Pharmaceutical Executive-09-01-2005

Not surprisingly, the biotechs hold three of the top five rankings in percent of sales invested in R&D. Even more impressive, then, are the ratios for Big Pharmas like Schering-Plough and Eli Lilly, in third and fourth place, both at a bit more than 19 percent.

If pharmaceutical companies hope to improve their marketing efficiency, they have to change how they approach their customers. For years, manufacturers have been practicing the "more is better" direct-selling approach to physicians. But research now shows what common sense has long suggested: More has become too much. Education has given way to inundation, clamoring for face time with physicians has led to diminishing sales returns, and relationships with major pharma stakeholders have broken down. Physicians, regulators, consumers, and legislators have come to mistrust manufacturers' motives and integrity. As pharma asks how its marketing strategies have missed the mark, it may discover answers in reinventing something it once relied upon: strong relationships with customers.

FDA could lose 251 employees under the administration's proposed 2006 budget. The agency will try to do more with less through risk-management practices, but important tasks will fall by the wayside.

Gen Xers are attractive to many managers because they typically have a strong work ethic. Although they are self-reliant, they still desire to be taken seriously and want to be valued by their companies.

The pharmaceutical industry depends on good science. So what does it mean when a majority of the US population turns its back on one of the fundamental insights of modern biology?

When rebate strategies are coupled with sales force and DTC spending, it results in "margin-negative" business-that is, sales that bring in less than the marginal cost of selling, promoting, and manufacturing the drug.

If the legislation passes, companies will be rewarded with a six-month extension of market exclusivity if they conduct pediatric trials. And under the proposal, companies that fail to comply can be penalized.

The current DTC ads, through their persistent use of the term "doctor," are misleading to the public and keep all other prescribers invisible to patients.

Implementation of policies that respond to industry compliance standards poses a considerable burden for companies in terms of time and expense. Unless industry changes its response to state laws, the condition will worsen.

In a few years' time, or so the conventional wisdom goes, personalized medicine will become a reality, and many (or even most) new drugs will come to market supported by tests that will help physicians make the decision of who gets what drug, what's the appropriate dose, and who's in the greatest danger of serious side effects-all based on a better understanding of biological processes and newly available data from testing at the molecular level to characterize patients and disease. We're not there yet, of course. To date only a handful of drugs are accompanied by molecular-level diagnostic tests. At the 2005 Molecular Medicine Tri-Conference, Ian Massey, PhD, senior vice president and head of research and preclinical development at Roche, expressed the opinion that molecular diagnostics will only affect a few medicines in the near to mid-term.

Digital forms of image transmission, archiving, and education with the virtual microscope will revolutionize pathology.

Companies face a serious pipeline gap, partly because they focus too narrowly on scientific breakthroughs. Stakeholders also value convenient compounds with reduced side effects and fewer doses.

The issue of pedigree requirements is emerging at the state level-and figuring out to what extent that will push back to the manufacturers.

If pharmaceutical companies hope to improve their marketing efficiency, they have to change how they approach their customers. For years, manufacturers have been practicing the "more is better" direct-selling approach to physicians. But research now shows what common sense has long suggested: More has become too much. Education has given way to inundation, clamoring for face time with physicians has led to diminishing sales returns, and relationships with major pharma stakeholders have broken down. Physicians, regulators, consumers, and legislators have come to mistrust manufacturers' motives and integrity. As pharma asks how its marketing strategies have missed the mark, it may discover answers in reinventing something it once relied upon: strong relationships with customers.

Instead of leaving the doctor's office well informed, the patient often leaves without enough comprehensible information to comply with the prescribed treatment.

In the healthcare and pharma industries, where lives are at stake and skepticism proliferates, consumers are even more apt to turn to peers for trusted information and advice about medical treatments.

Class actions threaten industries that deal with the public. If European lawmakers remove the restriction on class-action suits, consumers will be free to file cases. Pharma companies should take heed.

My doctor and I have two different visions of an avian influenza pandemic. She's picturing regular flu season, but worse. I'm imagining 1918. Does the conflict sound familiar?