In my earlier post, I have detailed out the current context in terms of global disease prevalence and the opportunity it presents to all the stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem. Which brings me to my question – How does one address these issues of diseases with massive prevalence (and incidence) by tapping into enormous fund pools? – The answer, I believe, is Alliances. The linkages between academia, industry, philanthropic agencies, governments and investors (yes, investors too because for an economy to have a non-linear, paradigm altering growth it needs innovators and investors in equal parts) are extremely critical in creating wave after wave of new opportunities.
Industry – Industry linkages are the common norm in the pharma industry across the value chain (in research, development, manufacturing and marketing). Several instances keep popping up daily in the news (Here)
Also in my earlier blog post (here), I have written about interesting models where academia & philanthropic organizations (MEND); Academia & Government (OSDD by CSIR); Industry & crowd-sourced seed capital (Pink Army Cooperative) have come together to address these highly relevant issues.
One other instance of an alliance that I have recently come in connect with is that of Gilead Sciences (Sales ~ US$ 5.3 Billion (2009); Net Income ~ US$ 2 Billion (2009)). It was among the first few companies to introduce a OD (Omne in Die – Once a day, every day) pill for HIV instead of multiple medications, often intravenous. With tiered pricing for low, middle and high income countries, innovative partnerships with distributors and generic drug manufacturers, Gilead has been able to reach over a million patients (of which about 70% of the patients were from the developing countries). This being said, it is not a surprise that over 84% of the company’s revenues were generated through its top three HIV treatments. (More info on Gilead’s Access Program here)
Bear with me while I emphasize this, in the late 90s and early 2000s, most of the companies have viewed the development of HIV therapies as necessary public service but unprofitable. This has changed due to increasing innovation in development of novel drug delivery mechanisms, lowering of cost and increased market reach. I would like to think this is the result of the aggressive lobbying by donor agencies & foundations but it ultimately happened because it was profitable.
Running a risk of sounding redundant - How does one address these issues of diseases with massive prevalence (and incidence) by tapping into enormous fund pools? – The answer, I believe, is Alliances.
