By DrugStar
Introduction
Tensions between the pharmaceutical industry and health authorities over drug marketing have increased in recent decades. The authorities want to get the most possible drug for their money whereas drug companies want to get the most money for their drugs. The current situation is untenable first and foremost for the industry but also for the authorities, and, in the end, the patients. How could a no cure, no pay strategy meet the needs of all parties and contribute to a sustainable future for the medical environment as a whole.
No cure, no pay strategy
A large percentage of all prescribed drugs do not have the desired effect on patients’ problems. The many influences on this poor outcome include wrong choice of drug, genetic factors, interactions, non-compliance, and poor drug quality.
 |
| An early example of no cure, no pay |
A no cure, no pay approach can counter these problems by optimisingthe effect yet still making the treatment economically feasible. If the drug does not cure, relieve, or prevent the patient’s symptoms based on specific clinical measures or visible results, the healthcare system and the patient get their money back. A money back guarantee might also be applicable if the patient suffers adverse effects. This is a previously unseen dimension of rational pharmacotherapy.
Obviously, if a drug company risks repaying substantial sums for a treatment that seems efficacious in clinical studies but does not have the desired effect in daily use, it is an incentive for the company to find programmes that improve compliance, in particular. Programmes to increase compliance are anothernew dimension that can make a positive contribution to rationalpharmacotherapy.
This is were Modern Medical Marketing need to go - creating solutions that contribute to the actual outcome of the treatment thus becomming an important part of the treatment - this is where \WorldHealth Denmark has strong competences.
Read more in; Møldrup, C. No cure No Pay BMJ 2005;330(7502):1262 (28 May)
The patient’s perspective on direct-to-consumer is seldom offered in the literature, even though we want to put patients first in the healthcare system. Therefore, this survey attempts to shed light on the attitudes towards the direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs in the Danish population. A quantitative internet-based survey on a representative population from ages 18 to 70 was used to collect the empirical data. A total of 3,001 respondents participated in the study. A total of 18.84 per cent of respondents (58.31 per cent male and 41.69 per cent female) have indicated that advertising prescription drugs is acceptable. The number is 61.24 per cent for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. A total of 58.18 per cent are familiar with the role of drug companies as provider of most healthcare information on the internet. About 42.57 per cent of respondents said that they were ‘indifferent’ about this role. About 55 per cent of respondents indicate that they are not influenced to buy the product from the drug company behind a campaign. Generally, Danes find it acceptable to advertise OTC products, while only one-fifth are positive about advertising prescription drugs. The population finds campaigns to promote health and treat disease useful, and people are not influenced negatively when they discover the drug industry is behind such campaigns.
Read more in the paper:
Rehne, J., Møldrup, C. Danes’ awareness of and attitude towards direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC-A) of prescription drugs: A quantitative survey of 3,000 respondents. Journal of Medical Marketing (2008) 8, 31–38.
Anything striking about the title? Did you read it as ‘Business as usual?’ If you did then don’t worry, at least half of readers probably did so too. It is all about perspective.
Life science marketing is all about perspective. In a world where knowledge about healthcare networks is key to optimizing sales efforts, knowing the perspective of the customer is essential to reach a common understanding of the benefits and prospects of using a specific life science technology over another. While it sounds simple, it is not; even internally it is difficult, just try to take a closer look at a life science company - it might be yours.
Why do medical and marketing departments often have difficulties in understanding each other? Even within life science companies it is all about perspective, the medical department does not understand the sales process; the marketing department does not understand science!
At a Workshop at INSEAD I presented the scientific paper ‘Drugs - from product to service’(1). In this paper and at the Workshop I proposed services, like compliance and monitoring programs, as an ‘add on’ to the product itself, and hereby producing a new product. After my presentation and later during dinner, the marketing people stated that this is old news or ‘business as usual’. The medical people on the other hand stated that this was ‘business as unusual’. Of course services like the one mentioned above have been setup and used as marketing tools for some time, that is this is not a new perspective to the marketing people. But ’services’ combined with a product have never been tested against the product on its own in a controlled scientific trial, and as such could create a scientifically proven innovative product. And this was actually the point I was trying to make. Owing to the scientific perspective, this was adapted by the medical people.
In my mind there is no doubt that the future of sustainable and responsible medical marketing is combining sales and marketing theories with medical science, not only by translating science into a few headings and a nice picture, but by creating marketing schemes that support the product by giving ‘added value’ to the customer. Hereby medical marketing itself contribute to better outcomes and might even be a revenue generator (more about this in another blog) . In other words, medical marketing is all about perspective.
Claus Møldrup, PhD (pharm.) Associate Professor Director TBWA\WorldHealth Denmark
1. Møldrup, C. & Kruse, P. R. (2006). Drugs - Product or service. Journal of Medical Marketing 6 (4), 282-286.
