Last week’s survey by the University of Essex along with the ongoing Leveson inquiry into press ethics is prompting interesting questions about society’s ethics and integrity and whether withholding information equates to dishonesty. Whilst Pharma is undoubtedly one of the most tightly regulated industries, there is still a historical perception that we are not as open and transparent as we could be. Obviously it is a difficult balance to strike, given that we can’t promote medicines to the general public. However, in this increasingly multimedia world where anyone is able to obtain (often misleading) information from a variety of sources at a click of a button, it is clear there is a need to provide timely, accurate and up to date information to all. To quote Nick Broughton from Pharmaceutical Ethics, ‘Don’t lie, don’t bribe, don’t try and sell what isn’t approved, don’t promote medicines to the people who don’t know enough about them (‘the public’), be transparent’. And as seen by the outrage in the news that the met police did not inform the victims of phone hacking as soon as they knew – sometimes some information is better than none.
Posts Tagged ‘pharmaceutical industry’
Is society demanding more open communications?
Wednesday, February 8th, 2012Pharmerging markets: emerging opportunities for healthcare communications?
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012Last year, investment in emerging markets within the pharmaceutical industry continued apace, with increased revenues and strong sales seen in India, China, Brazil and Russia. This trend is expected to continue, as recently forecast by IMS Health. Moreover, over the next five years emerging markets are expected to double their spending on medicines. As highlighted previously, market demand for more effective products and widening healthcare access due to increasing generic penetration will be among the major contributors driving growth in the ‘pharmerging’ markets. In contrast, European and US spending on pharmaceutical products is set to decline over the same period from 24 per cent to 19 per cent and from 36 per cent to 31 per cent respectively. But what do these contrasting growth stories mean for the healthcare communications industry and can the global market adapt to this flux to leverage growth in the US and UK?
Historically, it was the introduction of blockbuster drugs that put the western world at the forefront of the global pharmaceutical market, leading the way in innovation and research. Meanwhile, replicating generic versions of these drugs defined the pharma industry in the developing markets. Today however, the established markets are faced with record patent expirations, a lack of new generation blockbuster medicines despite investment in clinical trials, and ongoing regulatory challenges against an already challenging economic backdrop. In pharmerging markets, rapid growth has been principally generated by spending on generic drugs, contributing to the rise in the generic share of spending.
Success in LEDCs (less economically developed countries) has understandably tempted western companies to look further afield to tap into the opportunities within the generics market, with some companies already involved in full or partial takeover bids in these increasingly influential emerging markets. As well as allowing the integration of the western industry, these acquisitions will undoubtedly provide benefits for the drugmaker concerned, potentially creating a positive feedback loop within the developing economy and exposing important insights to inform global communications and marketing programmes.
Taking a closer look, the lack of breakthrough drugs may not be as much of a concern as it first appears. The expected shift towards personalised medicine could mean a diminishing reliance on the ‘one pill fits all’ model. Whilst the increasing availability of genetic information could also see the reappraisal of certain compounds that previously struggled economically in the blockbuster era. What is absolutely certain from these unfolding changes, is that the healthcare communications industry will play an ever more critical role in explaining these emerging opportunities to both patients and all concerned stakeholders, ultimately ensuring patient needs remain the priority and at the heart of all communications programmes.
Pharma leading the way in regulations?
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011There is little doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most tightly regulated industries. Quite rightly the regulations are there to protect patients and ensure efficacious and thoroughly tested products are developed and brought to market but now pharma companies face new challenges around transparency and building trust. The US is already preparing for the Sunshine Act, which comes into effect in 2013 and will ensure companies disclose interactions and payments to healthcare practitioners. Similarly, the UK has seen the revised UK Bribery Act which came into force in April 2011. Despite the legislation and increased regulatory enforcement designed to prevent corruption and bribery and transform the image of pharma, the perception of the industry remains less than positive.
Other industries that have recently come under similar scrutiny include the media and financial sectors. The current Leveson inquiry is examining journalistic practice and story sourcing and the roles of the media and police in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. The inquiry hopes to investigate the nature of contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police. It is certainly clear that the regulatory regime for media conduct has fallen short at times but the extent of this failure is yet to be fully determined.
Whilst questions abound of the extent and scope of independent Vs self regulation, the pharma industry is forging ahead with clear and transparent practices and ethics set out and robust frameworks for interactions with healthcare professionals, leading experts and government officials put in place. With the ethics of the British media and financial worlds currently under question, it may be time for other industries to step up to the mark pharma has set?
Power vs priorities in global pharma
Thursday, November 10th, 2011Recent IMS data show that emerging markets are expected to see the quickest growth within the pharmaceutical market over the next five years. The increase, which is estimated to show a rise from 18% in 2010 to 28% by 2015, is likely to be driven by greater access to prescription medicines through reforms, blockbuster patent expiries and economic growth in countries such as Brazil, China and Russia. In contrast, European and US spending on pharmaceutical products is set to decline during the same period from 24 per cent to 19 per cent and from 36 per cent to 31 per cent respectively. So, how are the more established markets responding to this impending and seemingly inevitable shift in power?
In the US last week, the FDA announced that it had approved 35 new drugs during the 2011 financial year, which ended on 30 September. The announcement also highlights that the US was the first country to approve 24 of the 35 new drugs and that for all but one of these, an approval decision was issued within the timeframe agreed with the pharmaceutical manufacturer. Dr Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, has suggested that the approvals reflect the agency’s flexibility in working with stakeholders and the introduction of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Whatever the reason, the upturn is good news for the industry, which has failed to produce many new drugs in recent years despite increases in research spending. However, whether this constitutes a blip or a real turning point obviously remains to be seen.
Across the pond this week, results from the annual Life Sciences Leaders’ Survey show that the industry is concerned about the UK’s position as a centre for global research and development. Since last year’s survey was conducted, the general consensus is that UK competitiveness has deteriorated and the Government could be doing more to help life sciences flourish with key issues cited including the cost of doing business in the UK, NHS reorganisation, future medicines’ pricing systems and the regulatory burden in Europe, as well as the UK. The findings have prompted Stephen Whitehead, chief executive of the ABPI, to say that: “More needs to be done to support pharmaceutical companies and the NHS in creating an environment where innovation thrives…” and “…unnecessary bureaucracy needs to be eliminated so that new treatments can reach patients as quickly as possible.” Significantly, at least half of those surveyed that answered the question on value-based pricing (the system of setting drug prices according to the value medicines provide) said they believed it would reduce market access and lead to the UK falling behind as an early launch market.
Similarly, while a recent report commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has revealed that health and medical sciences are two areas of research where the UK excels (based largely on the number of times the country’s researchers have their work cited in academic journals), it has also highlighted that the UK’s ability to sustain its leadership position is far from inevitable. Those working within the pharmaceutical industry feel that if the UK is to remain at the forefront, investment must continue to be encouraged. In response to this, the ABPI and the NHS are currently collaborating on a new policy paper on innovation and research, which is anticipated before Christmas.
Evidently, interested parties on both sides of the Atlantic are well aware of the predicament they face and have taken steps to try to address this, albeit in differing directions. While it might not be possible to turn back the tide, there is the potential to at least stem it. In the meantime, healthcare communications will need to continue to monitor the evolving situation and adapt its approach accordingly. In the very least, it seems likely that the same or more will be expected for less and ever smarter ways of working will need to be identified, combined with a healthy dose of realism! Despite these challenges, we remain adamant that patient interests should be considered first and foremost, wherever they live!
