What Do Drugs And Ketchup Have In Common?
35 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 20th, 2008 // 11:52 am
These are both products where key accounts can be targeted. At least that’s how Joe Jimenez sees it. Named last October to head the Novartis pharma biz after a managerial shake-up, Jimenez spent eight years as an exec at HJ Heinz, peddling ketchup, among other things.
And so he’s spent the past few months running pilot projects in such places as Minnesota, Washington and Oregon, trying to develop closer relations with insurers. He also wants to involve payers in new-drug development, so payers are being asked for feedback on experimental meds to see what sort of evidence of efficacy and value the payer would need in order to cover a drug.
In some markets, reps will call on payers more often, bringing data to show how drugs are worth their price tags. That’s because many docs work for HMOs that decide which drugs docs can prescribe, based on cost and effectiveness. Jimenez tells The Wall Street Journal this is “key account management,” which is how a packaged-goods company views its relationship with a retailer.
Just turn the bottle upside down and pour.
Marilyn Mann
As an anonymous commenter said about the poem “Dover Beach,” by Matthew Arnold,
well i think this poem is about a certin scenario that we all face in life, its when u look in the fridge and cant find the ketchup, u will stare at the door for like 5 min but u cant find it. We all have experienced this and matthew arnold summed it up for all of us. but that is just my opinion. i like to call it the ‘ketchup sindrom” it really is a [censored], you will want it so bad and u will look and look and look but never find it. Then the next day u will look in the fridge for some milk and the god-damn ketchup will be laughing at u
http://www.eliteskills.com/c/5136
Chris
Any company should look after its customers well regardless of industry; pharma, consumer, food etc included. What he’s doing is good business. I think the bigger issue is how will he survive/thrive in pharma? Following JK at Pfizer and others from outside there seems to be a mixed rate of success adapting. Will be watching.
Just A Thought
Ahhh to be on this panel…
He also wants to involve payers in new-drug development, so payers are being asked for feedback on experimental meds to see what sort of evidence of efficacy and value the payer would need in order to cover a drug
Angry
Novartis will be selling used cars before it’s all said and done.
BPW
Not much, but that’s the way Big Pharma has operated for the past 8-10 years. It used to be different, but now they approach the marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products as if they were consumer goods. They don’t accept that they work in a regulated industry and that’s why they pay no attention to the rules. One cheat, two cheat, three cheat, four - it has gone way too far. The corruption runs very deeply in the industry. Until the government really reigns these characters in and holds them accountable, there will be no change. If there is no change, price controls will be forced upon the industry.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Interesting approach to marketing, but seriously flawed.
Patients are not willing consumers.
So, not only does there need to be complete disclosure for Doctors, there also should be the same disclosure for HMO’s and insurance co’s. The patients needs to know who has been invited to anyone’s advisory panel.
There needs to be complete transparency. Until there is then this has got to be called for what it is - unethical.
It is very inappropriate to exclude any information at all from the patient and this is exactly what will happen in this set up.
About the idea that the drugs are really worth their price tags. The format that Novartis follows for pricing their drugs has nothing to do with cost of mfg and bringing the drug to market. Rather, they ask arbitrary questions and create imaginary scenarios that fits the price they have in mind.
What they are really doing is costing out what that disease market segment is really worth in terms of providing research funding, CME, and sponsoring conferences and not to mention paying off lobbyists and patient groups. In effect, the price is calculated to factor in the cost of “buying” the entire market segment. This allows them to fill up their war chests and block competitors from entering the market and eating some of their lunch. They wind up “owning” all the research and preventing real research that could actually improve the quality of life of patients.
In the end it has nothing to do with the patient and it is all just business, so hopefully the patients will not take it too personally when the proverbial house of cards comes apart as it inevitably always does.
I never actually bought Heinz Ketchup, preferring the generic brands of course…
Atlex
FPME,
Every time you post, you prove to those of us who are in pharma that you are clueless about pharmaceutical marketing or marketing, in general. As any observant marketer knows (no matter the industry), pricing is hardly based solely on manufacturing costs and R&D costs. Are they factors–sure. Value and willingness to pay are just as critical. Learning about the wants and needs of your supply chain and your customers and finding the best way to deliver on thatvalue is critical.
In this instance, Novartis is trying to work with payers (those at risk for the costs of care) to identify areas where Novartis can deliver additional value. By working with health plans to target certain high cost, underserved diseases and conditions, Novartis improves its chances of bring to market products that will get reimbursed. I’m sure that it is also exploring other ways to enhance vlaue (and improve product sales)–collaborations to improve adherence; diabetes screening, etc. Not only is this a good marketing practice, it helps address signficant healthcare needs.
Atlex
Current and Up-to-Date Pharmaceutical Marketing Exec
Jack2
FPME: It is very inappropriate to exclude any information at all from the patient and this is exactly what will happen in this set up.
…like off-label efficacy information? I mean full-disclosure is full disclosure right?
Jack2
Exactly Atlex.
Despite the high profile cases outline on this blog, *most* of the time pharma gets in trouble it’s for saying too much (off-label promotion), or overstating benefits, not for saying too little about safety. There’s a bit more leeway in what you can say to a payer than what you can say to an HCP. What you can say to an HCP is very strictly regulated. Most companies wish their reps could actively talk about every study the company (and academia) ever ran.
The fact that you immediately allude to hidden safety data tells me you are not steeped in the day-to-day routine of pharma and instead draw your pharma experience from something other than your job.
Matt
Safety not hidden? Give me a break! This is by far the most damaging of all of Big Pharma’s marketing practices! They don’t want any whisper about any side effects to get out or they may suffer “market share reduction.” Think fen/phen, Vioxx, Avandia, Rispedal, Zyprexa, etc., etc., etc. These types of conscious ommissions are incredibly disgusting and will cause more trouble for the company down the road. If you examine evrytime this has happened in the past 10 years, I will bet you that a commercial person was behind the decision and made it for “business” reasons. Hide it, make lots of money, allow it to be discovered whenever the medical community gets around to it, pay a fine and avoid any responsibility, go and do the same again and again and again.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Altex,
Your bias never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps I hit a nerve? Pharma marketing at Novartis are we?
This is a marketing gambit aimed at strong arming to get what they want. The last thing in the world on the mind of marketing person working on this project at this point in time is how to better serve the patient.
I know this area very well.
Atlex
FPME,
If you know this so well, prove it. What are your credentials? Be specific. Let others decide if you have legitimate experience or not. What’s your academic background? MBA? Major school or Podunk U.? How long were you in pharma marketing? At a major company or small shop? You’ve touted yourself as an expert. Now prove it.
Atlex
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Altex, so it is Novartis…Thanks for sharing, speaks volumes…
Ivy league and major company….
Lisa Van S
Atlex,
Novartis,.. hmmm. Ritalin/Focalin XR. Gee,.. we wouldnt want to miss an opportunity to increase sales by medicating Foster Care Children at the expense of the NJ Taxpayer.
Atlex
Lisa,
I promise you, I don’t work at Novartis. I stepped forward to defend the approach to key customer marketing that is discussed in the WSJ article. I haven’t commented on its marketing of specific products because I don’t know enough about them.
By the way, my point still stands and remains uncontested. FPME exaggerates his knowledge and understanding of pharmaceutical marketing.
Atlex
Lisa Van S
Atlex,
I know FPME’s identity and resume,.. and for what its worth, I find it quite impressive.
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Atlex,
You MORON! Why would you stay here and argue with these uneducated people. You have been here too long. I am always impressed with your comments, and they are on target. But why waste your valuable time on people who will never see the reality of what pharma truly is?
BTW, I have seen LVS resume - it is barren and unimpressive. So I am not sure she is in the proper position to comment on other’s education.
Former marketing exec - please post your class picture online for proper verification. Oh yeah, enjoy your golden parachute as you now bite the hand that feeds you.
Atlex
M. Scott,
I don’t appreciate your personal comment, but I agree that I shouldn’t waste my time on some of these discussions. Unfortunately, my frustration with people who think they know a lot more than they do sometimes outweighs my better instinct.
Atlex
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Yeah, now that I actually read the article my comment is “WHAT?!?!”. I know I don’t have the experience and resume of former pharma marketing exec - I mean I graduated from Big 10 and Big 12 schools all the way thru not Ivy League. But I was a clinician for 10 years and now in pharma for 5. And this is exactly the area I have been involved for those 5 years.
Ed, really, just because a ketchup guy endorses this approach doesn’t make it new and exciting. I guess guys who know how to sell ketchup are smarter than most people. Give me a call, I used to sell jeans in the mall when I was in high school and I endorse this approach as well. It isn’t rocket science I assure you, and EVERYONE does it. As Atlex comments as a current up to date marketing exec., this is what we do. It isn’t bad and makes sense. It isn’t forcing docs to write for drugs, that is the physician’s call. It is getting meds paid for if they are written.
And if you are eating generic ketchup, you should really find a better area to skimp.
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Atlex,
I certainly said that with a smile on my face as I wrote it. I appreciate you doing what you do on here, but as we have seen it doesn’t change anyone’ mind. You are more patient than I am, I gave up LONG ago. People think pharma is inherently evil, and I actually think I am helping more people now than when I had my little practice going……
I am actually a little upset at Ed, as I left looking at this blog long ago out of pure frustration. Now some of the other stuff I look at links to this site for a few stories. Against better judgement you click on it, the next thing you know it is 1 hour later and all you have done is get frustrated!
Anyway, jumping on a plane to bring some ketchup magic marketing to another insurance plan. Don’t worry Lisa, it isn’t BCBS NJ or NJ medicaid.
Ed Silverman
Hi Scott,
With all due respect, I posted this item because some may find it interesting. Not everyone has a marketing background, an implicit understanding of managed care or understand why Jimenez, specifically, has that view. There was nothing derogatory in the item.
As to your other point, you may not realize it, but there are a large proportion of visitors to this site who work in or with pharma. I know because I see the subscriber lists - some folks use their work emails to sign up - and I have private discussions with many others about topics on that show up here.
The audience and comments do vary, though, depending upon the topic. But by choosing to assume everyone who comments here is ‘uneducated’ is not only inaccurate, but disrespectful. As a result, you may have missed the interesting chats about preemption or the value of cholesterol meds in which numerous industry people and other educated folk participated freely.
I’ve always told people that stopping by this site is like attending a big lawn party, where you have different groups of people simultaneously chatting about different, but related topics. One can flit and make a comment or just stop to listen. Some conversations will strike you as more interesting than others, but there’s a large menu from which to choose. Or one can start a conversation, too.
In any event, I understood quite well why Jimenez offered the analogy. I also have a business background - my bio is posted on the site, but in the interest of full disclosure, it doesn’t note that I once sold shoes in the mall. Perhaps we worked nearby?
Drop me a private note and we can talk anytime. Thanks for stopping by again.
Cheers
ed
Lisa Van S
M.Scott,
Didnt your mother ever teach you, that, those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones?
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Ed, I have to get better at posting sarcasm. You do a good job as a journalist. The fact that you get linked to from other sites is a clear sign that you are coming up with interesting original stories, which in my mind distinguishes you from the other bloggers on the interwebs.
That being said I believe at the very least your commenters skew very heavily antipharma. I gave up the site because I didn’t feel like getting kicked in the groin and frustrated at reading the comments - also I have no self control so I can’t go on this site and just read the articles. The comments on the side always find there way into my view.
I understand the reason for posting the article. But if people believe this is new, that kind of proves my point that they are uneducated. Maybe not in all aspects of life, but if this is new to them they are uneducated on this topic.
I am also trying to understand why this would be a bad thing. The project I am working on right now is for a disease state that has not been touched in 40 years. Why? Because the current treatment works well (and is cheap) for about 90% of sufferers. My job is to figure out what managed care would pay for an improvement in therapy and how hard they would make it for patients to get this therapy. This will determine if it is worthwhile to proceed with development of this compound. Now is this the goal of a clinician, to only treat profitable conditions - no.
It is also part of my job to educate on the clinical benefits (against the risks) and make it a win/win/win for pharma/patients/managed care.
Now before people chime in that this isn’t right, think about it this way. How much have you given to charity this year? Did it cause your household to operate in a negative cash flow situation? Could it jeopardize the jobs of thousands to continue to operate at a loss? Remember, even Goodwill has to make $$$ somewhere. So feel free to post how evil pharma is, but do so after you give all you make to charity and take out loans to give to the United Way.
Glad to hear you were a mall kid as well! Love to go back to those days. Amazing how happy and satisfied I was making $5/hr! Of course having a dozen girls a day ask you if their jeans fit well was a nice fringe benefit as well.
Sorry the post is so long, and again, stop me from wasting all my time here and quit posting articles that get linked - pure sarcasm :)
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
LVS,
my mother died in labor.
Ed Silverman
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the note. One thing I see at this site is that everyone has their specialty, or two. And so a chemist may know something but not everything about patent law, and a congressional investigator may understand certain regulations quite well but not everything about clinical trial design.
As a result, I have to keep in mind that, no matter how bright, educated or experienced the readership may be, some points go right by some people. This particular topic may seem self-explanatory and I agree it isn’t rocket science, but I think the idea that some folks are uneducated because they’re not aware of all things pharma is a misnomer.
Moreover, this post, simple as it may be, does remind people that marketing meds - in this case, to third-party payors - can resemble packaged consumer goods. And since that’s Jimenez’s background and he’s new to the industry, it is worth noting. I know other companies are thinking the same way. Let’s see how they execute, and if they succeed.
As to the discussions, well, as I indicated before, one is free to join in, or not. I’m one of those folks who reads an item somewhere and easily avoids comments when I want. That’s me. But comments or no comments, the posts are designed to stand on their own. And I think they do.
As to the folks who do comment here, I find that many people who work in or with pharma prefer not to engage over concerns it would somehow get back to their employers; that’s what I’m told privately by many people. As a result, the discussions - depending on the topic - may appear skewed, especially if a few people are vociferous.
And yes, some posts generate replies that are, indeed, critical of pharma, although some come from pharma people. How do I know? Well, over time, I’ve communicated off line with some of my visitors. And now and then, someone uses their real name. Others are academics or doctors who may work with pharma, or did in the past, and have yet a different point of view than the marketing exec or angry consumer. So again, there’s a mix in the spectrum.
What sites such as this do is make it possible for people to connect and even communities to form, even as some drop out and are replaced by others over time - like any other group of people. Another similarity - it will be messy and imperfect, but it does create opportunities for learning. What good is a conversation if everyone, more or less, thinks and says virtually the same thing?
By and large, I’ll stick my neck out and say that the vast majority of visitors to this site do seem to want safe, effective and affordable meds that can sustain lives, jobs and investment. Maybe not everyone feels that way, or some are just angry about an experience with a particular drug, so it can appear otherwise. But again, I have a good idea who subscribes and who stops by. Most of the complainers simply seem to want to improve business practices.
As to your own predicament, I wish you luck. Perhaps its a great learning experience that qualifies you for something else down the road. Although I admit that’s not really how I viewed selling shoes, since it was a men’s store and I tired easily of hairy ankles. Still do.
Cheers
ed
James
Ed, I disagree–I want unsafe, ineffective and unaffordable meds that shorten lives, cause unemployment and bankrupt investors.
Why don’t you post more articles on those?
Just A Thought
My mother taught me to try to know a little bit about everything so that I could hold my own in any situation.
Life is a snore for people who are not learning. So I have a (possibly silly) question for M. Scott. Pardon my ignorance.
“Because the current treatment works well (and is cheap) for about 90% of sufferers. My job is to figure out what managed care would pay for an improvement in therapy and how hard they would make it for patients to get this therapy.”
Why would one try to improve on something that works? Why should anyone buy into paying more?
I mean, if it ain’t broke…
One man’s improvement may be another’s disasterous outcome.
Ed Silverman
Oh my. Did I oversimplify again?
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Just a thought,
Great point……. IF you are one of the 90%. If you are one of the ones that life is miserable because that $4 Wal-Mart scrip doesn’t cure your problem I would bet you have a different viewpoint. So my job is to figure out what kind of results have to be reached for those not cured by the $4 scrip. The ones that are helped by the cheap, proven med are not the ones I am worried about. So automatically if we are not worried about 90% of the diseased population, you can bet that it won’t be cheap. Not many companies are trying to find cures for 100,000 people for which they invest $900 million to get $150 million in return. Those companies might have existed, but they are now bankrupt.
If we just worried about the majority, everything in life would be easier and simpler. Care to rethink your position on helping those suffering and in need? I mean if your life is miserable from your disease, why fix it right? I mean if it works for you, why worry about others. 90% is great, unless you are in the minority — I thought sites like this were supposed to look after that small minority. Or is it just bash pharma no matter who they are trying to help?
pg
One of the lines above reminded me of this:
http://pharmagiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-dare-you.html
Chris
pg and Pharma Giles: Initials coincidental?
Just A Thought
Gee, I wasn’t bashing, M. Scott. I wasn’t even attempting to be a smartass.
I am one of the lucky estimated 30%- 40% who would reportedly have troubles on a generic for my specific medication. One who did not benefit from my brand name medication being changed. Quite the opposite, as the changing of that drug forced me to use a generic anyway. The generic was the lessor of three evils after yet another drug landed me in the ER. At the cost of that one you would expect better.
More power to ya if you’re willing to market a medication for 100,000 people who are getting no relief. For me, we just tossed on a couple other drugs and called me good to go. I doubt seriously I will ever feel like I once had, but whatever. The company that made my med didn’t take me into consideration when they changed it.
It’s not simply for the ‘poking at’ of the industry. People do have reason.
Regardless, I appreciate your reply.
pg
Chris: Yes the intitials are pure coincidence.
Which is a shame as ‘Pharma Giles’ is both clever and very funny and I wouldn’t mind being as capable as the author of his/her blog :)
(”Chris
pg and Pharma Giles: Initials coincidental?”)
M. Scott - Dunder Mifflin
Just a thought,
sorry to come off a little rough. Kind of new at these boards and not good at getting my point across. And it struck a nerve as that is the same response I hear quite often. And honestly I am passionate about helping those that need help. I am a clinician by trade, but if I can get everyone signed on to help 100,000 people that are currently suffering I figure that is about as good as my entire career in the clinic.
I apologize for my abrupt response. Have a great day.
pg
It wasn’t at all rough when taking into consideration how it came from the regional manager of Dunder Milflin’s Scranton branch, LOL.