Despite huge investments into CRM systems some pharma companies still struggle to get all of their staff to embrace and fully interact with them. Pf’s Iain Bate explores why, and what the future holds for technology in the industry.

There’s no doubt that technological developments have changed the way we live and work from year to year – maybe even from month to month in the 21st Century. But has the world of healthcare been travelling in the slow lane of the intergalactic highway?

The potential that technology offers to pharma, and the general world of healthcare, is enormous. But is the pharmaceutical industry, and its staff in particular, using it to maximise the returns of billion-dollar investments?

It would seem that technology is the ‘buzz word’ on the lips of a few of healthcare’s major players at present. The DH recently invited people to nominate their favourite health-related mobile phone ‘app’ – be it for keeping fit, to locate a hospital or chemist, or helping to manage an illness. Creative minds were also asked to design their own health app with a panel of DH judges deciding on their favourite from the most popular entries.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says it’s the Government’s intention to give people better access to information using modern technology and the exercise is a “unique opportunity for the NHS and those who develop apps to not only showcase their work, but to bring to life new ideas and realise true innovation in healthcare”.

As part of the DH’s technology revolution, patients may also soon be offered online consultations with their GPs using programmes such as Skype. Clearly the Government is embracing the convenience technology offers to patients, but are other sectors in healthcare as interested? It would seem there is still some way to go.

 

In two minds

Pf ’s 2010/11 annual Company Perception, Motivation and Satisfaction Survey suggests that not all respondents are completely convinced by the power of technology in the workplace. Although the Survey – which relates to 2010 and the early part of this year – found that nearly 90% of respondents have access to a CRM system, only 43% find time to use it in the field and more than a fifth of people fail to accurately record post-call reports with important clients.

Questions have to be asked as to why, despite multimillion pound investment and training by pharma companies, there remains a percentage of staff that still ignore the power and potential of the technology at their finger tips.

Results from the Survey reveal there’s no difference in uptake by key account managers, primary and secondary care representatives, those in primary care roles only, firstline sales managers and secondline sales managers and the use of CRM technology between differing age groups – although surprisingly 10% of respondents in these positions with less than two years of experience said they did not have a CRM system, compared to just 5% more experienced colleagues.

The launch of the iPad in March 2010 promised to revolutionise the way sales representatives, and those in similar roles, use CRM systems in the field. However, nearly three-quarters (70%) of respondents from the Survey are still presently sent out with laptops containing their customer-relationship systems.

When quizzed on what they’d change about the hardware which houses their system, the majority of respondents said that their CRM was too awkward to carry, with poor running systems an issue and that batteries ran out too quickly. Apple claims its second-generation iPad now enjoys ten hours of use away from a plug socket in the field.

Yet the switch to the latest convenient tablet devices may not necessarily be about high levels of investment, it may be down to maximising value for money as Paul Shawah, Vice President, Multi Channel Strategy, Veeva Systems explains. “I would say the life cycle of devices within the industry is generally about three years, sometimes a little bit longer,” he said. “When a company invests in new technology they typically depreciate that over that period, so they don’t want to replace it in the field for that time to maximise their investment.

“However, with the introduction of game changing technology like the iPad, this has changed. We see a number of our pharmaceutical customers are justifying the business case to move to the iPad even before their tablets are fully depreciated. This speaks to the business benefit that pharma expects to achieve from the iPad and the related applications only available on that device.”

A convenient shield

Despite technology eliminating mundane process in the workplace and offering the potential to assist employees and improve their efficiency at work, it has historically been used as a shield to mask poor performance and abused as a means to waste company time – a recent online survey by AOL found that nearly half of Americans (44.7%) rank surfing the web as their primary activity during the two hours they ‘waste’ each day at work.

But it would seem that a high number of respondents do value the opportunities CRM offers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they always enter correctly the amount of customer sales they make into their CRM. But 21% admitted they fail to always report face-to-face meetings with clients. More surprisingly, over a fifth of participants said they do not always record the number of products they had sold to clients.

The lack of honest accuracy is surprising considering the amount of time spent using CRM systems each day. A third said they spend between one and two hours a day on their system with a fifth spending three hours or more on their CRM. During their time using the management system, more than half (55%) said that call reporting was the most useful feature.

Although respondents were less impressed with the KAM abilities of their software with only 19% believing it to be the most useful facility. When questioned about what they would change given the chance, 45% said they wanted an improved database, over a quarter (28%) called for their system to be overall more useful, and 18% said they would prefer their CRM to be easier to use.

 

The next level

But what of the future of CRM systems? Will they be easier to use and have improved customer databases? David Round, General Manager, UK, Cegedim Relationship Management, says the regular interaction we now have with technology means we’ve all come to expect the latest developments.

“End users are significantly more ‘technology-savvy’ than their counterparts of even five years ago,” he explained. “If anything, the challenge for companies is to ensure that they provide their end users with the types of technology that they use as consumers. It’s also important to focus on the usability of your software to ensure maximum use. Technology companies – and pharma – must work together to develop a better understanding of the interaction, to ensure it meets users’ needs in the field.”

One main reason that users have become more ‘savvy’ is down to the use and interaction with social media. Whether at home or at work, websites such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and most recently Google+ have driven an increased use of various forms of technology – especially on devices such as smartphones or tablet devices which reps are calling for in the field.

Pharma companies, both in the US and UK, have flirted with the idea of fully embracing the power social media harnesses, but at present are restricted by the PMCPA’s Code of Practice and by the FDA – who has again delayed the publication of its guidance.

The FDA says it is “difficult to provide a timeframe... due to the extensive work and review process, or ‘Good Guidance Practices’, which ensures that FDA’s stakeholders are provided well vetted guidances articulating FDA’s current thinking on a topic”.

Although the FDA may be unsure on how to direct healthcare companies, David Round believes the introduction, both professionally and personally, of social media has had an impact on staff and their expectations.

“For the modern professional person, much of their everyday life is conducted online – for example on shopping, utilities, insurance or booking a holiday – and many users then want the same level of capability from the tools they use in their job,” he added.

Dan Goldsmith, General Manager, Veeva Europe, agrees there has been a significant shift in the way we operate and interact due to our experiences online through tagged posts or hash-tagged searches. But although the 800 million users on Facebook – more than half which ‘log-on’ every day – and 175 million people on Twitter have no problem saying hello to friends, pharma finds it more difficult reaching out to people.

“Social media create a new avenue for healthcare dialogue and will only continue to pervade our lives,” said Dan. “Consequently, I believe that pharma faces two challenges. The first is to decide how to participate in the online dialogue with stakeholders and then to create those interactions through the channels we’re all familiar with, such as Facebook and Twitter.

“The second is to figure out how to leverage the model of social dialogue internally to support stronger collaboration and more focused communication among employees. Already, we see some companies taking advantage of the latest social business tools to connect employees with one another and to access and share information in real time.”

Clearly CRM solution providers understand the potential modern technology and social media platforms offer to companies. Whether pharma and its workforce get fully up to speed on the intergalactic highway sooner or later remains to be seen.

In the pharmaceutical industry one of the biggest challenges is to manage large events which require certain levels of privacy, whilst also ensuring they are hosted in professional and accessible venues. Simon Hunter shares his knowledge on how to make the most of your venue and event.

A high profile venue is a prominent, well known, iconic space which has a range of facilities to offer, and a reputation for hosting annual industry exhibitions or summits for international brands.

Discretion and privacy are key attributes of hosting events at high profile venues. If there are well-known guests present or sensitive intellectual property being shared – a new scientific discovery or drug, for example, then this kind of venue is ideal.

 

Experience pays

Other advantages of high profile venues include a proven track record in hosting different sizes of events in-house. For example, Chelsea Football Club manages fixtures attracting 42,000 guests who need to be managed onsite and this translates to the events team and experienced in-house security. The higher profile the venue or the bigger the event brand, the more strategies will already be in place which can help.

With regards to security, trust the staff and the in-house teams; they will have the benefit of experience organising private events, managing arrangements for high profile guests, and advising on the best way to utilise facilities. A good venue will take you through all stages of the event and should ask in advance of any special requirements, schedules or VIP attendees.

Ensure that all channels of communication are left open during the event itself so that staff  know of any last minute alterations. This will also guarantee that event organisers look professional, with the additional help of the venue’s catering, service and after-care.

 

Deciding outcomes

Knowing your audience and the objectives you want to achieve from any event will be a great help in selecting a venue. It is therefore vital to outline these clearly before approaching any venues for suggested briefs. Following this, there are some useful points to bear in mind which will make selecting a suitable venue easier.

Consider the components of your event to make sure you select somewhere that can accommodate them all. For example, consider whether the event will be an annual conference with a gala dinner and accommodation; whether you need separate facilities for VIP guests; and the possibility of needing to bring in equipment for demonstrations or exhibitions.

Venues which offer numerous events spaces, like a music venue, accommodation, restaurants and an exclusive spa can be ideal for organisers wishing to combine many activities within one event. It will also reduce the need for a separate transport budget to transfer guests from between conferences and seminars, for example.

Every event organiser should be constantly focussed on how to get maximum results for minimum cost. Look for a venue that whilst impressive, offers a range of packages and choose the one that suits your audience and your budget.

 

Simon Hunter is the Head of Venue at Chelsea Football Club.

Several large pharmaceutical companies have paid US physicians nearly $150m this year, according to analysis by the Financial Times.

Industry data into the controversial marketing and support practices found that $148m has been given to 165,000 doctors so far, including $48m from Eli Lilly and $42m from Pfizer.

A spokesperson for Lilly said the “collaboration with healthcare providers is essential” to improve outcomes for patients and to provide innovative medicines.

In the UK, the ABPI recently changed its Code of Practice meaning companies now have to declare payments to healthcare professionals for their services from 2013 in an attempt to increase transparency. Government agencies in the US are currently finalising similar guidelines as part of the healthcare reforms.

The analysis by the Financial Times, in conjunction with PharmaShine, is designed to allow health authorities, medical institutions and patients better scrutinise and understand the links between doctors and pharma.

But the way current disclosures are made and presented varies and makes comparisons and analysis difficult for both authorities and patients alike.

Allan Coukell, Head of the Pew Prescription Project – a US drug safety watchdog – says that healthcare professionals and the industry needs to work together for research purposes, “but the marketing model is problematic”.

“The first step is transparency and we are not even there yet,” he added.

Research found that collectively the industry paid $437m to 262,000 doctors in 2010. Among the physicians who received the highest level of support was Dr Zale Bernstein, an Associate Professor from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. Dr Bernstein received $234,000 in 2010 from Cephalon, Eli Lilly and Pfizer and has already received more than $57,000 already this year.

Although the majority of doctors received smaller sums, studies have suggested even modest support by pharma can affect prescribing practices.

Pharma’s Account Management model is built on the principle that frontline professionals develop and deliver brand value propositions that align with the key priorities of key customers. But in a changing market where new customers are emerging, how well do you understand those priorities? Omar Ali pens Part I of a typical day in the life of a Formulary Pharmacist.

Despite consumers’ apparent lust for TV medical dramas and gruesome surgical documentaries, it’s unlikely that the viewing public would find a biopic centring on the work of a Formulary Pharmacist particularly enticing. But, for an audience of pharmaceutical sales professionals charged with understanding its customer-base, gaining an insight into the breadth and depth – and far-reaching implications – of a typical week in the life of NHS prescribing advisers, medicines management and formulary pharmacists should provide much food for thought.

Pharma appears desperate to establish the ‘key priorities’ of its many customers. This article, based on typical encounters with medical sales professionals, is a genuine attempt to outline mine.

A MONDAY MORNING, SOMEWHERE IN SURREY
8.10am: GI CONSULTANT / IBD.
(Discussion in the corridor)
Arrived at my NHS base camp. Stopped in the corridor by one of the GI Consultants who wants to set up a GPC/CCG commissioning group on GI Inflammatory Disease with one of the local Consortia - we ran one with Rheumatology framed around an osteoporosis brand. We put a date in the diary to discuss. I will be coordinating an IBD lunch event to facilitate joined-up working. Bringing in the GPCs is easy - I can text most of the GPs on the Commissioning Board of our local clusters, such is the relationship required for joined-up thinking. He’s very committed to his cause – and has very recently impressed significant knowledge and application of commissioning processes involved. Needless to say, many of his choice agents are either off-license or difficult to source from community pharmacies. He also has a whole stack of biologics he’s keen to use – but without some PCT discussions (and now outreaching to GPCs) he won’t get very far.

Thoughts for pharma

GI/IBD has become very noisy and in certain areas very controversial. Biologics are testing the very essence of ‘affordability’ in the NHS. We also know that by using them correctly, we can prevent signi­cant morbidity – surgery/admissions/etc. However, joined-up thinking doesn’t occur by magic – and you have a signifi­cant role in making this happen. When we coordinate this GPC/Hospital IBD lunch event, I am certain I will be discussing with various stakeholders, including pharma. NICE in principle supports a number of products but there are complexities. For example, bringing patients in for an IV infusion will generate income for the Trust – which funds a nurse who provides additional services. Patients treated at home may be a preferred option – there is no VAT. Home healthcare is not without its headaches around delivery, months’ supply ordered and administrative burden.

I am still disappointed at the level of pharma support I have seen here. There is far more that can be done to bring a clinical context into a financial framework. I call this the ‘Mortgage Principle’ – translating falling in love with a house into a financial framework with a defined loan: value and %APR with monthly repayments – see previous Matrix Revolutions. There seems to be a vast gap in understanding NHS processes – not just from pharma, but also from consultants – so improved process mapping from chronic disease to A&E through to post-discharge is essential. It also brings out the ‘true-cost’ of the disease in IBD – not just the ‘drug’s cost’. If our consultant doesn’t move ahead and advance his prescribing base, he will end up referring more patients to tertiary centres (which will only increase PCT costs) – so it’s important to put things into context here. Process Map the patient and the money will follow. If this is not tackled by pharma, I foresee the future of managed care entering here very neatly. Looking after the whole pathway and pushing pharma out to bystanders – look at companies like IHP, United Healthcare & Medco, it’s happening.

8.40am: Pharmacy Base.
(Discussion with the boss)
Arrived to my desk – finally. This time it’s the Chief waiting with an IFR/one-off-request that needs sorting. It’s the usual story: this time it’s a urology product that a GP is refusing to prescribe. We are having to push through the IFR/one-off-request – and also liaise with the GP for a medium-term solution (the patient is travelling significant distances to obtain this). This means some research, PCT discussions, GP emails and a phone call to the patient. I will also try and perch on the urology consultant’s shoulders (he runs a clinic this afternoon) and coordinate future D&T processes. Most of all, we need to ensure that the patient is central to this whole system – which is easier said than done. It’s good timing though – I have been in discussions with urology, working through the top-ten spend on the drug list to see where we have efficiency savings (something which is occurring across the whole trust in conjunction with PCTs & GPCs). This product initially came up as ‘not-on-the-radar’ but clearly needs some attention. I have our medicines information pharmacist conducting background research – I have emailed the specialist commissioning pharmacist at the PCT and CCd the prescribing adviser who has just evaluated a recent APC paper on overactive bladder prescribing (which we are discussing at our next D&T).

Thoughts for pharma

Urology is big on the radar. Many prescribing items are specialist, while there are significant prescribing efficiency savings aimed at ‘overactive bladder’ and linked into a more encompassing discussion with endocrinologists, and the ongoing story behind testosterone. I am sure I am sitting on a business card of a testosterone brand, but which company it was I cannot recall. Thumbing through my cards – the stack waiting for a call back is big – I can’t really see through the thick fog of various companies/pharma/sub-companies/take-overs. Note to self: request all staff to ensure reps write their brands on their business cards when they call at the pharmacy. Key priorities around urology that are high on the radar across primary/secondary care are as follows:

• Urinary retention/BPH
  Is it just me or has Combodart lost its way? I remember some very exciting joined up thinking on preventing unnecessary referrals and bringing consultants out to primary care. Given urology consultants admit themselves that DREs to exclude prostate Ca is not easy, liability and governance for getting GPs to this was always heading into a cul-de-sac. I think there is a ‘new campaign’, though I’m not sure what it is. We have both finasteride and dutasteride on our joint formulary – but I’m not seeing the right financial framework on the ground. I can see NHS PCOs moving backwards, lifting finasteride back on the pedestal and not even considering the Combodart story. If there is a value proposition around this brand someone better get this moving within commissioning circles fast. To add to this, tamsulosin’s patent expiry further hastens the need for the value story here. If the last D&T rejection we had is anything to go by this is either off the radar or must be a third drop-down detail on someone’s bonus scheme.
• Urinary incontinence
  We have NICE, LUTS and SMC. HTA is all important. Most of pharma focuses on product differentiation. They need to, NICE is an open forum for prescribing. But I don’t see a commissioning story or a decent value proposition for payers. Please don’t state you want to run me through a cost model – that is not a ‘value proposition’. I have yet to see a company come to me and talk about QIPP. Where are you guys? Please don’t moan at the NHS for using generic oxybuytnin first-line – we get the opposition, what we don’t get is a Payer ‘QIPP Value Proposition’ around your brand. Too much n=1 for my liking. The only brand working the NHS has to some extent are the solifenacin crowd – they certainly have significant clinician/KOL buy-in if the Payers are left somewhat ‘wanting’. I’m unsure where exactly duloxetine & fesoteradine are heading, or what their value story is – despite SMC approval. Maybe it’s just me.
• Bladder instillation
  This is hotting up big time. Why? Because there are costs to both primary and secondary care – and furthermore, despite numerous products – some without a license – for conditions such as interstitial cystitis there is significant unmet need on cure rates, relapse rates and hospitalisations. Someone, somewhere will win big when they map out to us what already suspect – hospitalisation costs here are huge, and process mapping will show how these are sectored into various health economies. At the moment, everyone is walking and talking product – bag of saline/infuse like this/lovely twisty connector/etc. Just waiting for someone like United or Medco to come and show us the path to the land of milk and honey. It appears no-one else will.
• Testosterone
  It’s back! The story has become interesting all over again, and all credit to pharma. The link with diabetes is moving this higher and higher up the agenda. It is fraught with issues. Everything from best mode of delivery to patient/compliance and desired effect, through to overlap with specialties – is this endocrine or urology or both, same pathway or different pathway? The pharmaceutical arguments in testosterone are worthy but having no coat hanger to hang your outcomes on makes for difficulty in pulling out the cheque book. There is a ‘gap-effect’ in situ – from academic niceties to clinical practice. I’m not sure the pull is there yet – and again, I return to my translation into a financial argument. Furthermore, there are cost savings and efficiencies to be had and this is where a product-matrix weighted with Payer Related Priorities would assist a brand in its Payer Value Proposition – if it indeed cares to invest in one.

It goes a bit like this:

1. What’s important to payers with a view to testosterone replacement?
2. Rank this list in a weighted manner so that they all add up to 100% (ie they may say evidence w%, compliance x%, safety y%, cost z% – w+x+y+z must all add up to 100%
3. Now you have your weighting, get the payers to allocate the numbers for each of the testosterone brands
4. Now you have not just who is the winner, but also how and why
5. So if, for instance, compliance is 25% weighting of the whole game, then if you spend 80% of your time talking about compliance, this may not be effecting your exposure time with payers to maximum benefit –remember the clinicians will have a different matrix. You may have the best compliance story – well done, that’s 25/25 but you will never score higher than this. There is another 75 points in this exam that you haven’t answered yet. You need to find out ‘what is the % weight that formulary/prescribing advisers give to the ‘testosterone story’ – once you have this value, you know how important it is.

9.30am: Meeting with Obs & Gynae Consultant / re: Formulary Application
This should be quick. We’ve recently put on some pessaries to our formulary. Obs and gynae want to use them in difficult/pre-specified labour/delivery situations. Now the company has whipped over a freezer to their unit. Yes, they are stored in the freezer, and no, before you ask, I don’t know whether we defrost before use or just pop them into our patients freezing cold. Have had a discussion about this with my wife over dinner, she is also a pharmacist – not a good move. Anyway, I’ve been firm but clear. The pharmacy doesn’t have a freezer, we need to discuss with the company about a freezer. There will be no prescribing of this new product within the Trust until we resolve the ‘freezer’ issue. All credit to the company, supportive they are, quick to respond they have been and, as I write, and you read, one of my staff is coordinating logistics around this. This is a classic example of simple supportive strategy. I looked back at the minutes of our D&T Form and smiled to myself… “accepted onto formulary, pending freezer.”

Omar Ali is the Formulary Development Pharmacist for Surrey & Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust & sits on the External Reference Group for Cost Impact Modelling for NICE. He may be reached on omar.ali@sash.nhs.uk

It’s now over a month since the Government published its revisions to the Health and Social Care Bill. Those revisions will soon be debated in Parliament as MPs re-evaluate the legislation. Crunch time is fast approaching. And assuming that the wreckage of the phone hacking scandal has been cleared from the nation’s front pages, it’s safe to assume that Andrew Lansley’s apparently radical overhaul of the NHS will yet again face great media scrutiny.

Current commentary suggests that the redrawn plans have created confusion where there was once fleeting clarity. One senior pharma industry leader used Viz-like profanities to describe the shift from focused GP Consortia to broader Clinical Commissioning Groups. Pharma’s key customer-base has been a moving target for many years. Just when it threatened to narrow and become clearer, it moved again. The BMA, who pushed for change, is now seeking assurances that the revisions aren’t simply a case of ‘turning a pig’s breakfast into a dog’s dinner.’

DH attempts to clarify the transition to a new landscape through the creation of SHA clusters – however sensible and necessary – will undoubtedly add to the short-term confusion. For those inside the NHS, and those selling into it.

 

Chris Ross, Editor

The latest issue of Pharmaceutical Field can be found online. iPad and iPhone users can download the free Pf App.