Janssen’s Chris Hourigan, Pfizer’s David Gallagher, MSD’s Dr Susanne Fiedler and Amgen’s James Priour, participated in a roundtable discussion with PharmaDispatch late last week, uniting in calling for change as the voting period for the Medicines Australia Board election gets underway.
All four are standing for re-election.
According to Janssen’s Hourigan, industry has been too narrowly focused on the PBS and ‘access’, missing an opportunity to articulate a wider story on its value to the Australian economy.
“There is a big opportunity to tell the other side of the story – a more balanced story,” he says, going on to say the industry’s future is inextricably linked to Australia’s post-mining boom prosperity.
“As local managing directors, and based on discussions with other managing directors, we really believe our industry can play a greater role in terms of how we grow the value of the Australian economy.
“Unfortunately, we have not done a great job in how we communicate that, but we have to look ahead and find a way to communicate a positive broader message rather than one focused almost exclusively on access.”
It is a message repeated by Gallagher, Fiedler and Priour, who say the failure to engage stakeholders on industry’s wider contribution to the economy has ironically undermined its ability to secure positive outcomes on access.
“If we had put in the groundwork in recent years, maybe the more recent discussion on PBS reform would have been different, with more stakeholders involved in a conversation about its wider impacts,” says Hourigan.
“One is a logical follow-on from another,” says Pfizer’s Gallagher. “The product conversation naturally follows on from a discussion about the wider environment, but we have to build stakeholder understanding of the complementary nature of these discussions.”
“It’s hard to build an understanding of our value proposition from a singular dialogue,” he adds. “The reality is that most Medicines Australia companies are doing a lot of work with Australian researchers and universities, but what we need to do is communicate that more effectively by clearly joining the dots.”
“Every company has positive examples of how we are advancing the country,” says Hourigan. “J&J is investing significantly in early stage trials in Australia. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Queensland Government on innovation. We have to start talking about what we have done, what else we could be doing, and how Government can support that. Every politician in the country will want to talk about that.”
MSD’s Fiedler laments industry’s tendency to over-complicate its message.
“The recent conversation could have been easier had we done a better job selling our value. Our messages are too complex and not clear – I definitely believe this is one of the reasons we haven’t achieved what we had hoped,” she says.
Priour points to Amgen’s own experience in Australia to highlight the link between the commercial operating environment and the company’s ability to invest.
“Australia in very important for Amgen globally when it comes to clinical trials, ranked third in the world when it comes to the number of trials, but we have to do a better job at explaining to Government the relationship between our ability to continue to invest and the operating environment.
“We currently run clinical trials that enable around 2,000 Australians to have access to innovative medicines, and one third of Amgen Australia's workforce is involved in research and development, which is something we want to maintain and grow, but stakeholders need to understand that, if one element changes, the entire eco-system is potentially compromised,” says Priour.
“We need revenue in order to invest, which is something not everyone appears to understand,” adds Fiedler.
All four back a collaborative relationship with Government, particularly Health Minister Sussan Ley.
“We need to start to listen more and align with our priorities with those of the Minister,” says Fiedler. “I think we can have a more collaborative relationship but that starts with a broader dialogue and our willingness to listen.”
While keen to move on from the unsuccessful negotiation of a strategic agreement, the four say Medicines Australia and the Government came tantalisingly close.
“The back story has not been told,” says Hourigan, who also acknowledges the frustration and even anger across industry.
“We didn’t come to an agreement but it was constructive dialogue and both parties worked really hard,” he says. “The letter of intent was evidence of alignment on a lot of issues, but there were areas we saw as no-go, such as biosimilars. We don’t have predictability, which is far from ideal, but we must focus on the future and remain committed to working with Government.”
“We are contributing over $6 billion in savings across the next five years,” says Priour. “Now, the challenge is to put this behind us – it’s going to be painful and we are going to deal with it, but we have to partner with Government to create the best return for Australia and improve the operating environment for companies, which includes the current listing process.”
Priour adds that Medicines Australia needs to redefine industry’s value proposition, which includes engaging and “listening” to more stakeholders.
“We have to be better at articulating a message that is positive and constructive,” he says.
Gallagher says it is important for Medicines Australia to apply “recent learnings.”
“What is our overall ethos and value proposition to stakeholders? How do we ensure we have an even stronger relationship?” he asks. “Obviously, the Department of Health and Minister are key.”
He adds that it is not be easy going forward but that, as managing directors, they need to carry the responsibility for engaging a wider cross-section of stakeholders.
“We need to work individually and together to broaden our message and make it relevant to more people.”
Fiedler says they are all very proud of being in the pharmaceutical industry and want Australia to benefit from the emerging wave of new biopharmaceutical innovations.
“These are enormous developments across multiple areas, and Australia has the potential to benefit economically and through improved health outcomes, but we need to be clear about what is required from a policy perspective,” she says.
All four point to the need for Medicines Australia to adopt a long term strategic plan that positions industry as a central component in Australia’s economy.
They argue industry must be part of addressing the country’s long-term challenges, whether it be the burden of illness from the ageing population, the Budget deficit or the need to grow innovative industries.
Yet they also argue none of these areas can be considered in isolation of policy support for new medicines.
On the inevitability of another round of reform in 2019 or 2020, Gallagher says Medicines Australia should build towards a negotiation that involves multiple stakeholders, all with a clear understanding of industry’s wider contribution to the economy.
According to Fiedler, the current Medicines Australia Board has started the process of building the new ‘blueprint’ that will be passed onto the new Board, and its successors.
“They will take it forward as they see fit,” adds Gallagher. “That will include consideration of whether MA is currently structured the right way to deliver the vision.”
“We need to be a stakeholder the table,” says Hourigan. “That requires us to have a long term strategic plan that reflects our wider contribution to the economy and clarity around how Government can support that.”
