Posted on Fri, Aug 13, 2010 @ 11:39 AM
After the business challenges of 2009 and what remains a 
precarious economy this year, we at JFK Communications feel fortunate to be growing again in 2010. And it's starting to look like while the national unemployment numbers remain unacceptably high, the US economy is at last beginning to show signs of improvement.
To me, the US healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries in particular have always been bright spots on the economic landscape, whether times were good or bad for the country overall. The past few years, however, have been a very different story as we all know.
On the jobs front, I was both surprised and disappointed to learn recently that for the first half of 2010, the US pharmaceutical industry has eliminated approximately 35,000 positions. This is on top of the nearly 60,000 pharma jobs that were eliminated during 2009.
Industry pundits will offer up many reasons for why these job cuts had to be made, not the least of which is the dire economic conditions. But the pharma bloodletting started well before the US economy tanked, and job eliminations in the pharmaceutical industry look set to continue in spite of improving economic conditions.
I think many of the industry's current woes are the direct result of the seemingly endless drive toward consolidation, attempts to create "economies of scale" and getting bigger because it seems that well, that's all big pharma can think to do right now to try to fix its problems.
Consider the following questions:
- Has the US pharmaceutical industry become a more dynamic, enjoyable and opportunity-rich place for people to work, or has it become less so as the result of increased consolidation?
- Is the world really better off without such great companies (and places to work) as Pharmacia, Lederle, Parke Davis, Warner Lambert, and Searle, to name just a few?
- Are more innovative drugs being brought to market in the US as the result of pharma industry consolidation and the existence of fewer, but larger pharmaceutical companies?
- Has industry consolidation improved the overall financial health of big pharma companies over the past 20 years?
- What about healthcare costs? Are patients paying any less for their drugs these days?
The culture of consolidation permeating the pharmaceutical industry has impacted every operational area, including how these companies purchase creative services such as advertising, public relations, market research, digital communications and graphic design. In many cases, smaller to mid-sized independent healthcare communications agencies have lost out to mega-sized communications conglomerates such as WPP Group, Omnicom, Publicis and Interpublic Group. These groups have all benefited by entering into "preferred provider" agreements with big pharma companies. I like to think of this trend as the "Walmart-ization" of healthcare communications.
Do marketing directors and brand managers at pharmaceutical companies with preferred agency networks enjoy being told which agencies they have to work with?
And last but not least, it makes me wonder: when has removing competition from the equation ever been good for business?
--David Avitabile
Posted on Mon, Jul 26, 2010 @ 01:47 PM
Could the recent FDA approval of a generic version of Lovenox (enoxaparin) be the beginning of approvals of other complex molecules? We recall that the Biologics Price Competition and 
Innovation Act of 2009 found its way into the Health reform bill. The Biologics Act provides a pathway for biosimilars, however, grants biologics innovator companies 12-years patent exclusivity (http://tiny.cc/ymnj1). While biologics currently reside outside the current generics approval processes, it seems that “complex molecules” like enoxaparin do not. The developers of the generic enoxaparin, Sandoz, division of Novartis, are hoping to win approval next for a generic version of the “complex mixture” Copaxone for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. For more details on FDA’s position visit: http://tiny.cc/fvvve. For more information regarding Sanofi’s position, read their July 23 statement here: http://tiny.cc/zgib3.
--John Kouten
Posted on Wed, Jul 14, 2010 @ 04:27 PM
As personalized medicine continues to become more of a reality, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies are finding ways to create new partnerships focused on building the future of medicine.
BioNJ's Diagnostics Committee, of which JFK Communications is a member, is hosting a free webinar keynoted by G. Steven Burrill, Chief Executive Officer, Burrill & Company.
This event is the first in a series of initiatives from BioNJ for global life sciences companies. Learn more about it, and register, by clicking here: New Jersey Gets Personalized – A series of initiatives from BioNJ to advance the Diagnostics industry and foster partnerships with biopharma companies in the State of New Jersey. How New Technologies are Changing Opportunities in the Diagnostics Industry, Creating Value and Encouraging Partnerships.
--David Avitabile
Posted on Thu, Oct 01, 2009 @ 10:50 AM
With all the noise in the news lately about the healthcare reform battles being 
fought, there was some very positive news for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries yesterday that I think may have gone unnoticed by many.
On Wednesday September 30th, President Obama announced a plan to spend $5 billion on medical and scientific research, medical supplies and upgrading laboratory capacity.
This is great news for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries. Promising new treatments and technologies discovered as the result of NIH-funded research are usually developed and commercialized by private sector companies. More investment in NIH research means more opportunities for technology transfer to pharma, biotech and other companies through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA). The list of successful pharmaceutical and biotechnology products developed as the result of CRADAs is extensive, and includes breakthrough cancer treatments such as Taxol and Velcade.
Government investment in medical research has contributed to enormous growth for the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology industries through technology transfer. Most importantly, these investments have improved the lives of millions of patients.
Posted on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 @ 03:47 PM
Ok, I am backlogged on my reading, so what else is new? If you are 
a healthcare public relations professional you are, by definition, behind on your reading! If I can scan my newspapers, multiple news aggregators, and Twitter messages each day I’m ahead of the game.
However, I did take the opportunity to review PharmaceuticalExecutive’s Fifth Annual Press Audit. While this appeared earlier this year, its findings are very relevant today, and will be valid until they field and report the 2010 press audit results. For those involved in healthcare communications and pharmaceutical and biotechnology public relations, these data are profound.
The PharmExec audit reveals that while articles covering pharma’s marketing, sales and other promotional practices have fallen, they have been replaced with articles about drug safety issues. During 2008, Approximately 83% of articles focusing on pharmaceuticals and biotech were about drug safety concerns. Negative articles about drug safety issues are at a five year high. And, while overall media coverage of pharma is down, the majority of this coverage is negative, with only a small percentage considered positive (12%).
Considering these data, along with the ever increasing regulatory and political headwinds facing the pharma industry, we believe strongly that we need to restore confidence in the industry. As leaders in healthcare PR and pharma marketing, we are proud of the work we do each day to raise awareness of new ground-breaking medicines and medical technologies. We are passionate that pharma technology and R&D will contribute to cost savings in this era of healthcare reform and increased rationing.
Many of our clients serve cancer patients and their families. And, as we have witnessed today with the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy to cancer, the victory over this global scourge is still somewhere in the future. Senator Kennedy’s death is a terrible loss. However, we know that his life was extended months longer than it would have been just ten years ago because of the great strides we have made in the fight against brain cancer.
As healthcare communications professionals, I believe it is our responsibility to support a balanced portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry, and communicate with patients, legislators, the business community and the general public about its valuable contributions to extending and enhancing human life.
Posted on Fri, Jun 19, 2009 @ 03:39 PM
Where is legislation on biosimilars heading? How will this impact 
innovator biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies? What is your position on the issue?
Please read my primer on the coming storm of biosimilars published in this month’s Pharmaceutical Executive. http://tinyurl.com/l64pe4
This piece provides a summary overview of the situation and communication strategies to help innovator companies prepare and communicate around this issue.
-- John Kouten
Posted on Tue, Jun 02, 2009 @ 08:30 AM
Whether you like it or not, healthcare reform has arrived in the United States.
The widespread opposition that characterized attempts to get the Clinton healthcare plan off the ground in 1993 will not be repeated in 2009 as the Obama 
administration tackles healthcare reform. In fact, industry representatives have pledged their support for healthcare reform, as seen by the recent meeting of industry leaders with President Obama where they by outlined $2 trillion in spending reductions to help cover the cost of universal healthcare.
The debate over what form universal healthcare in the US will take, and the new business environment that will be created by implementing those changes, creates opportunities for public relations to do the things that it does best. Communicating complex, nuanced messages, rallying disparate interest groups to achieve a common goal, fostering debate and dialogue over challenging issues, and leveraging advocacy groups to influence critical decisions—these are all areas where public relations excels compared to other marketing disciplines.
How will our industry fare as reform begins to happen? Rather than doom mongering, let's look at some positives. Major changes in healthcare infrastructure and delivery will force industry leaders to innovate and adapt. I have great confidence in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies’ ability to innovate in order to respond to the changes that are coming. Increases in funding for basic research and finding new treatments that address unmet medical needs will remain important national priorities. Stem cell research is a relatively new area of biotechnology and is likely to become one of the fastest growing R&D sectors moving forward. This is all good news for industry in the long run.
I spent eight very rewarding years of my career living and working in the United Kingdom, so I have first hand experience of nationalized healthcare, its benefits and shortcomings. I also know from personal experience how important public relations is to companies competing to communicate comparative effectiveness, fighting for a share of limited healthcare resources, and trying to motivate patient groups and the media to push for rational funding decisions. Politicians, patient advocacy groups, industry and the media all have a very strong interest in these issues. Skilled healthcare public relations professionals can play an essential role in making sure that these different interest groups are heard, and that they engage on these issues with articulate, clear and effective messages.
Some companies operating in the UK have shown great initiative and creativity in dealing with the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) regarding funding decisions for their treatments. For example, Johnson & Johnson has agreed to refund the cost of treatment with Velcade(R) in multiple myeloma patients who don’t respond. Celgene has received a positive appraisal from NICE for its multiple myeloma treatment Revlimid(R), including Celgene’s proposal that the National Health Service (NHS) pay for the drug for 26 treatment cycles in those patients with previously-treated disease. Celgene would fund the drug (used in combination with dexamethasone) in patients benefiting from it thereafter.
These two examples, I think, show our industry at its finest. These companies are not afraid to be creative in how they approach difficult business challenges. They are also sending a very clear message that they believe in the value of their products.
If comparative effectiveness becomes a component of healthcare reform in the US, I wouldn’t be surprised to see industry leaders using similar approaches in the US to cooperate with government health authorities and to demonstrate the same belief in the value of their products.
--David Avitabile