The Government needs to do more to support life sciences in the UK and create an environment where the industry can flourish, a new survey has found.

RSA’s The UK Life Sciences Leaders’ Survey 2011 revealed worries over the NHS reforms, medicine pricing and reimbursement, employment issues and the cost of research amongst its leaders.

Nick Stephens, CEO of RSA, says the Government “urgently needs to do more to ensure that education, regulation, access to medicines and the NHS research base align to support the industry’s continued contribution to the UK economy”.

The report is the second annual survey of industry bosses. Last year the general feeling was of optimism with leaders believing the recently elected coalition Government would improve the business environment.

But twelve months later the mood has changed with results finding leaders claim the UK is not competing effectively globally, creating opportunities for early phase/smaller companies or making the most of its unique selling points: the NHS and skills in innovation and discovery.

Leaders also raised concerns about the increasing cost of working in the UK, the implication of R&D as a result of the NHS reforms, the regulatory burden on operations and the process from development to market. They also advised that fiscal and tax incentives should be given to SMEs to help their growth and the UK compete globally.

Worries were also raised about the introduction of value-based pricing. However, in contrast, health technology assessments were broadly welcomed as a means of enhancing value and meeting therapeutic requirements, the report found.

During the tough economic environment, the survey found that leaders would focus on innovation, creating flexible organisations and processes, and refocusing research and development to weather the current storm.

In a perfect world, leaders revealed they would investing in R&D and make the healthcare sector, regulatory and commercial environment work closer together to achieve better outcomes for patients and the pharmaceutical industry.

Stephen Whitehead, CEO, ABPI, says the survey shows more support is needed for biopharmaceutical companies in the ever-changing NHS. “There is much that the Government has done to support the industry, particularly through the Growth Review and the Office for Life Sciences,” he said. “But we need to build on this as part of a continuing relationship with NHS and Government to explore how unnecessary bureaucracy can be eliminated from the healthcare system so that new treatments can reach patients as quickly as possible.”

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.

The Government has claimed people who ignore receiving the seasonal flu vaccine are playing “Russian roulette with their lives”.

A DH survey found that 87% of holidaymakers get the necessary injections to combat tropical diseases, but separate figures reveal that less than half under-65s advised to get the flu jab were vaccinated.

Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, says there is “no reason not to get vaccinated” and urged those eligible to get the jab as soon as possible.

Pregnant women, patients with long-term conditions such as diabetes and asthma, and anyone with a neurological condition can get the vaccination free of charge.

Frontline health and social care workers, carers, pensioners and those in nursing homes are also encouraged to get vaccinated. But the survey found that only a third of frontline doctors and nurses opted to have the flu jab last winter.

More than 600 people died with flu in Britain last year, the majority of whom were young or middle aged. But the Chief Medical Officer says this number could be reduced if people took just a matter of minutes to get vaccinated.

“A five-minute appointment to have the flu jab could save your life,” said Professor Davies. “Flu can be a serious illness – particularly for those in at risk groups. It can result in a spell in hospital, and sadly, flu can kill. The best way to protect yourself is to be vaccinated.

“It takes five to ten days for the vaccine to take effect so I’d urge everyone in an at risk group to get vaccinated as soon as they are able.”

The National Director of Immunisation, Professor David Salisbury, added that it was equally as important to be covered against tropical diseases as it is the flu and the sooner they do the better.

“It is very important that people in these groups get vaccinated early in the flu season so they are protected before flu starts to circulate.

“About three-quarters of older people get their flu vaccine each year, but only around half of younger people in at risk groups get vaccinated. Seasonal flu is not the same as getting a cold – it can seriously affect your health.”

In response to the Independent Pharmacy Federation’s (IPF) survey, which noted Eli Lilly amongst the top three pharma companies to present the greatest difficulties in obtaining medicine supplies, a spokesperson for Lilly UK issued the below statement:

“Lilly is committed to ensuring that UK patients have access to our medicines and consequently distributes more than sufficient medicine to meet UK demand, through our direct to pharmacy distribution system.”

This is administered by two Logistic Services Providers (LSPs) and backed up by an emergency service; whereby a pharmacy can phone Lilly direct on our free phone number 0800 012 1178 and we will arrange a delivery at the next available opportunity – typically within 24 hours.”

Lilly UK is confident that our direct to pharmacy procedures provide a good and robust service to patients and pharmacists and adheres to the joint guidance: “Best Practice for Ensuring the Efficient Supply and Distribution of Medicines to Patients” and “Trading Medicines for Human Use: Shortages and Supply Chain Obligations”, issued by the Department of Health (DH).”

While we continually review and update our own procedures to ensure that every UK patient has access to our medicines, the difficulties experienced in providing consistent supply of medicines have been acknowledged by the DH as being caused - at least in part – by product diversion.”

For Lilly, one of our specific concerns is around the diversion of olanzapine (Zyprexa). This is likely to be a significant contributing factor in the IPF’s findings due to the impact these shortages have.”

We encourage the IPF to lend its support to driving adoption of the recent Department of Health guidelines and as well as sharing the results and methodology of its survey with us directly so that we may better understand their findings.”

Click here to read the original story.

Pharmacists have identified Pfizer, Sanofi and Eli Lilly as the pharma companies that present the greatest difficulties in obtaining medicine supplies.

One-in-four (27%) pharmacists questioned in a survey by the Independent Pharmacy Federation (IPF) indicated Lilly as the most problematic, with 13% voting Sanofi and 12% naming Pfizer.

More than half (59%) of pharmacists said that more than five of their patients were affected by drug shortages in the past week.

The shortage has caused “real difficulties” says Fin McCaul, chair of the IPF, who hit out at manufacturers saying that pharmaceutical companies need to solve the problem.

Half of the pharmacists claimed they were spending up to three hours every week trying to obtain supplies from alternative sources.

“We cannot afford for pharmacists to be wasting three or four hours each week on this exercise when they need to be spending more time developing services for patients,” added Mr McCaul.

Stephen Whitehead, chief executive of the ABPI said: “Current challenges in the supply chain cannot be solved in isolation and will only be addressed by all healthcare partners working collaboratively to find an appropriate solution”.

The survey questioned more than 500 independent pharmacists. The IPF was originally set up in 2006 but was relaunched in June this year. The Federation has noted that independent pharmacies now account for 40% of the sector.

Click here to read Eli Lilly’s response to the survey.