitelinks:
Brand Ad 3

The changes to Google’s AdWords program will have a significant impact on pharma brand website marketing performance as well as the cost of paid search solutions currently used for search engine marketing programs. Expect to see changes in your category as well as behavioral changes for your paid and organic search performance.

Next steps
The changes to Google’s AdWords program will affect every brand using paid search for healthcare professional and consumer engagement. Work with your agency partner to identify the best counter-measures for these changes and how to recalculate your performance metrics.

Ogilvy CommonHealth offers digital strategy, content strategy, creative development, and analytics services for all of our clients to guide brand leadership through these and any future changes to search engine marketing and market changes in digital and traditional media.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in advertising, Analytics, Apps, content marketing, Content Strategy, copywriting, Creativity, Data, Design, Digital, Digital Advertising, Healthcare Communications, Media, Media Placement, SEO, Social Media, Strategy, Technology | Comments closed
Jun11

The Next Phase of Pharmaceutical Value Propositions Needs to Include the Real Meaning of Synergy

Synergy Blog ImageExpress Scripts recently issued a report on drug spending that made some headlines in the business press.[1,2] This compelling report shows that, from the perspective of a pharmacy benefit manager (and its pharmacy claims database), evidence confirms the trends of increased drug spending, particularly in the subset of patients that consumes at least $100,000 worth of drugs annually:

• The population of patients that takes at least $100,000 worth of drugs has almost tripled from 2013 to 2014
• Compounded drugs were the 3rd highest driver of the trend, behind HCV antivirals and oncolytics
• 9 out of 10 patients with drug costs over $50,0000 used specialty medications
• Men and baby boomers (those aged 51-70) make up the majority of those with high drug costs
• Comorbidities and polypharmacy were prevalent among patients with high drug costs

Glenn Stettin, MD, the SVP of Clinical, Research, and New Solutions, outlines in this report implications and recommendations, most of which are feasible for a PBM to consider:

• Eliminate wasteful spending and improve medication adherence
• Manage specialty and traditional medications together
• Pioneer new approaches in cancer care that both offers patient access and sustains payer affordability

While these are important recommendations, there is an opportunity for pharmaceutical manufacturers to consider extending and enhancing the value propositions of their drugs, and it relates to the “comorbidities and polypharmacy” finding in this report, which is pretty remarkable. The report shows that:

• Among patients whose drug costs reached $100,000, more than one-third were treated for more than 10 conditions
• More than 60% were taking more than 10 medications
• One in four patients had prescriptions from at least 4 different prescribers
• More than half of patients with $100,000 in drug costs were prescribed medications by physicians from at least 4 difference specialty areas

Now, as we read daily in the business press, the drug industry is facing pushback about its pricing of newer agents (specifically HCV antivirals and oncolytics). This resistance from customers is normal, and has taken various forms of stricter precertifications and/or formulary requirements.[3] Recently, legal patent challenges have surfaced; in some countries, various advocates are asking that patents on drugs be voided, so that generic competitors can appear earlier.[4] Nonetheless, evolving industry forces, such as comparative effectiveness research, constrained health care budgets of some payers, and new competitors have started to create a new equilibrium between sellers and buyers, and these forces are helping to more quickly vet winners and losers. It is encouraging to see the manufacturers (particularly of HCV and cancer drugs) refine the value propositions of their drugs, which now include cures for some patients.[3]

But disease is multifactorial (and, as the ESI report shows, multiple diseases are, too), and treatments often need multiple approaches. Manufacturers may need to extend the current value proposition of “one drug that treats one disease at one time” and add it to the complicated heath care mix that includes other variables, for example:

• Combination therapies (with other drugs, including competitors and/or generics, and with other modalities such as devices, diet, surgery, etc.)
• Timing or sequence of treatments (ie, phase of the disease)
• All of the factors in “care coordination” (ie, different physicians, different specialties, different settings)

In other words, manufacturers need to demonstrate the synergy produced by their drugs. “Synergy” is often misused, but I like the Merriam-Webster definition of synergy as “a mutually advantageous conjunction or compatibility of distinct business participants or elements (as resources or efforts).”[5] Certainly some treatment guidelines, pathways, and medical policies attempt to address these multiple variables in health care. But manufacturers can bring their significant credibility in clinical research and patient experience to identify, define, and demonstrate the specific opportunities that optimize their drugs’ performance. They are best-suited to do so, and the customers are receptive to that type of message. (Note: as this heads to posting, 2 manufacturers are reported to have taken this approach and are studying their oncology drugs in combination.[6])

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Footnotes:

1. Super Spending: US trends in high-cost medication use. May 2015. http://lab.express-scripts.com/insights/drug-options/super-spending-US-trends-in-high-cost-medication-use. Accessed May 19, 2015.

2. Growth of patients with $50K annual drug tabs skyrockets. Fierce HealthFinance. May 17, 2015. http://www.fiercehealthfinance.com/story/growth-patients-50k-annual-drug-tabs-skyrockets/2015-05-17). Accessed May 19, 2015.

3. Gilead’s $1,000 Pill Is Hard for States to Swallow. The Wall Street Journal. April 8, 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/gileads-1-000-hep-c-pill-is-hard-for-states-to-swallow-1428525426. Accessed May 21, 2015.

4. High Cost of Sovaldi Hepatitis C Drug Prompts a Call to Void Its Patents. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/business/high-cost-of-hepatitis-c-drug-prompts-a-call-to-void-its-patents.html. Accessed May 20, 2015.

5. Merriam-Webster Online. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synergy. Accessed May 21, 2015.

6. AstraZeneca and Lilly to test new cancer drug combination. Reuters. May 29, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/29/us-astrazeneca-eli-lilly-cancer-idUSKBN0OE0HU20150529. Accessed May 29, 2015.

Also posted in clinical trials, Data, Education, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Medical Education, Medicine, Science, Strategy, Technology | Tagged | Comments closed
May4

The Digital Health Revolution: Transforming the Patient Journey

The Digital Health Revolution Blog Image 2Around the world, one in every four people is using social media. Whether they are sharing a funny cat video, advice on dating, or their personal experiences living with a chronic illness, there are nearly two billion people connecting with one another through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and other social platforms, forever transforming the way humans communicate. This social media ecosystem also is ushering in a “digital health revolution.” Whether through their desktops, laptops, or mobile devices, people seeking medical and wellness information first check with their social networks.

Pharmaceutical companies have started entering the social media waters – — most with one toe in first. Given the increasing dependence on the digital world, social media is a natural touch point for companies to connect with the patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) they serve. Becoming truly social has not been an easy proposition for a conservative industry. But we have reached a tipping point, where social interaction is becoming critically important for the industry, and one that is blowing the lid off of the traditional way of communicating with stakeholders.

In the old paradigm, a pharmaceutical brand issues an advertisement that directs patients and HCPs to a website where they are provided one-sided information and an overall static experience. Patients are then directed to “talk to your doctor,” and that is where the interaction ends. Within the new social paradigm, patients, HCPs and pharmaceutical companies can have real conversations about the topics that are important to all of them. Patients also can access information and answers to their questions much faster, thereby making their path to help shorter.

Pharmaceutical companies have an opportunity to interact with patients and HCPs in a more meaningful way through social media. At Ogilvy, we are helping our pharmaceutical clients navigate this new paradigm and create unbranded social networks that offer patients who have similar life experiences – — whether that is quitting smoking or managing cancer – — a safe and comfortable environment to listen, learn, and share. We believe these networks offer unique value to the industry, allowing companies to provide patients with a support system where such a community may not otherwise exist.

Social networks resolve the limitations of both time and geography that are inherent with in-person support groups. They allow people to access information targeted to their concerns and conversations with global peers at any hour from the comfort and privacy of their own couch. Social networks also empower patients to initiate and direct conversations, interacting in a way that is meaningful to them. These networks are already forming, and we believe it is vital for industry to take the lead, to serve as the connector of those conversations, and to interact so that patients are assured they are receiving the best quality and most credible information.

The social media world has clearly shifted communication patterns and habits. Pharmaceutical companies can no longer afford to remain disconnected. Social interaction and sharing will continue whether or not the industry gets more involved. By taking a more active role within these patient communities, a pharmaceutical company allows its own voice and expertise to be heard, provides its stakeholders with real value, and, equally important, ensures that competitors aren’t the only ones creating meaningful interactions and relationships with consumers.

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-Reaches-Nearly-One-Four-Around-World/1009976
http://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-engagement-statistics-2013-12

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in advertising, Branding, Digital, Digital Advertising, Direct-to-Consumer, Healthcare Communications, Marketing, Media, Public Relations, Social Media, Strategy, Technology | Comments closed
Apr8

An Observer’s View of the Cancer Wars

Cancer Word Cloud BlogWith the National Cancer Act of 1971, President Nixon officially declared that the US was at war with cancer. The goal of this war is to defeat cancer as a major cause of death through a better understanding of cancer biology and the development of more effective treatments.

In the 40+ years since the act’s inception, how much progress have we actually made?

Cancers overall still remain a major cause of death, however significant progress has been made in early detection, prevention and treatment:

• In December 2014, the American Cancer Society reported a 22% drop in cancer mortality over the last two decades, with a corresponding increase in the survival rate of all cancers in both men and women
• The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 made it possible to test the value of genomic approaches and identify underlying genetic changes that lead to cancers
• Emerging data since 2003 have significantly changed the way cancers are researched and have led to the development of new diagnostics, therapies, preventive measures, and early detection
• Research direction is currently focused on combining new compounds and diagnostics to help increase efficacy and reduce toxicity through the use of agents that target specific tumor pathways most relevant to a patient’s own disease
• Scientific advances in treatment have also been born out of our growing ability to harness the immune system to fight cancer

These scientific discoveries have led to a shift from an organ-based to a molecular-based approach, and the results are already having a profound impact on the way cancer is being treated and treatments are being personalized to patients. Personalized medicine is an ideal that is driving much of the future of cancer research. The hope is that tailoring treatment to patients’ individual needs based on their genetic data will improve outcomes and reduce adverse side effects. With our increasing knowledge of the human genome, this is steadily becoming a real possibility, and the advent of immuno-oncology brings another layer of individualized therapy into the clinic.

While many battles against cancers have been hard fought and won on several fronts, the “cure” to cancers still seems elusive, largely because cancer is a cluster of many diseases. Looking to the future, one of our greatest challenges may be translating our recent discoveries into treatments that address patients’ individual mutation profiles and truly treat the patient instead of the disease.

One of our biggest questions may be whether our healthcare system can afford the cost of “high-quality” cancer care. Most likely the answer will be no, but to address this challenge, the onus will be on the healthcare community (providers, payers, insurers) to determine how we will use our growing understanding of individualized cancer therapy to advance the quality and effectiveness of cancer care.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Culture, Efficacy, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Medicine, Research | Tagged , | Comments closed
Feb6

Expensive medicines and where it’s all going?

Aussie Blog Image2The Australian Commonwealth spending on PBS drugs is currently around $9 billion AUD per annum.  It is forecast to be over $15 billion by 2023. We are seeing this upward trend due to the increasing incidence of chronic illnesses and conditions, the ageing population of Australia and the cost of new PBS medications.

We know the hurdle to getting drugs listed on the PBS is higher than ever.  But when they get listed why are these medications so expensive for governments and should we listen to those criticising the Pharmaceutical Companies who discover, commercialise and manufacturer these medications?

Bruce Booth wrote an interesting article recently on Forbes.com where he looked at two very different calculations around the total cost of drug development.  All things equal, and dipping into a Tufts Centre for the Study for Drug Development, it looks like the cost is now upwards on $2 billion USD per drug.  That’s huge by anyones standards.  But consider the journey to approval.

  • It takes an average of 10 years to bring a discovery to the approval stage.
  • Only 8% of drug candidates make it from discovery to the market – and that’s regulatory approval not reimbursement.  Reimbursement is a further stumbling block.
  • The cost of failures is the largest part of the overall cost in this analysis.

70% of the calculated cost of developing a new drug is that cost associated with the failures along the way. In a good article, Booth suggests we need to do things better, faster and cheaper.

I tend to agree. New technologies and the digital world we live in should mean we can share new information, new clinical data and new treatments more rapidly. Most products in the drug-pipeline are now complex, highly technical and often target new pathways and therefor HCPs will need to have a more in-depth understanding of the mechanism of action and science behind these innovative compounds and classes of drugs.

The other question is how can the ‘Big Data’ we keep reading about help us develop the right products for the right patients in a healthcare landscape that is constantly changing and evolving?  A load of patient, HCP and product data itself won’t help us.  We need to be able to analyse and sift through it to find meaningful truths and insights that change the way we develop and commercialise new medicines.  This will make a difference.

 

Originally published on Ogilvy CommonHealth Australia’s blog: http://www.ogilvycommonhealth.com.au/blog

 

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in behavior change, clinical trials, Culture, Data, Health & Wellness, Managed Care, medical affairs, Medicine, Science | Comments closed
Oct9

Fire All Your Reps

Fire All Your Reps Image BlogOkay, that may be a bit extreme. But marketing drugs to HCPs is no longer a guarantee of sales.

As the US healthcare system has shifted its focus from “fee-for-service” to the dual goals of increasing quality while decreasing cost, the power of the individual HCP has been on the decline. Centralized systems of care (ACOs, IDNs, large hospital systems or physician group practices) function to meet these goals by implementing standard methods of delivering care, that the individual provider executes—including the menu of drugs he or she has to choose from, and when.

Consider the September 24 Wall Street Journal article detailing the refined sales strategy that pharma companies are taking. Focusing on the sales call of a “key account manager” to a large system administrator (rather than the 2,600 doctors within the system), the article details much of the impact that pharma is seeing from the changes to our healthcare system. As insurers and the federal government increasingly implement payments based on the effectiveness of care, large systems take control of how care is delivered to manage the costs. A handful of decision-makers at these organizations control how care is delivered—eradicating the influence of the rep on the prescribing doctor.

Pharma has already shifted away from the sales rep who makes the pitch to the doctor. Consider the information from ZS Associates, a consulting firm: 50% of the doctors in the US are considered “access restricted” in some way, and in 2005 pharma companies employed over 100,000 sales reps—which is down to 63,000 in 2014.

While the role of the individual provider has become less influential, the sales rep still has a role to play. Pharma’s marketing and sales approach needs to mimic what its customers are doing—coordinating efforts across all levels and locations of care, and providing targeted support at the pivotal interaction points. Pharma companies have piloted and implemented these integrated sales teams at key locations, and their prominence will only increase as HCP access continues to decline. As emerging delivery models become more sophisticated, the traditional “clinical data” approach will become only a small piece of the drug value story, while economics, efficiency, care coordination, adherence and wrap-around support share the spotlight.

So fire all the reps? No. But we need to redefine their role to better support the new world we live in.

 

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Access, Culture, Healthcare Communications, Sales Reps, Strategy | Tagged , , | Comments closed