Pharma Industry has a Branding problem... can it be fixed?
by: Katie Kuehner-Hebert
Former
Valeant Pharmaceuticals chief executive Martin Shkreli may be the poster boy of
price gouging run amok, but the heat is increasingly on for the rest of the
industry to tamp down on drug price increases and base growth more on productivity
and less on arbitrary hikes to please shareholders.
While
industry executives are feverishly trying to distinguish themselves from
Shkreli, who last year raised the price of a Turing drug by 5,000%, industry
publication Stat said the differences “may be lost on the American public.”
“Like
it or not, this is a problem for every drug maker,” Stat wrote. “And there’s a
simple reason— prices for many medicines are rising.”
“Most
people don’t differentiate between Shkreli and other companies. And that’s the
elephant in the room.”
Indeed,
prices more than doubled last year for 60 brand-name medicines and at least
quadrupled for 20 drugs, Stat cited Bloomberg News. The analysis also found
that the cost of many drugs rose at annual rates of more than 10%.
“This
is why most people don’t differentiate between Shkreli and other companies. And
that’s the elephant in the room,” said Paul Argenti, a professor at the Tuck
School of Business at Dartmouth College, told Stat. “It’s not enough to say
that he’s worse when your own prices and profits are going up. That argument
isn’t working. Most people lump them together.”
Stat
also cited a recent study by Deloitte and GlobalData found that big drug makers
are “more likely to return cash generated to shareholders via a combination of
dividends and share buybacks than they are to invest in company acquisitions,
product licenses and internal R&D.”
Beckers
Hospital CFO reported that industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America plans to spend several millions of dollars in 2016 on
radio and print ads that emphasize the pharmaceutical industry’s role in
developing new drugs and advancing medical science, a 10 percent increase in
spending from 2015. PhRMA is running many of the ads on Facebook, LinkedIn and
Twitter to target federal and state lawmakers, policy analysts and others who
wage political influence.
“The
ads feature patients who have been helped by new treatments and scientists
working on drug development, but don’t mention the prices of the drugs,”
Beckers Hospital CFOwrote. “The campaigns come amid calls for the government to
play a larger role in controlling drug prices, which has prompted a significant
increase in PhRMA’s lobbying activity.”
In
its marketing campaign, the industry is arguing that government price controls
would actually be doing a disservice to the public, as it would stifle future
innovation and efforts to cure diseases like Alzheimer’s, sources told Yahoo.
They contend that expensive drug prices help fund research and development of
new drugs and cutting those costs could be detrimental to future innovation.
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren’t the only presidential candidates who are calling for some type of government intervention: Republican candidate Donald Trump last month told a New Hampshire crowd that “$300 billion could be saved” in the Medicare program by negotiating with drugmakers, according to Reuters.
In
response to Trump’s comments, PhRMA responded to Trump by contending that
significant price negotiation already occurred with the Medicare program.
“Proposals
to fundamentally alter the structure of the program could jeopardize seniors’
and people living with disabilities’ access to affordable prescription drug
coverage, driving up premiums, reducing choice and restricting coverage,”
PhRMA’s senior director of communications Allyson Funk told Reuters.
Les
Funtleyder, healthcare portfolio manager at E Squared Asset Management in New
York, told Reuters that the other Republican candidates will have to also get
into the discussion.
“If this message resonates on the Republican side, then biopharma will have both sides shooting at it, which is not optimal for investors,” Funtleyder said.
The
Intercept reported that pharmaceutical executives have responded to “tough
talk” by presidential candidates about price gouging by drug companies, by
telling told investors that they are working actively to influence the
political debate – and some are even saying that they have minimized price
hikes in recent months to avoid attracting attention.
Speaking
at the J.P. Morgan Health Care Conference in San Francisco last month, Biogen
CEO George Scangos, who also serves as co-chairman of PhRMA, said his firm
increased prices on three drugs recently, but at a “somewhat lower number” to
avoid placing “a target on our foreheads.” He added that “it’s still possible
to take price increases” but that he thinks “it’s wise to be a little prudent.”
McKesson
CEO James Hammergren, also told conference attendees that the industry to hold
off on price hikes to avoid attracting unwanted scrutiny.
“I
would say that political discourse that’s taking place, and the congressional
inquiries relative to pricing practices, I think are obviously going to have
people at least pausing perhaps to consider whether now is the right time to
take a price increase,” Hammergren said during a recent earnings call. In 2012,
the firm paid $151 million to settle claims the firm deliberately overcharged
Medicaid for reimbursements for some 1,400 brand-name drugs.
Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals CEO John Maraganore on his company’s recent earnings call that
recent talk of drug pricing is “political demagoguery that’s going on right
now.” He conceded, however, later in the call that companies will need to
“think about their growth based on productivity not based on arbitrary price
increases”.
Fuente: Chief Executive
Haciendo click en cada uno de los links siguientes, Contenidos de nuestros
TALLERES DE CAPACITACIÓN IN COMPANY, "A MEDIDA"
de las necesidades de su Organización,
y aplicados específicamente al SECTOR SALUD Y FARMA:
y aplicados específicamente al SECTOR SALUD Y FARMA:
- Curso Taller ¿Cómo INCORPORAR y APLICAR Modelos de PENSAMIENTO ESTRATÉGICO en la Organización? 2016-2017:
- http://medinacasabella.blogspot.com.ar/2015/08/capacitacion-in-company-2015-curso.html
- Curso Taller de PLANEAMIENTO ESTRATÉGICO - Recetas Eficientes para Escenarios Turbulentos 2016-2017:
- http://medinacasabella.blogspot.com.ar/2015/08/capacitacion-in-company-2015-2016-curso.html
- Curso Taller ¿Cómo GERENCIAR EFICIENTEMENTE a partir del MANAGEMENT ESTRATÉGICO? 2016-2017:
- http://medinacasabella.blogspot.com.ar/2015/08/capacitacion-in-company-2015-2016-curso_98.html
- Curso Taller ¿Cómo GERENCIAR PROCESOS DE CAMBIO y no sufrir en el intento? 2016-2017:
- http://medinacasabella.blogspot.com.ar/2015/08/capacitacion-in-company-2015-2016-curso_56.html
- Curso Taller de LIDERAZGO TRANSFORMACIONAL y TOMA DE DECISIONES 2016-2017:
- http://medinacasabella.blogspot.com.ar/2015/08/capacitacion-in-company-2015-2016-curso_76.html
Consultas al mail: medinacasabella@gmail.com
ó al TE: +5411-3532-0510
.·. Miguel Ángel MEDINA CASABELLA, MSM, MBA, SMHS .·.
Especialista en Management Estratégico, Gestión del Cambio e Inversiones
Representante de The George Washington University en Foros y Ferias de LatAm desde 2001
Representante de The George Washington University Medical Center para los Países de LatAm desde 1996
Ex Director Académico y Profesor de Gestión del Cambio del HSML Program para LatAm en GWU School of Medicine & Health Sciences (Washington DC)
CEO, MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP LatAm
EMail: medinacasabella@gmail.com
TE Oficina: ( 0054) 11 - 3532 - 0510
TE Móvil (Local): ( 011 ) 15 - 4420 - 5103
TE Móvil (Int´l): ( 0054) 911 - 4420 - 5103
Skype: medinacasabella
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS GROUP LatAm ©
(medinacasabella@gmail.com; +5411-3532-0510)
es una Consultora Interdisciplinaria cuya Misión es proveer
soluciones integrales, eficientes y operativas en todas las áreas vinculadas a:
Estrategias Multiculturales y Transculturales, Organizacionales y Competitivas,
Management Estratégico,
Gestión del Cambio,
Marketing Estratégico,
Inversiones,
Gestión Educativa,
Capacitación
de Latino América (LatAm), para los Sectores:
a) Salud, Farma y Biotech,
b) Industria y Servicios,
c) Universidades y Centros de Capacitación,
d) Gobierno y ONGs.
