A MUST READ FOR ALL IN PHARMA SALES!!!!

Anonymous

Guest
By Tom Norton | Published: January 29, 2014, PharmExec Direct
2014: End of the Road for the American Rx Salesperson?
“The only thing you’ve got in this world is what you can sell.” Willy Loman Death of a Salesman
During my years with two major U.S. pharmaceutical companies, some of the most interesting individuals I got to know were field salespersons. Certainly one of my favorites was a gentleman I met early in my career. He had achieved “master salesperson” status with the firm and had amassed a sales record few could rival. When I occasionally did a professional “tag along” with him in the field, just listening to his banter with doctors was more than worth the trip.
His entire being was centered on “the sale” — the presentation, the response to objections, and the closing of the deal with “his doctor”. To me, his handling of these encounters was just this side of magical. It was rare that he didn’t make the sale and he frequently told me, “There’s no better job in the world than being a drug salesperson. I just love the hunt”…which was how he saw his Rx sales work.
That, of course, is not the situation today for the American Rx salesperson. The “hunt” is pretty much done. Overall, and based on the pharmaceutical sales layoffs of the last 36 months, it appears that fewer than 60,000 Rx representative positions exist in the U.S. today. This is down from well over 100,000 in 2006 (http://goo.gl/fF8Kci ). Indeed, Lilly announced less than a year ago that it was laying off 1/3 of its entire sales force (http://goo.gl/S5G4xU ).
There are, of course, several causes for the rapidly declining numbers of sales reps. Lost patents on major drugs; the rise of managed care; and the steadily growing resistance of physicians who refuse to see “magical” representatives like my old friend are certainly contributing factors.
But if the past few years have been difficult for the American drug sales personnel, 2014 may shape up as the year that the dying breed known as the “pharmaceutical salesperson” really begins its slow walk into extinction. The one-two punches of Obamacare, as well as the rapid rise of the “private employer health exchanges” could spell the end of this career designation, once and for all. Here’s why…
Obamacare and the Rx Salesperson
As most of us realize by now, Obamacare for all its chaos and uncertainty, is very likely to become a lasting reality on the American healthcare scene. If this premise is true, as I pointed out in an earlier article (http://goo.gl/4iGeyy ), we should understand that the underlying concept of Obamacare is “less is more”…That is, Obamacare is spreading out the current service that is “American healthcare” by clipping off the quality & quantity of care at the top of healthcare and using that “excess” to provide, for the first time, basic healthcare at the bottom…In so doing, Obamacare maintains that it increases and provides “more” care for more citizens in the United States. “Less really is more” is the line of thinking.
And if less is more, how is the U.S. drug industry to be impacted? It’s really quite simple. On the healthcare cost-of-operating spreadsheet, the expense for Rx care, as with all healthcare services, must be reduced. How is that to be achieved? In the case of prescription drugs, fewer brand name drugs are being provided; most Rx drugs that are being prescribed are generic; and all drugs, whether brand or generic, are being subjected to dramatic demands for discounted pricing by the insurers who are providing the prescription drugs through either the state or federal exchanges.
Where does the Rx salesperson fit into this scenario? First, it is not hard to see that if eventually 30
million Americans are receiving their Rx services through an Obamacare insurance program, the opportunity to “present, respond, and close the deal” is very likely going to be limited…if ever provided.
This is because the public exchanges are working through very limited offerings that each insurance provider has assembled for the four “metal” classes of care (http://goo.gl/19hbCP ) that are being provided to the public. The idea of a salesperson walking the halls of say, Aetna Insurance, to “close the deal” for the Aetna “bronze level” of care in the California exchange ( http://goo.gl/3CIW5H ) is just not the reality of 2014. If anything, Aetna is likely communicating with that salesperson’s pharmaceutical headquarters, indicating the drug categories that Aetna intends to offer in California’s various programs, and is requesting bids from the Rx company to determine if there is anything further to discuss. The Rx firm dealing with California will engage the insurer via a very limited number of specialized company negotiators. Thousands of sales field force reps pounding the pavement will have nothing to do with the outcome.
This scenario is being played out across America this year. As Obamacare slowly finds its equilibrium, the cold, hard fact of where this new public health plan will leave the traditional drug salesperson is becoming quite clear. That is, they simply are not be needed.
Private Employer Health Exchanges
But as the state and federal exchanges operating under Obamacare quietly close opportunities for Rx salespersons, another concept, potentially even more impactful than the public operations, has quickly become a major player in the life of Rx salespersons in this country. This is the healthcare concept known as the “Private Employer Health Exchange”.
Not heard of this? Check this out: On January 1, 2014, more than 330,000 employees from companies like Sears, Darden Restaurants, Walgreens, and many others began utilizing the services of an employer health exchange (http://goo.gl/YRl4Or ). And according to Buck Consultants another 400,000 private employees were just added to their private health exchange offering (http://goo.gl/2WNYfI ). In fact, as all of the new private exchange participants are tallied over the next three years, it’s expected they will be running about even with the Obamacare signups – i.e., about 30 million. If true, that would still leave another 140 million privately insured “defined benefit” employees who could potentially be brought into the private health exchange concept in the future (http://goo.gl/W8xXi4).
How do the private employer health exchanges work? Unlike the public exchanges in Obamacare, each employee is actually given a “defined contribution” or amount of money to “buy” their healthcare needs. The employee will then be provided with a series of insurance options offered through entities like Aon Hewitt, Mercer, etc. The employee then chooses the best healthcare option that the employee can buy from the stipend provided.
Why is this so suddenly so popular with employers? Because unlike the “defined benefit” healthcare approach that has been utilized since the end of World War II, the “defined contribution” literally puts a cap on healthcare spending for the employer. In short, it saves money.
And how does this work for the employee? Specifically in the area of Rx drugs, as with the Obamacare approach, the employees are experiencing limited formularies, which although perhaps a bit “richer” than those being offered under Obamacare, are none the less, reduced brand name offerings versus those that the employees were receiving under “defined benefit” plans.
These also feature large numbers of generics in their formularies. The thinking here is that for employees who have become more cost conscious of their healthcare spending due to the “defined contribution”, using more generics will be accepted. This type of consumer attitude will obviously reduce the number of brand name products dispensed in private health exchanges.
Which brings us back to our American Rx salesperson. How do these folks fare under this rapidly expanding private care scenario? As with Obamacare, not well. Firms like Mercer and their competitors certainly are not making time for drug sales presentations from individual reps as they design the Rx offerings they are creating for the employers and insurers. Once again, the “sales” of drugs to these massive “defined contribution” options is being undertaken by specialized Rx headquarters groups who carefully calibrate and bundle the best possible packages their firms can offer in an attempt to win large chunks of business from these private health exchanges.
Obviously, there is no place for the Rx salesperson in this scenario. None.
The End of the Road for Rx Sales in the U.S.
Given all of the above, it does appear to be just about the end of the road for Rx sales in the U.S. One-on-one sales, if occurring at all, now appear to be trending towards digital Skype presentations, or You Tube videos that a physician can watch whenever convenient (http://goo.gl/MSTweY ). In many of these formats, the doctor can actually access a “sales rep” to question some aspect of an Rx product. It’s similar to what we do when we contact an Amazon rep with a question about a sweater purchase. In short, there are no “real sales people” involved. Only Rx telemarketers.
So, my favorite old sales friend, who is now retired and spends his days caning antique chairs, no doubt wouldn’t recognize the Rx “hunt” of today. Of course, it still exists. It’s just that the mechanisms used to accomplish the goals of the hunt have changed. Prescription drug companies are still making sales, and are still making profits, if greatly diminished as compared to the halcyon days in the 1990’s and early 2000’s…
But the days of the selling by a “Willy Loman” like Rx sales “magician” would appear to be over. Replaced instead by digital algorithms, reams of user analytics, and highly trained pharmaceutical employees — who probably couldn’t artfully answer a physician’s “objection” if they heard one.
 












Great article and so true. The future pharmaceutical field "sales" force will consist of low paid customer service reps who do nothing more than distribute samples and drop off the occasional patient education piece and who will not even be allowed to engage in any kind of clinical discussion with a customer. The sad part is, that 20 years ago, the pharma companies held the cards in that they controlled their products and how they were marketed because customers wanted and needed useful therapies for their patients. Then, as an industry, they began to shoot themselves in the foot.

In the 90's the "me too" phenomenon took off when companies realized that, instead of truly innovating and developing new mechanisms of action and unique solutions to customers, they could make enormous short-term profits by changing an insignificant segment on an existing molecule give them a "unique" product that used the same mechanism of action and had the same safety profile and efficacy rates as every other drug in the class. I remember selling Zestril when there were at least a dozen branded ace inhibitors on the market and this was happening in every class of drug for almost every therapeutic area.

This lead to the insane idea, propagated by so-called experts (consulting firms), of share of voice, which brought us armies of sales forces, with 10 or more reps from every company calling on the same customer. When this wasn't enough the late 90's also brought the advent of DTC advertising, marketing abuses inherent with large under trained sales forces and advances in electronic communication that offered customers access to information without the need of seeing any of the dozens of drug reps lined up in their waiting room. How many of us are ashamed of this industry when we have to, with our children, sit through a commercial that discusses erectile dysfunction or dryness during intercourse during prime time? Or that idiotic Go Crestor! guy? Is it any wonder we were losing credibility and pissing off our constituency?

With all of this going on, insurers had no choice but to begin to limit their formularies as a way to try to control premiums and the insurance companies gained more power in the marketplace. Government control, while always being a factor with Medicaid, the VA, FDA and DEA, grew exponentially with the introduction of Medicare Part D in the early 00's. Governmental pressure also played a role in the development of the Pharma guidelines for product marketing, which drastically limited the scope of marketing and sales activities and made the job of a pharma rep less relevant even as companies continued their hiring frenzy in the interest of greater share of voice. Oh, and by the way, Medicare Part D is proof that Republicans believe in big government intervention and control every bit as much as the Democrats do. But I digress. Now we are faced with the reality do Obamacare and the certain eventuality of a single payer system which will signal the end of the industry as we know it, the end of innovation in truly new products, and the end of thousands and thousands of high paying careers in the industry.

All the while, our leadership was constantly saying things like "we believe this is a good thing as it will drastically expand our potential market", or "we sant to participate in the negotiation process because we feel that if you don't have a seat at the table, you'll end up being served as the main course".

And now we don't hold any cards. The insurers hold some and the government holds the rest, because for the last 20 years, while Rome was burning all around them, industry leadership refused to take a stand and like Nero 2000 years ago, fiddled.
 












The majority of massive health issues; hypertension, diabetes etc can be treated in 75%+ of patients with cheap generics. The future of pharma sales is orphan type drugs, where the number of reps is very small. The target audience is small, prices are high to justify any size salesforce. Small molecule, blockbuster drugs for large population diseases will become the exception not the rule.
 




Small, highly specialized rep is the future, 1 guy or gal covering the entire state, calling on a few research hospitals or the 8 doctors in the state that even see the disease state.. no more 14 reps covering 130 target docs...do the math it, future not's bright for high priced reps (sure contract reps / part time dropping a message/coupon and some samples will be around to cover PC world but making half of what you are today)
 




How about we start by dropping FWA? Ridiculous. 60% work and full benefits. Yes, I realize they get paid less but really? What are we taking here in difference? Not much. They are in the way and think they are special and the world revolves around their schedule. Go work at Starbucks if you want to not have a full time job with full benefits.
 




As others have said, between Private Employer Health Exchanges and Obamacare, the need for pharma sales reps will be dramatically reduced, if not eliminated. Yes, if this isn't our wake up call for a Plan B, I don't know what would be.
 




We are ALREADY NOT needed. Think about it. What do we do all day? If I see two doctors where there is a meaningful "sales" conversation I am lucky. Usually it is some busy hallway or office where they want to sign and I'd better get out or get tossed out. Docs rarely come to lunches anymore. Some hate the Sunshine Act. So, they do not even come to programs. When you have no client access, you have no job left. If you ask me I think that the new healthcare is just the final nail in pharma's coffin. Very sad days. The job is all but worthless at this point. Those lucky enough to ride it out until retirement will be the most fortunate (less than five years to go). The rest of us better find something else to do.
 




yep, the 3 folks in home office negotiating a formulary win with a big insurer are worth more than 400 reps in the field.

The Sunshine Act will be another nail in the coffin for access. Remember when all the new HIPPA laws came into affect? Had a lot of offices use that as excuse to close access (or the offices that literally built a glass wall between pt. area and where the rep stood to 'see' the doc. thru the glass sign for samples-made a lot of quality calls in those places....call notes read: doctor X seemed impressed with biz card and samples on counter, gave a vigorous wave and nod to me as he signed.)
 




Now for all of you women out there who voted Obama, you've won the so-called war on women and sacrificed your means of income in the process.

HA--looks like I made the right move; voted for Obama and got a job outside pharma that's working for me quite well, thank you. Big Pharma was going down the tubes long before Obamacare was even a thought, but many of you are so entrenched in this dying industry and evil company and so lazy, you can't see the signs, and will end up staying there until you're shoved out the door. Then what? Rely on your Republican buddies for extended unemployment? Not hardly.
 




Then what? Rely on your Republican buddies for extended unemployment? Not hardly.

I agree with you 100%. We need to rely on the Democrats for extended unemployment and a healthcare system that was buddy buddy with medical insurance companies making mandatory medical insurance at greater expense than many private and with services carved out that you may not need.
 




Private Employer Health exchanges + Obamacare= 0 need for pharma reps. If this becomes as big as the article predicts, then nobody can blame pharma for getting rid of the vast majority of sales reps. If you haven't read the article, you need to.
 




yep, the 3 folks in home office negotiating a formulary win with a big insurer are worth more than 400 reps in the field.

The Sunshine Act will be another nail in the coffin for access. Remember when all the new HIPPA laws came into affect? Had a lot of offices use that as excuse to close access (or the offices that literally built a glass wall between pt. area and where the rep stood to 'see' the doc. thru the glass sign for samples-made a lot of quality calls in those places....call notes read: doctor X seemed impressed with biz card and samples on counter, gave a vigorous wave and nod to me as he signed.)


Now that is funny as I look back on my career as a PSS!! How I wanted to type that message on my NorthStar that was wrapped in electrical tape to keep it intact after those fat-assed nurses dropped it over 20 times!!!!
 




Great article and so true. The future pharmaceutical field "sales" force will consist of low paid customer service reps who do nothing more than distribute samples and drop off the occasional patient education piece and who will not even be allowed to engage in any kind of clinical discussion with a customer. The sad part is, that 20 years ago, the pharma companies held the cards in that they controlled their products and how they were marketed because customers wanted and needed useful therapies for their patients. Then, as an industry, they began to shoot themselves in the foot.

In the 90's the "me too" phenomenon took off when companies realized that, instead of truly innovating and developing new mechanisms of action and unique solutions to customers, they could make enormous short-term profits by changing an insignificant segment on an existing molecule give them a "unique" product that used the same mechanism of action and had the same safety profile and efficacy rates as every other drug in the class. I remember selling Zestril when there were at least a dozen branded ace inhibitors on the market and this was happening in every class of drug for almost every therapeutic area.

This lead to the insane idea, propagated by so-called experts (consulting firms), of share of voice, which brought us armies of sales forces, with 10 or more reps from every company calling on the same customer. When this wasn't enough the late 90's also brought the advent of DTC advertising, marketing abuses inherent with large under trained sales forces and advances in electronic communication that offered customers access to information without the need of seeing any of the dozens of drug reps lined up in their waiting room. How many of us are ashamed of this industry when we have to, with our children, sit through a commercial that discusses erectile dysfunction or dryness during intercourse during prime time? Or that idiotic Go Crestor! guy? Is it any wonder we were losing credibility and pissing off our constituency?

With all of this going on, insurers had no choice but to begin to limit their formularies as a way to try to control premiums and the insurance companies gained more power in the marketplace. Government control, while always being a factor with Medicaid, the VA, FDA and DEA, grew exponentially with the introduction of Medicare Part D in the early 00's. Governmental pressure also played a role in the development of the Pharma guidelines for product marketing, which drastically limited the scope of marketing and sales activities and made the job of a pharma rep less relevant even as companies continued their hiring frenzy in the interest of greater share of voice. Oh, and by the way, Medicare Part D is proof that Republicans believe in big government intervention and control every bit as much as the Democrats do. But I digress. Now we are faced with the reality do Obamacare and the certain eventuality of a single payer system which will signal the end of the industry as we know it, the end of innovation in truly new products, and the end of thousands and thousands of high paying careers in the industry.

All the while, our leadership was constantly saying things like "we believe this is a good thing as it will drastically expand our potential market", or "we sant to participate in the negotiation process because we feel that if you don't have a seat at the table, you'll end up being served as the main course".

And now we don't hold any cards. The insurers hold some and the government holds the rest, because for the last 20 years, while Rome was burning all around them, industry leadership refused to take a stand and like Nero 2000 years ago, fiddled.

This is the best and most accurate post on this board in the past 5 years. Damn, I troll two other CP boards, and this blows anything I've read on those two boards in the recent past. If I may add a bit more detail to your 3rd paragraph: the consulting firms used to come up with that reach and frequency model in the mid 90s were ZS Consulting and Boston Consulting Group. I was doing an internship at my first company and sat in on some "post-meeting" meetings, s to speak. I dared to voice my opinion that a) everyone else would copy us and add many sales forces, thereby eliminating any so-called advantage, and b) physicians would not like the idea of 4-7 reps calling on them for the same "me-too" drug.

You also forgot to speak about the "dumbing down" of the field force that became necessary when everyone was quadrupling the size of their field forces. For example, when I started with my first company 25 years ago, and I remember my training class being loaded with grads from two military academies, U Michigan, Cornell, UNC-Chapel Hill, U Virginia, UCLA, U Texas- Austin, and TCU. The people that came in with experience were high school teachers, nurses, Jr Military Officers, chemists, and IBM and GE sales techs. Does that sound like the training classes of post-2000?

The great majority of medical journals and blogs that speak at about our industry have almost nothing good to say. Yes, they appreciate that we crank out some good meds, but they can not deal with our marketing practices any longer. And guess what THAT means?
 




Give me one rep, maybe two per territory. No reach and frequency bullshit, let them own their territory and find the business. give them a small base of 24k with decent benefits and car. Let the commission plan be well thought out and uncapped. Top earners could make 150k with good skills and dedication, screw the fat.

THAT is a proper sales model

dump ZS
 




Mmm, doubt that works with the consultants model and you probably don't have anyone remaining at AZ who could really make sense of it (or willing to take such risk) as it's been so long since they've had to think and make those kind of decisions.
 




My training when I joined specialty biotech 17 years ago was three months of study and memorizing 147 studies plus several PIs. This is a far cry from the message responding today.