Whether the pharma industry is navigating calm or choppy waters, it should be smarter and more assertive in telling its story to stakeholders 

	“Merck’s Head Defends Drug Prices,” ran 

 was reporting on the Merck & Co. president’s testimony at the previous day’s Senate hearing, part of a high-profile investigation into the price-setting activities of the US pharmaceutical industry. Merck’s leader offered a robust defense, stressing that the industry was highly competitive and that it was actually giving the American public “a reasonable bargain.” But 

 reporter noted that the testimony was an indication “of the drug industry’s realization that its reputation was on trial.” 

	The date of this news item? December 9, 1959. 

	Merck’s head at the time, John T. Connor, was one of a number of leaders summoned by the Antitrust and Monopoly subcommittee, zealously headed by Democrat Senator Eftes Kefauver, which brought to the public’s attention allegations of drug manufacturers “exploiting the aged, infirm, and sick in the United States by charging more for their products in this country than abroad”

, December 5, 1959). The subcommittee presented evidence that the price of one drug had been increased by its manufacturer by over 1,000%, while the price of another represented a markup of 7,079%. In refuting these explosive claims, Connor and his contemporaries, such as Schering’s then-president, Francis C. Brown, attempted to educate the Senate on the realities of the pharmaceutical business-pointing out, for example, that 8% of its sales dollars went into research, compared to 2% for the industry generally-but this did not stop the investigation rolling on for the next two-and-a-half years. 

	The industry would finally emerge from the official probing “with more damage to its prestige than its purse,” wrote John M. Lee in 1962 (although the out-of-pocket cost of defending its reputation was estimated at $5 million, around $40 million today). Lee added that the principal effect of the Senate hearings was “to arouse the industry to a realization that it has to do a better job in telling its story to the public” (

	It is somewhat unnerving, although perhaps not surprising, given the industry’s inherent conservatism, that Lee’s remark from 1962 still applies nearly 60 years later. But the public-relations crises that have dogged pharma in the last decade particularly, whether seized upon by Democrat or Republican politicians, have seen the bouts of official and public anger with the industry-largely contained in 1959 by a more sober and deferential media climate-propelled into a more hostile, 24/7 social media world, where damaging news (real or “fake”) circles the globe in seconds, and can destroy careers and derail companies in a matter of days. As Dr. Nir Kossovsky told 

, the “weaponization of social media” has meant that “the ability of stakeholders to be aware of failures, or even allegations of failures, has increased rapidly, and in this climate, the industry has become a punching bag.” 

	The result is that now, more than ever, pharma has to do a better job in telling its story to the public.

	Kossovsky’s firm, Steel City Re (Pittsburgh, PA), evaluates, mitigates, and insures corporate and executive reputation risk. For Kossovsky, the issue of reputation is central to the industry’s dealings with all its stakeholders. “The notion of reputation can be defined as ‘an expectation by stakeholders,’” he explains. “Reputation risk is the risk of disappointing stakeholders by not meeting their expectations. When a company fails to meet expectations, those stakeholders behave in a way that tends to have adverse, objectively 

measurable economic consequences for the company. Customers don’t buy products, don’t accept the price points, and they buy less volume; employees charge more to work and there’s more turnover; vendors offer less favorable terms, creditors and equity investors charge more for their capital; and regulators will apply a more severe burden, while NGOs (non-governmental organizations) apply more pressure.” 

	All of these factors create costs or reduce revenue, according to Kossovsky. “The relationship between reputation and meeting expectations and enterprise value are all tightly knit,” he says.

	Kossovsky points to evidence that superior reputations create additional value. He cites the recent example of Merck CEO Ken Frazier’s reaction to the racist protests in Charlottesville, VA, over the weekend of August 12–13, 2017. Early in the morning that Monday, Frazier held a press conference and announced that he was resigning from President Trump’s Manufacturing Advisory Council. “That act raised Frazier’s profile very quickly,” says Kossovsky. “He was known within the industry before that, but not among the general public.” There was the expected surge of activity on Google, with people searching for more information on Frazier, but in terms of the market, “for about the next 10 weeks, Merck outperformed the SNP 500 pharmaceutical index, ultimately by about 3.5%, which for a company of its size translates to creating an excess of almost $6 billion in value.” 

	And Frazier’s move was no fluke, Kossovsky adds. “He showed that the company had a mechanism where they could take the event of that weekend, process it, and make a board-level decision by Monday morning. That’s a lot of activity for a company of that size, and a lot of risk for a company to take. It meant they had a risk management system in place that could handle it.” For Kossovsky, Frazier’s action was “an incredible example of how a CEO of a pharma company can create value by raising the expectations of stakeholders and signaling that the company is indeed an ethical one.”

	But surely not all CEOs could hope to act as quickly and decisively as Frazier on a matter of principle? Kossovksy counters this notion: “The companies that really care about reputation and understand what it means will want to follow suit. It creates value; it’s not just a ‘nice thing to do.’ Merck has disclosed what its risk management systems are, and from that you can see that Frazier’s action was built into the company’s governance structure, into its philosophy.” 

	Still, the positive buzz surrounding Frazier’s move was a rare thing in modern pharma. For Pratap Khedkar, principal at ZS Associates, another firm active in the pharma reputation space, the last three years have amounted to “definitely one of the worst period I’ve seen” for the industry. While nothing has matched the Martin Shkreli–Turing pricing scandal in the last 12 months, the continued pressure from President Trump, the changing of the FDA commissioner and the HHS secretary, and the debate around opioid drugs means that the topic of pharma keeps cropping up in the Senate. And it’s not always about price. “There are many ways in which it is possible for the industry to be unfairly portrayed,” adds Khedkar.

	Kossovsky’s organization looks at companies’ governance and enterprise risk management processes, rather than their products. “The governance of the company controls such things as ethical behavior and promotion, marketing, and pricing of products,” he says. “Because of FDA warranties, stakeholders may feel comfortable about the safety and effectiveness of products, but that is not how they feel about corporate governance.” 

	To this end, Steel City Re offers an insurance solution that “functions like a warranty in governance.” This involves, first and foremost, an inspection process that examines governance, enterprise, and operational risks from a reputational perspective. If the processes reflect a sound state of control over both stakeholder expectation management and operational conformance, and if crises management processes are well articulated, then the company is likely to qualify for insurance. According to Steel City Re’s website, Reputation Assurance is triggered, on average, by market cap losses of 24%, anticipated losses in sales of 13%, or anticipated losses in net income of 12%, but it can be triggered when anticipated losses are much lower. 

	“Reputation risk mitigation begins by pre-positioning an authentic story of managerial quality that will counteract the story that could be used against you, which will be some variation on ‘management is incompetent,’ ‘management is unethical,’ ‘management is stupid,’ etc.,” says Kossovsky. “If something bad happens and it’s not because the company’s governance is bad, or because the board is incompetent, it’s because there is a rogue, and rogues will happen. If a company has mechanisms to deal with them, it will recover.” 

	Kossovsky likens having a pre-positioned story in place to the effect Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) had on banks when rumors triggered fears that they were about to run out of cash. “You can’t argue rationally once fear has taken hold, but if you already have FDI in place, you don’t get a run on the banks because FDI assuages stakeholders’ fear with a credible counter story: ‘There’s an authority saying the bank is being run well,’” he says. “Today, that’s the critical element of mitigating the anger that underpins reputational risk: the affirmative story that a company is being run well must be pre-positioned, simple to understand, and completely credible.”

	ZS addresses the issue of reputation in a customer experience tracking study that the firm runs every year. As Khedkar told 

, “if that does not come out so well, a company needs to ask, ‘How do we redesign our organization? How do we create new messaging, new services? What do we need to do to make the customer experience better?’” 

	Khedkar says that most companies think of reputation as “a PR thing only,” but it is something that cannot be managed just with press releases or by reacting to bad news. He explains: “If you have a portfolio of oncology products, you have to remember that there are only about 10,000 oncologists in the US. It is really important that your reputation as a company with those 10,000 people is sustained, is positive, and is based on the fact 

that they understand your product and that you are helping their patients with good services.”

	He reiterates, however, Kossovsky’s distinction between the product and the company. “For a long time, the product was king,” says Khedkar. “If you point to an individual product, people might say it’s fantastic, but if you point to the company that makes the product, there’s a disconnect. The company gets tarred with the industry view even if their product is associated with the patient benefit. Now we’re finding that there are so many products competing in the space, it is customer experience that really matters.”

	Like Kossovsky, Khedkar recognizes the power of presenting and reinforcing a positive narrative in the public sphere. But in the social media space, for example, he believes pharma has so far been hampered by its extreme conservatism. “If there is the slightest doubt about what the industry might or might not be allowed to say, then it chooses not to say it,” he explains. “But this isn’t about selling or promotion, it’s about owning the narrative, it’s about being proactive, and it’s about doing it all the time, regardless of whether things are going well for the company or not. This is where pharma needs to be a little bit more aggressive.” 

	Khedkar concedes that, if a pharma company opens up its Facebook page to public comments, then someone, somewhere is going to post a comment about an adverse event. “But the big picture is that you have to open yourself up to some commentary,” he says. “People will say things that may be somewhat negative, but then you engage. Engagement doesn’t mean just one-way good news. Wouldn’t you rather deal with that burden and have good engagement, which prepares you for dealing with bigger issues when they come along?”

	Khedkar offers a different perspective on Kossovsky’s banking industry comparison. “The banking industry’s reputation really just lies with one or two constituencies: the regulators and the general public. Pharma, however, has to worry about its reputation with its patients and the wider public,” he says. “It has to think about the government and the regulators. And it also has to worry about the institutional stakeholders: insurance companies, PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers), the large hospital systems. These are not patients or doctors, and yet some of these stakeholders have taken control of the narrative and pushed pharma into a corner.” 

	Where a bank “does not have to fight some other large sector occupied by large companies saying that banks are evil, pharma can get into rows with PBMs or insurance companies.” This has led to “a kind of schizophrenic divide,” says Khedkar, with some pharma companies believing they have to get along with these stakeholders at all costs, while others go on the offensive. Ultimately, a pharma company has to be able to say something to protect its reputation, he says. “That might involve challenging, in a measured and reasoned way, what another stakeholder is saying. It can also involve some measure of inviting debate, inviting criticism.”

	Given that the issue of pricing goes back to those Senate hearings of 1959, it is impossible to ignore the subject in any discussion of pharma’s current reputation. But Khedkar believes that pricing has tended to overshadow the reputation question. “The reputation management that pharma needs to do is not to get into a debate about ‘Is the price right?,’” he says, “but to really focus on the value it is creating.” Again, this is about taking control of the narrative. Khedkar points out that in 2016 and early 2017, “about six companies made the pledge, starting with Allergan, that they won’t increase their prices more than 10%. But 95% of all price increases last year were actually less than 10%. A generic may go up 5,000%, but that will never happen with a brand. But the public can’t tell the difference.” 

	Pharma isn’t conveying this message effectively; the same goes for the cost-effectiveness narrative. “The value discussion is not happening enough,” says Khedkar. “How many years of life does your product provide? What kind of future cost avoidance does it create? It may be in the PBMs’ interest not to let the narrative go there, but pharma really has to take control of it.” 

	On the affordability issue, Khedkar believes pharma may become a victim of its own success. “With an effective, one-shot medicine that works straight away, it is more difficult to convince stakeholders of the long-term value,” he says. “Sometimes it may cost a half-a-million dollars over the course of 20 years for a chronic therapy. But if the price is one million dollars for a one-shot medicine that works and is worth 10 million dollars in impact, the customer will still say, ‘I don’t have one million dollars in my pocket today. Why does pharma want all that value back on day one?’” 

	These are the pricing stories that pharma needs to get into-and to tell more convincingly. 

	As Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once famously observed, “Glass, china, and reputation are all easily cracked, and never mended well.” With this sobering thought in mind, the industry needs to handle its reputation more carefully and cleverly, and in anticipation of any mishap, invest in some stronger glue. It is no longer possible to get by on the adage that served the industry leaders of the 1950s and 1960s: “The public doesn’t understand what we do.” Many people don’t understand a lot of things but can still influence others with their opinions.

	There is a view from that early post-war era that should still resonate today, however, and still needs to be conveyed emphatically to stakeholders. Speaking to Tom Mahoney, the author of the 1959 book about the burgeoning drug industry, 

, Thomas G. Klumpp, a former FDA official and then president of Winthrop Laboratories, put it in a nutshell: “As mother nature fails to create and maintain perfectly functioning bodies, she will need the help of the pharmaceutical industry. The important thing is we have at long last learned how to go about unlocking her mysteries. Give us time and enough profits to do research, and some day we may at least understand them all.”

 European and Online Editor. He can be reached at 

, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959, p. 29.

Articles

Features

Whether the pharma industry is navigating calm or choppy waters, it should be smarter and more assertive in telling its story to its stakeholders-most importantly, patients and the wider public.

Accentuate the Positive: Tackling Pharma’s Reputation Problem

The importance of an "adaptive" command style in pharma today

	Lieutenant General (Ret) Rick Lynch, US Army and Bob Jansen, CEO of Zensights, Pharm Exec Editorial Advisory Board member, and former president and general manager of Source Healthcare Analytics, a Symphony Technology Company (formerly Wolters Kluwer), met at a leadership center in 2009. At the time, Jansen was with Wolters Kluwer and Lynch was commanding the US Army’s Installation Management Command (IMCOM) responsible for all 163 Army installations. At the center, the two discovered they were kindred spirits separated only by a decade, different professional backgrounds, and dissimilar educational direction. But no matter. As Jansen says, “One night, we got to talking and Rick said to me ‘Why does the pharmaceutical industry have such a poor reputation?’ Then he began to wax poetically about the 

pharmaceutical industry and what a strategic advantage it is for the United States and the free world, and how the products developed by the pharmaceutical industry saved the lives of our men and women in uniform.” 

	Jansen explained that 99+% of people in the industry, he believes, are committed to continuing to develop breakthrough therapies to prolong and improve patients’ quality of life. Jansen said, “And I’m very proud to be a part of the industry-but you have the 1% that come in and take advantage of the pricing inelasticity of the products.” Lynch pointed out that the US Army post-Vietnam had an image problem as well. After American soldiers returned from war with visible and invisible wounds, the public turned its back on them, Lynch said. He told Jansen that the only way the pharma industry could change its public perception would be the way the military addressed the issue: by developing adaptive leaders with strong moral compasses. The other challenge discussed for the US military and pharma industry alike is the belief that the press wants to focus on negatives-the mentality of “If it bleeds, it leads”-discouraging coverage of the good things that come from those sectors.

	Lynch and Jansen left the leadership center as good friends. Lynch retired from active duty on Jan. 1, 2012, and proceeded to write his first book, 

Adapt or Die, Battle-Tested Principles for Leaders

, released in 2013. The book is an interesting and educational look at Lynch’s life, chronicling the challenges he experienced and the insights gleaned as he rose the ranks in the Army. The book spans his years in the US Military Academy, to a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, to command of the Marne Division and Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, to Commander Third Infantry Division and MultiNational Division Center in Iraq from June 2006 to July 2008, Commander III Corps and Fort Hood July 2008 to November 2009, and Commander Installation Management Command and assistant chief of staff for installation management from November 2009 to November 2011. 

	Jansen, meanwhile, left Wolters Kluwer/Symphony and using his extensive experience in pharma, founded Zensights in December 2012 to help biopharma leaders identify “best-in-class” vendors and further create meaningful engagement and partnerships between pharma companies and their strategic vendors.

	Lynch began speaking engagements and corporate strategy advising across all industries. But Jansen wanted to bring his friend’s expertise on leadership directly to a changing biopharma industry. As Lynch told 

, “We asked ourselves how we could improve leadership in the healthcare industry. What could we do to help develop more effective, compassionate, concerned, and caring leaders within the healthcare industry.” 

	Thus the brainchild of the “Adapt or Die” series of meetings. Through both of their contacts and networks, Lynch and Jansen launched Adapt or Die in 2014 to a smaller, focused executive audience to spread the word of the importance of developing adaptive leaders in the pharma industry that have strong moral compasses. The goal was to introduce these pharma leaders to military leaders who had already been involved in developing adaptable leaders, to share their playbook. Military leaders such as former commander-in-chief and president George W. Bush; former secretary of the Army, George Casey; General Fred Franks; General Ben Griffin; secretary of the VA, David Shulkin; and Lt. General Butch Funk have been speakers at these meetings.

	The goal may sound lofty, but the meetings have been well-received over the years, and have gained traction with their audience. The list of speakers from pharma who have shared their experiences is impressive. They include Alex Gorsky, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; Bob Oliver, chairman of Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Canada; Sandy Costas, former president and chief operating officer of Quintiles; Dr. Sandra Milligan, senior vice president and head of global regulatory affairs and clinical safety for Merck & Co.; Mark Alles, CEO of Celgene; Perry Sternberg, head of US commercial, Shire Pharmaceuticals; Ramona Sequeira, president, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA; Jay Galeota, president and chief operating officer, G&W Laboratories; John Arena, vice president and general manager, US psychiatry, Lundbeck; Victor Vaughn, senior VP of sales and marketing, Supernus Pharmaceuticals; Jack Bailey, president of the Americas for GlaxoSmithKline; and Murdo Gordon, chief commercial officer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

	“Pharma is based on a premise that is innovation-driven, which, by definition, means disruptive,” said Galeota. “We tend to think of disruption as agile and fast, but in the case of the pharma industry, many enterprises are more like institutions, and they move slowly; new drug development takes time and care. Ironically, pharmaceutical companies willingly take on risk with development programs, yet are slow to take on risk in other areas like business model evolution, for example. There is a kind of dichotomy; on one hand, there is an appetite for investing heavily in unproven new programs in the labs, but on the other, very little tolerance for novel approaches to how companies are run, go to market, price products, etc.” 

	To that end, Galeota explained that the idea of constant adaptation in order to stay ahead is critical for pharma leaders to understand and, ideally, embrace. “Yet it seems to happen rarely, unless forced,” he said, noting the need for current and up-and-coming pharma leaders to consider adaptive leadership principles. 

	While no one would dispute that the biopharma industry is full of smart, educated, and successful individuals, the skills and ideologies necessary to take the risk-averse industry to a new and necessary level in a shortened timeframe is not lost on many. 

	Consider the following challenges facing the pharma C-suite:

		Pharma R&D ROI is currently below the cost of capital, and projected to be zero by 2020.

		2019 represents the pinnacle of the decline for pharma sales over the next 20 years.

		Sales at risk worth $194 billion potentially signal a second patent cliff era with the advent of biosimilars.

		Four-fifths of US health insurers require evidence of cost savings or a clear clinical benefit to include new therapies on their formularies. A further 16% have entered into outcomes-based contracts, while another 33% expect to do so within three years.

	Jack Hammond, Brigadier General (Ret), US Army, executive director of Home Base, A Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital program, and a former speaker for Adapt or Die, says, “The whole philosophy of adapt or die is you have to change with the times, and if you don’t, you do it at your own peril.” 

	In Lynch’s book, he elaborates on his nine leadership principles, and each of the meetings has tackled a specific topic so attendees could leave with a better appreciation of an aspect of leadership. Those topics to date have included values-based leadership; corporate social responsibility; ethical and strategic decision-making; innovative partnerships; and the latest in December on mentorship.

	Much of Lynch’s book includes what some people would think is common sense. Follow the Golden Rule-treat people the way you want to be treated. Walk the walk. Leaders should look down, not up. Do every job superbly. Be sure that people know you are doing a good job. But in the book, and at the Adapt or Die meetings, Lynch shares examples of poor leadership and how he started to keep a booklet of what not to do when he became a leader. 

	Lynch says, “In my executive coaching and strategic planning for corporate America, they all tend to have a list of values, but they aren’t always living those values. They are not always demonstrating those values, and that’s very important.” 

	Galeota said the first time he was introduced to an Adapt or Die meeting, it was on the subject of character. “That caught my eye because it was the first time in my career I’d seen a program dedicated to the topic of character in the business setting,” he says. “When I went through military training, there was a lot of emphasis around character, but it has been not a marquee topic in the business sector.”

	As noted, Galeota has a military background and completed four years in the US Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. J&J’s Gorsky attended West Point, graduated and was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in Field Artillery and later completed Airborne School. Merck’s Milligan was a general medical officer in the Army and Celgene's Alles a captain in the Marine Corps. 

’s most recent Emerging Pharma Leaders issue, two of the leaders profiled have served. Whether or not that is a hallmark of inspired leaders or people who want to continue to contribute, Hammond says, “There are skill sets in the military that translate into good executive leaders. Number one, we institute a very strong moral compass, as this is crucial based upon the type of work we do. Our leaders operate on their own in austere conditions, and have to use their best judgement. If they make bad choices, really bad things can happen and people can die. So we develop a heavily mandated values system which becomes ingrained in them. 

	“We strive to build agile and adaptive leaders that are good at thinking on their feet and developing a good decision-making process that is well thought out-not just gut hunches,” Hammond continued. “They are taught to listen to a variety of people prior to making decisions. Our leaders are trained and constantly reminded to take care of our people, as our soldiers drive success. There is nothing unique to this thinking other than the fact it has been effectively put into practice within the military. I am confident that these are values and practices you would look for in the civilian world as well.”

	Galeota explained further: “I continue to be struck by the fact that almost independent of mission, whether you are in private enterprise, or government or philanthropy, or a military organization, once you get to a certain level of leadership, the challenges are almost identical and they center primarily around the people-related aspects to running large organizations…how to communicate effectively and efficiently, how to create an environment of engagement, an environment that has high standards, and motivates people to reach for those standards with character, courage, and humility. These kinds of challenges, which are common across all those 

groups, are brought forward in Adapt or Die.” 

	Lynch and Jansen said about 400 executives in the healthcare arena have attended their series. Lynch continues to believe that adaptive leadership will help companies in any industry respond more successfully to the changes around them. Specifically, for pharma leaders, Lynch says the meetings “challenge the norms and puts life in perspective for these incredibly accomplished leaders, and I do believe these meetings will transcend for these people that attend so that the public understands the value of the pharmaceutical industry.” Both Lynch and Jansen have received feedback from attendees who say they have learned valuable lessons, have looked at their behavior, and made changes when they returned to their respective organizations. 

	Lynch concludes: “We have lots more people to touch. And some people slip back into bad behavior and you have to remind them what we talked about.”

	Gettysburg, PA, and Normandy Beach, France, will be the settings this year. “Leadership Under Fire” will focus on the challenges that pharma leaders face, followed by a walk through the battlefields with historians who will describe what crises the respective generals faced. Jansen and Lynch describe: “Pharma leaders may be facing their own pressures, but it’s okay to make the right choice and not take the path of least resistance. Nobody is firing a gun at you; they aren’t easy decisions, but they aren’t life and death. But you could make the decisions that are right by your people, which will positively affect the industry.”  

https://endpts.com/pharmas-broken-business-model-an-industry-on-the-brink-of-terminal-decline/

http://info.evaluategroup.com/rs/607-YGS-364/images/WP17.pd

Pharm Exec chronicles the military-industry effort to instill the principles of adaptive leadership into today’s pharma leader-a C-suite must in reviving the industry’s beleaguered reputation.


Pharma's Image Fix: Lessons from the Field

Fair or not, biotech has managed to elude perception crosshairs 

	While traditional pharmaceutical companies are taking a reputational hit, biotech organizations, for the most part, are getting a public-perception pass-for now. 

	Whether or not it’s fair, or accurate, in general, the public views biotech companies as cutting edge, holding the cure to some of the world’s most debilitating diseases, and as alternatives to the traditional pharma enterprise, and its characterization by some as greedy, outdated, and only caring about making money. 

	Biotechs are surrounded by innovation; they make science fiction-a digital pill, 3D printing, wearable technology-a reality; are located in trendy tech hubs like San Francisco, San Diego, and Boston; and most importantly, they offer hope. 

	This public perception may not be 100% accurate, but neither is the stereotype that all “traditional” pharma companies live in the stone age, hike up drug prices to make an insane profit, and hold the cure for cancer, but don’t want to share it with the public. 

	So, where does this public perception come from? Experts who spoke with 

 believe there are several factors, but the most prevalent is a common theme that comes up almost daily when discussing the pharma industry-drug pricing. 

	“When you talk about the reputation of the industry, the one thing that comes to mind for me immediately is a lot of the rhetoric around pricing, and [the belief] that there is a [price] gouging of consumers by biopharma companies on products that have been placed on the market in the past couple of years,” says Ralph Marcello, Deloitte’s national biopharmaceutical leader.

	Marcello contends that while there are a few “bad actors” who have given the pharma industry a bad reputation, in general, it is not the norm. Of course, that is not the narrative that typically gets told in the media. 

	This leads to another fundamental difference between many of the biotech startups and traditional pharma companies that experts say is contributing to the reputational differences-commercialization. In most cases, by the time the work coming out of a biotech is ready to be brought to market, those assets have already been acquired by a larger company, who sets the price and everything else around them. That company, not the biotech developer, is the one who gets the public attention, and in recent years, the backlash, that comes with the innovation. 

	“The delineation comes between companies whose products are on the market versus biotech companies that are in early stages of discovery and development, and are not commercialized,” says Marcello. “Once those become products in the market and they commercialize those products, it is the price of the product that causes a lot of heartburn for various people across the industry.”

	Will the golden-child status the biotech industry is currently enjoying ever slip to the levels traditional pharma is experiencing today? It’s possible, but it would take a while. Elizabeth Iorns, the founder of Science Exchange, a marketplace for outsourced research, works with biotech and pharma companies. She also works with the general public and sees first-hand how reputation between the two segments differ. 

	“In some ways, they are sheltered from the criticism of pharma, because they don’t have commercialized products,” she says. “But, that piece will become more challenging for them as they begin to commercialize themselves. I think Gilead [Sciences] is an example of that.”

	Gilead, the biotech giant, took heavy criticism in the press for its pricing of hepatitis C drug Sovaldi. However, as 

 pointed out, the therapy didn’t just treat a disease, but, in most cases, cured patients after about three months. Sovaldi’s follow-on drug, Harvoni, also has a high cure rate.

	The reason it may take a while for the public to criticize biotechs the way they do pharma is very simple, some say-biotechs are better storytellers. They are nimble enough to fight back when lashed out against and have a compelling story to rest on. For example, Gilead. “They have a really amazing therapy that is helping save the lives of people who might have died,” says Iorn. “That’s a really compelling storytelling piece.”

	Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that pharma companies may also be conducting comparable-type research and coming up with those same life-saving treatments. The public’s perception already starts out biased against them. When it comes to the topic of biotech versus pharma reputation, Dr. Devyn Smith has a unique perspective, having viewed the comparisons from both sides. Smith is currently the chief strategy officer and head of operations for Sigilon Therapeutics, a Cambridge, Mass.-based startup whose mission is to develop improved treatments for chronic disease using implanted cells shielded by proprietary biomaterials from immune attack and the foreign body response. But, before joining Sigilon, Smith was part of Pfizer’s Medicinal Sciences Division of R&D, where he was head of business operations and strategy. 

	Pharma companies are an easy target for the public, because people see their copays or out-of-pocket expenses more when it comes to their prescriptions, Smith explained. For example, a patient may go to a hospital and 

have a $30,000 bill, but they only see $150 of it coming out of their pocket. 

	Smith said he would experience criticism for working in pharma from friends and family. 

	“You would get a lot of flak at times and hear things like, ‘you guys are overcharging’ and ‘they’re just in it for the money,’” he said. “When you switch to biotech, people love it, because it’s the hot new thing. It’s interesting and cutting edge. It’s easy to get a pass, because people just see it as promising and are caught up in the excitement of it.” 

	Smith has an additional layer of unique perspective. For a portion of the time he worked in traditional pharma, he lived in the UK. 

	“They had a very positive view of pharma,” he says of the UK. “If you said you worked at a pharma company, they would say things like, ‘oh yeah, you guys do really good things.’ Coming back to the states you would tell a cab driver or someone you know that you work at a pharma company and you would never know the reaction you would get. Sometimes it was positive, sometimes they would look at you and make negative comments.”

	In the eyes of the general public, it’s clear that biotech companies have an advantage when it comes to reputation. They are viewed as a sign of future hope and the public has high expectations for them. 

	Will this reputation high last? That’s a question that experts are not sure about, especially as more biotech companies decide to bring their products to market on their own, and have to deal with issues like pricing. 

	One thing is certain: whether right or wrong, the public currently has a sweet spot for biotechs over traditional pharma companies. 

The biotech sector has managed to elude the negative perceptions saddling traditional pharma these days. We examine the reasons why.

The Innovation Distinction: Biopharma's Reputational Pass

Valeant's new head of its Canadian business discusses product resurgence, the “made-in-Canada” mantra for pharma, and how the company's footing domestically is playing a part in a reputational reboot globally

 partner PharmaBoardroom, Richard Lajoie, president of Valeant Canada, shared his main priorities for his tenure as new head of the company’s Canadian operations. Those 

include portfolio rejuvenation through launches of innovative molecules addressing unmet needs in the Canadian healthcare system, growing the organization’s manufacturing capacity in the country, and fostering the Valeant culture. 

	Lajoie was named to his current post in July 2017. He has been a vice president of Valeant Pharmaceuticals since 2013. Before joining Valeant, Lajoie served at Novartis for nine years, starting as a sales manager in western Canada and then rising the ranks in the area of oncology, finishing as Novartis’ general manager of oncology in Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.

What does Canada represent for Valeant today?

 For Valeant, Canada is home to the global headquarters of the company. We take pride in our Canadian heritage, especially as we have significant manufacturing activity, which is very strategic for Valeant globally. Canada produces CAD 4 billion ($3.11 billion) worth of sales, destined not only for the Canadian market but also for export. Over 30% of worldwide sales are produced here, further underlining that our operations here are key for the global group.

	Valeant Canada works hard to ensure and build on the continuing quality and excellence of our two manufacturing sites, through projects such as upgrading of serialization technology that enables specific product tracking. Excellence in manufacturing activity ensures supply, which is critical not just for commercial outcomes but also, and more importantly, for patients. 

	And finally, across the organization we have great, talented people who are focused on delivering the best outcomes for patients day in and day out. 

Canada is not necessarily perceived to be a manufacturing hub for pharmaceuticals. Having two different sites locally, what are the key arguments for production in Canada? 

 There are several benefits to manufacturing in Canada. We are contributing to the local economy, something we are proud of as Canadian citizens. Our plants are of exceptional quality and both are approved by various regulatory agencies, allowing them to produce for the Canadian as well as other global markets.

	Manufacturing here also allows us to demonstrate the important role we play in the overall ecosystem in our interactions with government stakeholders. Our government values jobs, innovation, and healthcare, and we are very much positioned within that triangle due to our manufacturing presence. We employ over 1,000 people and drive innovation through R&D and new technologies, all the while operating in the healthcare sector.

 In your eyes, what does “made in Canada” stand for?

 While “made in Canada” is a sign of quality, Canadians, as part of their mindset, are often too humble to promote themselves and their achievements on the international scene. We are confident in our quality and would always invite people to visit our plants for them to see our high standards with their own eyes. I can tell you our employees take pride in working for a Canadian company that produces state-of-the-art quality products on local soil. 

	We see this first-hand when physicians visit our sites, and they come away very impressed by what we do here.

It appears Valeant is now trying to bring back its reputation and focus on its core business. How important is the Canadian subsidiary in this task?

 Valeant Canada contributes by continuing to ensure that we deliver innovation to Canadian patients. And of course our manufacturing facilities are key for Valeant to deliver on our promise globally. 

	It’s very important to note that in Canada, when it comes to pricing in particular, every single pricing decision has been taken locally in accordance with the PMPRB (Patented Medicines Pricing Review Board)-and this has been the case ever since I was heading the Rx business over the last five years.

	I think a great illustration of our success here in Canada is that in a recent survey, 92% of Valeant Canada employees recommend our company as a great place to work, which is of course the ultimate testimony. Our people are at the core of our company, focused on being trusted partners with healthcare professionals and providing value to patients through our products.

In times of uncertainty, motivating teams can be challenging. What strategies have you put in place to stay focused and move forward?

 The leadership team in Canada has agreed on staying focused on what we can control and what we do well. We are committed to doing the right things. By directing our energy toward the things we do well, i.e., making innovation available to Canadian patients, we believe that results will follow and ultimately speak for themselves. Our global CEO, Joseph C. Papa, has been leading the way from a corporate perspective to this end.

Does Valeant’s ranking in the industry reflect the true potential of Valeant Canada today?

 While we may not be the first in terms of sales in Canada, we are certainly the largest innovative Canadian healthcare company. I believe that our successes have been somewhat understated, but as mentioned earlier, to Canadians there is a fine line between taking humble pride and being overly boisterous.

	Our main focus will remain on bringing innovative treatments to patients-and it is thus not our key concern where we are ranked in terms of sales in Canada.

	 We are proud to be bringing essential products to the market that address real unmet medical needs and improve quality of life. For example, our Bausch + Lomb division is driven to help people see to live better. With this in mind, we are pleased that Canadian consumers have ranked our Bausch + Lomb contact lens solution as the most trusted contact lens solution brand for the second consecutive year by BrandSpark International. We are thankful for the trust people have in our products. We also believe that we can collaborate within industry and with academia for this shared purpose of improving the lives of patients.

What are some best practices Valeant Canada can export to other affiliates around the world?

 Something we are particularly proud of is our cardiovascular registry, the largest one for Valeant worldwide with 5,000 patients enlisted. This allows us to collect real-world data on how products are impacting patients in a relevant manner and brings a commensurable value to our R&D. 

Speaking about innovation, what have been the recent highlights in your product portfolio and what can we look forward to for the near future?

 The most recent highlight has been the successful launch developments for Jublia, a molecule treating nail fungus. With this launch, Valeant addressed a great unmet need in Canada. Before the launch, the most prescribed treatment for onychomycosis was an oral systemic drug, which is a great drug, but requires liver/enzymes monitoring. By bringing a topical product with great efficacy to the market, Valeant offered practitioners an alternative in their prescription options. Jublia has been a market leader for a few months now, and the market has actually increased by 300%, showing significant acceptance of the product.

	In 2018, we are planning to launch two additional highly innovative products. One is a new treatment to manage obesity, and one is a biologic for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. With the obesity treatment, we will introduce an option to help prevent complications related to this condition. We believe that it will bring true relief to the healthcare system, as obesity is often linked with other chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, osteoarthritis, cancer, and lipid issues. 

How can industry, government, and academia collaborate to foster an innovation ecosystem in Canada?

 The quality of the workforce in Canada is truly outstanding. Nonetheless, I see a risk in the pharmaceutical industry remaining too focused on our usual ways, not being able to think outside the box. We stick to what we do and see within our own industry, when I believe that we could benefit considerably from exchanges with other industries. Some industries might be more advanced in digital aspects, whereas others might have a competitive edge in export, for example. I dare to challenge us to exchange knowledge with other industries outside of the pharmaceutical world, with the conviction that great results will come of it.

	Furthermore, I believe in an ecosystem created and nurtured by partnerships between academia, industry, and government. Academia and biotech companies have the best conditions to discover and conduct preclinical and Phase I trials, while the industry is in good shape to fund Phases II and III trials and ultimately bring products to the market. A supportive government, as seen in recent government innovation strategy announcements, means that we as a country will be in a better position to attract R&D projects, which countries around the world are vying for.

Canada is oftentimes overshadowed by its Southern neighbor. Why should companies not overlook Canada as a market?

 Canada might not be a big country and the perspectives for overall sales can certainly not match those of the US. However, Canada has a stable economy, it is very structured, regulated. Exactly because of its size, however, it can actually become an innovation test bed for many companies. In our case specifically, Canada might not necessarily be considered a test bed, but Valeant Canada is more considered to be a leader and pioneer-an agile and innovative part of the Valeant corporation.

Finally, you assumed your position six months ago. What were the main priorities set for your tenure as president of Valeant Canada?

 The most fundamental component for us is our culture. I am dedicated to our employees. It is of highest importance to secure our culture internally. What we are striving for is to ensure that Valeant is perceived to be the healthcare partner of choice in Canada. Our priority is to bring value to our customers, and we do this by innovating. Consequently, we can ensure that patients are taken better care of to enjoy what is important to them in their lives, such as having meaningful time with their families and being productive members of society. 

	Another priority is to grow our manufacturing footprint. Finally, and somewhat overlapping with the previous strategic objectives: portfolio rejuvenation. To be the partner of choice we have to launch new molecules and thus ensure portfolio rejuvenation.

	At Valeant Canada we are best placed to achieve this. To illustrate, the freedom for innovation is available within biotech companies, but they often lack the necessary funds, while big pharma companies have the funds but struggle with innovation, as they tend to be less agile with more hierarchical layers. At Valeant Canada, we have the best of both worlds: freedom to innovate and complementary to that, the right funds. We have a global footprint but local decision-making power, which allows us to fully live our goal of creating innovations that benefit patients. 

is the UK-based, independent publisher of 

Richard Lajoie, the new head of Valeant Canada, shares his main priorities for the business, including growing its domestic manufacturing as a
key cog globally.

Valeant’s Northern Face

	Amidst all the outrage over surging pharma prices, the continued growth in generic drug prescribing has moderated overall spending on medicines, cooling the political heat on industry. Generics now account for nearly 90% of prescription drug use in the US due to policies facilitating their development and regulatory approval. But while generic gains have slowed drug price inflation, the competition has hit brand revenues and

 profits. The much-anticipated growth in biosimilars, moreover, should further squeeze returns on expensive biotech therapies. 

	These developments are driving innovators to take advantage of strategies likely to delay the development and marketing of follow-on products. FDA has approved nine biosimilars, but only a few have come to market due to court battles over patents. A major complaint of generics makers is that pharma companies limit access to reference drug samples needed for bioequivalence testing and biosimilar development by abusing FDA-restricted distribution programs.

	FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has responded with a campaign to increase market competition to offset such “gaming” of the drug regulatory and legal system. A main strategy involves encouraging the development and approval of complex generics and combination products, as proposed in a June 2017 Competition Action Plan. FDA also unveiled a “hit list” of more than 250 off-patent, off-exclusivity brand drugs that lack approved generic competition and thus merit FDA assistance in developing alternatives and in expediting product approvals. 

	At an FDA public meeting in July, manufacturers and health policy experts discussed a range of innovator actions used to block generic marketing, including citizen petitions, labeling issues, late formulation changes, 

and the use of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) to stymie new generic testing. Similar topics were raised at a  November 2017 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop on competition in US prescription drug markets. At that meeting, Gottlieb emphasized the importance of more streamlined development and approval of generic drugs and biosimilars and warned pharma companies to “end the shenanigans” that delay competition and extend a drug’s monopoly beyond intended timeframes. 

	FDA also has published more product-specific guidance documents to help speed approval of complex products, synthetic peptides, and generic versions of opioids with abuse-deterrent features. Agency workshops last fall discussed strategies for developing complex dosage forms where traditional bioequivalency and bioavailability tests may not support approval. Further FDA advisories will address development of difficult formulations, such as ophthalmic suspensions, gels, and inhaled drugs. And FDA is offering to meet with generics manufacturers to discuss R&D issues, such as how labeling can address design differences between a generic and brand. 

	Equally important are agency efforts to streamline the process for evaluating and reviewing all new generics. FDA approved more than 1,000 new generic drugs last year under a more automated review process supported by generic drug user fees. The added resources helped reduce a huge backlog in unapproved products and achieve a more predictable review process.

	At the same time, FDA approved a record 46 innovative new drugs in 2017, plus landmark gene and CAR-T cellular therapies and vaccines regulated as biologics. With thousands of new medicines in the R&D pipeline, these trends are likely to continue, bolstered by FDA flexibility in the development and review of important breakthrough therapies. 

	The challenge to FDA and industry is to maintain a balance between encouraging the development of

 important new medical therapies and assuring access to low-cost follow-on medicines. Biopharma companies emphasize the need for incentives to test new therapies and to develop added indications to an approved product. Yet, driving change through increased competition is an uncertain business. FDA support for generics is visible in its recent approval of the first generic version of the leading multiple sclerosis therapy Copaxone, and the rejection of efforts by Allergan to block generic competition to its blockbuster eye drug Restasis. But so far, there has been limited industry response to FDA’s list of drugs that lack generic competition, as many products involve small markets and costly R&D processes.

	More new drug approvals are good news for sponsors, but that also can spur competition within a drug class, as seen with hepatitis C therapies. And while there’s public outrage over steep hikes on drugs to treat rare conditions, as with a 1,400% increase on a 40-year-old drug now used to treat certain brain tumors, such moves have less impact on broader spending than the annual price hikes on big-selling treatments for depression, high cholesterol, and rheumatoid arthritis. Even though industry leaders kept recent increases on such drugs under 10%, as promised, these modest hikes are the main drivers of revenues and profits. 

	Meanwhile, generics makers claim that the squeeze on revenues due to anticompetitive brand tactics, along with distributor and wholesaler consolidation, discourages their investment in modern manufacturing systems needed to ensure product safety and quality and avoid recalls and shortages. Teva Pharmaceuticals is instituting massive layoffs and shuttering manufacturing and R&D facilities to regain financial health. Novartis’ Sandoz division says that price pressures may lead to reductions in its US product portfolio and a greater focus on developing biosimilars and complex formulations. And high-profile price increases on older generic products have generated backlashes and allegations of collusion and price gouging, particularly from state prosecutors.

	Congress is paying attention to these developments as it continues to weigh proposals for managing drug costs and outlays. The House Judiciary Committee examined barriers to generic drug development at a hearing in July 2017. In December, the House Energy & Commerce Health subcommittee discussed proposed legislation to support access to affordable drugs. Drug prices and exclusivity were hot topics at the recent confirmation hearing for former Eli Lilly USA president Alex Azar to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and will continue to grab headlines. 

’s Washington Correspondent. She can be reached at 

Columns

Low-cost follow-ons and biosimilars please payers but heighten competitive battles with brands.


More New Drugs and Generics Reshape Pharma Markets

	The life sciences industry has now been reacting to and processing the UK’s imminent withdrawal from the EU for 18 months, and as the historic transition moves closer into view, many commentators have begun to temper their initial resistance with a pragmatism geared to accepting the inevitable. Nevertheless, their repeated warnings to the Brexit negotiators and their ongoing calls for caution remain an emphatic part of the discourse. 

	However, there have been voices within the pharma debate that take a more upbeat and optimistic view of the UK’s future, and while these voices are still very much in the minority, it is worth taking a look at some of their arguments. It’s an admittedly reductionist exercise, but in the midst of Britain’s winter gloom, a few rays of sunlight can have an edifying effect.

	In November last year, Tom Cowap, a pharmaceutical specialist in Catalyst Corporate Finance’s healthcare team, argued that “the opportunities of Brexit far outweigh the potential risks.” He pointed to seven factors that will “positively contribute” to the UK pharma sector in the lead up to and aftermath of Brexit. Among them, he said, was that the UK will remain a global center of academic pharmaceuticals research, boasting three of the 17 most important clusters of life sciences research facilities in Europe. R&D spending on pharma in the UK remains strong, he added, noting that almost half (47%) of all R&D spending in the UK is in the pharma sector, with the Wellcome Trust awarding £600 million ($831 million) of new research grants in the UK last year alone. He argued that the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)-which is “among the world’s most highly-respected and authoritative regulators” and “currently undertakes more cross-border authorization work in Europe than any other country-based institution”-“will flourish outside of the EMA system.” Post-Brexit, MHRA “supremacy” will be a major boost for the UK, as it seeks to develop individual trade and authorization agreements with the US, the Middle East, and Asia. “Regulatory harmonization is key to trade agreements… and this will be simpler and quicker to agree on a one-to-one basis.” 

	Finally, Cowap pointed out, the UK’s tax regime is especially favorable to the pharma sector, with the UK government’s promise to reduce corporation tax to 17% by 2020 making it “one of the lowest rates in any western economy.” 

	MHRA’s ex-chairman, Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, offered his own positive spin in the

 (May 16, 2017). “Current [UK] systems for regulating healthcare products date from the 1960s,” he wrote. “The opportunity exists to modify these specifically for the UK. The creation of a single UK agency for medicines, medical devices, and veterinary medical products would be pivotal.” 

	Pointing out that the current European regulatory system for medical devices depends on assessments made by more than 70 commercial organizations of “varying ability,” Breckenridge said, “a new generation of products incorporating both pharmaceuticals and medical devices is rapidly evolving, which presents the opportunity for new forms of regulatory practice unencumbered by European considerations.” He concluded that a new single agency, one that includes health technology assessment, could “create a model system equipped for real advances in regulatory science and making the UK an attractive site to launch new products.”

(June 20, 2017), Michael Jewell, healthcare partner at Cavendish Corporate Finance, argued that Brexit could boost M&As and investment in UK pharma. The “need to stay on top of EU regulations and the prospect of having to move a significant number of staff to the continent could well prove to be drivers for an uptick in sector M&A,” he wrote, “as UK pharma companies might opt to acquire firms in the EU so they can more easily stay abreast of changes to regulation, trade with their European neighbors, and continue to benefit from the advantages of being part of the EU.” While greater clarity concerning the relationship with the EU after Brexit is required, “there is potentially good value to be found by both buyers and sellers, as sector restructuring and consolidation continues,” Jewell concluded.

	Readers will note a conspicuous absence of industry leaders in the chorus above; it’s fair to say that these slivers of sunlight should be taken with a dose of salts. But as the debate intensifies ahead of the UK’s March 2019 departure-time deadline, a few shots of Vitamin D may prove a welcome boost in maintaining the required energy and sustenance. 

’s European and Online Editor. He can be reached at 

Assembling a few rare slivers of pharma positivity on UK’s future.

Brexit's Bright Spots

	This time of year is hard on football coaches. There is a mindset that because you were a great college coach, or a defensive coordinator or offensive coordinator, you will make a great head coach in the NFL. But it doesn’t always work out. We know that in business, it’s called the Peter principle. Basically, people are hired or promoted based on their performance in their current role, not evaluated on their abilities for the intended role.

 This leads to the quote “Managers rise to the level of their incompetence.” Of course, you have to work your way up and be a coordinator on the way to head coach. But we’ve seen enough examples where someone is excellent exactly where they are, and the next step just isn’t for them. 

	There are very inspirational coaches out there. I happen to be the type of person who is a sucker for movies like 

. I saw Coach Don Shula keynote at a conference, and his stories brought tears to my eyes. My colleagues thought I was nuts. But it is a magical thing to watch someone lead a team who really loves their players and the game. And there is also no mistake that some great former coaches have brought in and mentored some of today’s great coaches. 

	So the question becomes how do companies do that for their teams? How can they best evaluate who is going to be the right executive leader to take their company through the challenges facing the biopharma industry today?

	As I evaluate the content in this month’s issue, and sit it next to upcoming issues on talent (in April) and leadership in June’s annual Pharma 50, a theme is emerging. That theme is the ability to change, transform and adapt. 

, the focus was on three new areas necessary to navigate the current pharma terrain -transformative, ecosystem and enablement. The transformative leaders are the ones that help their organizations adapt and grow into ones that can meet the challenges of a new industry landscape-either in regard to digital technology, or big data or innovation. The ecosystem leaders shape the organization’s role in regards to its external stakeholders and builds long-lasting partnerships or effectively communicates the value of pharma products and services. And the last group, enabling leaders, can address the issues of administration and operations that may be under duress from M&As or other internal disruptions, and focus on people and culture and organizational efficiency and productivity to breathe new life into hardened processes. 

	In the upcoming June Pharma 50 article, the authors from Russell Reynolds Associates will tackle the challenges around assessing leadership capability and offer interesting insight into the paradoxical traits that today’s leaders need. They present robust data on pragmatism as an increasingly important trait necessary for the C-suite pharma executive as market pressures build.

	In April, we are speaking to a number of recruiters and consultants to uncover where pharma and biotech talent is coming from, what experience and skills are most needed, and how employees are mentored or coached to be promoted into new roles. 

	Finally, in this issue, we are examining the industry’s bad 

	One way, from the eyes of military leader Lt. General (Ret.) Rick Lynch, is to hire “adaptable leaders who possess a strong moral compass.” For the 

, I had the privilege of attending an “Adapt or Die” meeting convened in Philadelphia in early December. I was able to listen in on the topic of mentoring and learn how strong mentorships-not the kind that HR mandates as part of its mainstreaming activities-but how mentorships formed on the basis of trust, availability and open advice have worked in pharma and the military. Bob Oliver, a member of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Adviser of Hyalo Technologies, and his mentor, J&J Chairman and CEO Alex Gorsky, shared their mentoring stories, as well as Alicia Secor, President and CEO of Juniper Pharmaceuticals, who spoke very highly and fondly of her mentor, Henri A. Termeer, former Genzyme CEO, who passed away last year. In many cases, these mentorships look suspiciously like friendships, but with the added value that the mentor has actually walked the path that the mentee is on. 

	The Adapt or Die meetings focus on a series of topics related to adaptable leadership, and were formed in part “so people can see what right looks like,” as Lynch says. 

	In today’s world, there are plenty of examples of what wrong looks like. Which is why we look for stories of hope, people that inspire, or watch football games, where the battles aren’t complicated. We simply want to see more examples of what right looks like.

From the Editor

Drawing parallels from the world of football coaching in evaluating and grooming future C-suite pharma leaders-call it the quest to see "what right looks like?" 

Leadership in All the Right Places

New innovations, a spike in drug approvals, and signs of an M&A rebound point to more stabilized financial roads ahead for the pharma and biotech markets-but valuations remain challenging amid pricing, geopolitical, and regulatory concerns

	2017 and the last couple of years have been somewhat of a roller coaster ride for the biopharma industry.

	There  have been a number of very positive developments. The number of new drugs approved and under development escalated for both pharma and biotech companies. A host of new methods, such as immuno-oncology, CRISPR, personalized medicine, stem cells, and biologics have opened up a surge in productive innovation. We are beginning to see drugs that cure difficult diseases rather than just extend life, an extraordinary development. There have even been recent US regulatory and funding changes that are intended to increase government funding and ease the drug approval process. Time will tell if the actual results match the intent.

	Amid these examples of industry progress, however, there have been times when heavy clouds have appeared in terms of biopharma stock market volatility, access to private and public capital, pricing controversies, geopolitical challenges, and uncertainties around the ongoing regulatory structural changes in a number of the major markets such as the US and China. 

2017 was a year of swings and momentum for the pharma and biotech markets. Is more stable footing ahead?

Pharmaceutical Executive-02-01-2018