blogs

by

By Chris Bath, Managing Director at Aurora Healthcare Communications

The world is in shock.

Pandemic ‘recovery’; cost of living crisis; rising inflation and geopolitical instability at an all-time high for a generation. We’re in the middle of a polycrisis, and that’s not all.

Around 1.5 billion people will be going to the polls this year, as significant elections are taking place in more than 50 countries which between them hold almost half of the world’s population. 

Uncertainty, then, is a constant we have come to live with. The result of this, is that we have come to crave something many people shy away from: change.

Global change coming to life science is good for all.

The life science industry, often proving to be resistant to most existential crises and pressure, has faced unprecedented low levels of investment, M&A activity and, as a result, lagging clinical pipelines. 2023 saw the lowest number of clinical trial starts since 2018.

If the world is in shock, the industry needs a shock of its own to ignite the change that innovation needs. This change is round the corner.

‘Pipeline in a product’ therapeutics, along with new and complex modalities, that will transform medicine, and, if given the right access environment, will also necessitate a reset, or change, in how we treat disease. Countries are rapidly standing up modern health systems that can accommodate these new innovations (let’s park capacity for a second, because that’s an altogether different challenge) and this rapid expansion requires genuine global expertise.

According to Deloitte, one of the main reasons why larger biopharma organisations miss their growth targets is because of an inadequate understanding of market dynamics and a complete misunderstanding of customer needs. A shameful finding given the hyperconnected world we live in. In today’s world, there really is no excuse, and change is not being embraced to stay in sync with the world today.

A true worldview and ‘global’ expertise then are paramount. But there really is no such thing as ‘global’ when it comes to life sciences. With every border comes a new culture to embrace, a new set of compliance considerations to consider and a new health system to navigate. The reality is that our work needs to resonate with countries and regions far more diverse than the term ‘Global’ allows.

For global strategy to be a success, you need to think ‘Glocally.’

Overcoming tunnel vision by thinking ‘Glocal’

How we tell stories about breakthrough science and the value this delivers to countries with unmet needs, demands a worldview on a range of issues to make sure medicine gets into the hands of those who need it.

Recent changes to EU regulations (for example, the Clinical Trial Regulation and new Medical Device/IVD Regulation) and other market uncertainties, such as cross-border collaborations and their potential impact on market access, are making it increasingly difficult for biopharma and biotech to forge ahead.

For programmes to resonate (and results to follow), multiculture, diversity and the need to consider all stakeholders in the care pathway are important, and that requires more than just a local presence, it necessitates a true understanding of local market dynamics. That means:

  • Ensuring clinical trial recruitment materials are trans-created, so they not only resonate in-market, but also, they engage sites and recruit patients, and protocols co-designed with patient experience data.
  • Commercial strategies are built with worldwide insight, supporting activities designed to drive uptake of medicines and new technologies through creative-led medical communications.
  • Market access plans need to be shaped with payors years in advance of a commercial launch, and the right data generated through clinical development programs to gain reimbursement.
  • Building global integrated teams that deliver across time zones to deliver at pace with cultural and compliance understanding built in.

As innovation lays a path for companies to expand internationally, we need to re-calibrate our understanding of the needs of nations and regions and people in a way that demands genuine expertise.

Our clients need partners who understand all these challenges, and in fact are purposefully designed to address and embrace them. So, that’s what we’ve built.

A Global vision with local precision

With decades of experience across every region of the globe, we’ve witnessed firsthand how the nuances of local geographies and cultures influence each phase of drug development and commercialisation. These insights have shaped our approach, leading us to create a platform of services that operate in harmony across the globe, delivering results that are truly greater than the sum of their parts.

By integrating solutions from clinical trial enrollment and medical communications to consulting and advertising, we’ve created an ability to take a wide-angle view, offering comprehensive, end-to-end support that spans the entire lifecycle—from early clinical milestones through to launch and global expansion.

This strategic offering is deeply ingrained in our heritage and our long-standing commitment to Global Health Marketing and Communications (GHMC)—the world’s largest network of independent healthcare agencies. Together, we’ve seen the difference a strategic and sensitive approach to multi-market programmes can make, as part of a deep understanding of healthcare across markets, cultures and codes.

As we seek to deliver change, we need to embrace it. And that’s what a truly ‘global’ partner like Spectrum Science is designed to do. If you want to see what this difference looks like, get in touch.

by

This article was authored by CEO of our Canadian partner agency, energiPR, Carol Levine

I’m old enough to remember when house calls were a regular part of healthcare. As a child, my pediatrician would come by to take my temperature, listen to my chest, and write a prescription. That was my first experience being cared for by anyone other than my mother’s home remedies, like chicken soup. 

Canada’s healthcare system has grown vastly more complex since those days. Once lauded as a model of socialized medicine, available to all in exchange for our tax dollars, it is now a system where access can be uneven. The wealthier among us can afford to pay for certain services not covered by public insurance—like faster diagnostic tests or elective surgeries—while many others endure long waits within the public system. 

So, how did we get here? Like many other developed nations, Canada faces significant challenges, including an aging population and the strain COVID-19 placed on the healthcare system and its workers. However, our universal healthcare system, while comprehensive, comes with constraints. These include salary caps for doctors, bureaucratic hurdles, and, in some provinces, limits on operating room time and medical school enrollments. The result is a patchwork of access that often leaves Canadians questioning the system’s fairness. 

Consider Quebec, for example. The province has strict regulations on private healthcare, yet private clinics still exist, offering services like colonoscopies to reduce wait times. However, the provincial government has placed limits on these operations, creating tension between the public and private sectors. Meanwhile, if you can afford upwards of $25,000 CAD for a hip replacement or back surgery, you can seek out private options—though these costs and the availability of services can vary. 

So, when did things start to change? When my family doctor retired a few years ago, I faced a tough choice: go without a doctor who knew my family’s medical history or pay for private care outside the public system. I opted for the latter, starting at $2,500 CAD, with a 30% increase the following year. What once felt like a rare luxury is now becoming more common for those who can afford it. For many, it feels like the only viable option in a system where public access is increasingly strained. 

While private access is convenient for those who can pay, it also turns healthcare into a commodity. We now compare prices, locations, and aftercare services like we’re shopping for a new car. Bedside manner not up to par? Let’s find someone more empathetic. 

An article in the New York Times earlier this year reported on the growing private-sector involvement in Canadian healthcare. Canadians might be surprised to learn just how entrenched private medicine has become. According to Dr. Katherine Fierlbeck, a political science professor at Dalhousie University, about 30% of health services in Canada—everything from drugs to physiotherapy—are provided privately. This statistic, however, includes services that have always been outside the public system, like dental care and prescription drugs. 

Dr. Fierlbeck also raises a warning flag. While most private clinics in Canada are small, independent operations set up by local doctors, the door is opening for large, aggressive healthcare corporations, particularly from the United States, to enter the market. If that happens, the landscape could shift dramatically, leading to constant lobbying and lawsuits aimed at expanding the role of private business in our healthcare system. 

The question for Canadians is simple: Are we willing to accept the further privatization of our healthcare, knowing that it could lead to an American-style system driven by profit rather than patient care? While Canada’s public healthcare system remains deeply entrenched, the growing influence of private interests is something we must confront. As the debate continues to unfold, it’s a question we’ll need to answer sooner rather than later. 

by

We’re living in an era of unprecedented access to information. Yet, this brings unprecedented challenges, particularly when it comes to health. The increase of false health information has eroded public trust, which is the bedrock of good relations and practices in healthcare. Health information needs to be authentic and trustworthy, with the source of the information clear. So how can we, as healthcare communicators, fight back against misinformation?

The Impact of Health Misinformation

Poorer Personal Health Outcomes: Misinformation can lead to delayed or avoided medical care. It can also lead to a misunderstanding of risk factors, encouraging harmful behaviours.

Risks to Public Health: Misinformation isn’t just a personal matter; it poses significant risks to wider communities. For instance, vaccine misinformation has fuelled the resurgence of preventable diseases like whooping cough and measles.

Financial Strain on Healthcare Systems: The ripple effect extends to healthcare systems, with misinformation driving up costs. Preventable conditions, complications from delayed treatments and managing public health crises all contribute to ballooning expenses.

Tackling Health Misinformation

Empowerment through Education: Improving health literacy is a cornerstone of tackling misinformation. By educating patients and the general public to discern credible health information, we can empower them to make informed decisions about their health.

Transparency is Key: Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers must prioritise transparency. This means clearly communicating treatment benefits and risks, addressing concerns openly, and providing evidence-based information to rebuild trust.

Harnessing Technology: While technology can spread misinformation, it also holds the key combatting it. Digital tools can help to disseminate accurate information, and tech companies, including social media, can help to flag or remove false content.

Community Engagement: Trust-building within communities is vital. Engaging with leaders, influencers and organisations helps to share accurate information tailored to specific communities, fostering understanding and confidence. Tailoring messages to specific communities ensures they resonate and are more likely to be accepted.

Becoming a Trusted Information Creator

As proud health information creators and communicators, it’s our responsibility to ensure the information we produce is accurate, accessible, and evidence based. At Aurora, our rigorous approach to creating health information has earned recognition from the Patient Information Forum (PIF) through the PIF TICK – the UK’s only assessed quality mark for print and online health and care information.

The PIF launched the PIF TICK in May 2020. In July 2021, PIF launched the website www.piftick.org.uk to raise awareness of PIF TICK accredited members and help people find trusted health information. The site also includes guides on topics including spotting false health information and understanding evidence.

Aurora is one of the first healthcare communications agencies to receive accreditation with the PIF TICK, joining over 140 organizations including NHS trusts, patient advocacy groups, pharmaceutical companies, and individual health content creators. Our adherence to the 10 key criteria ensures that any health information we create on behalf of our clients can bear the PIF TICK, providing assurance to patients and the public that it meets the highest standards.

By fostering trust, transparency, and promoting health literacy, we empower individuals to make informed health decisions, leading to better outcomes for all.

by

Paul Venturino, executive director Strategika -a GHMC partner-

Sebastián Goldsack, PhD, professor at the Faculty of Communications of Universidad de los Andes, Chile.

Although the concept of responsible investment has been used for approximately 60 years, only recently have standards been established. The climate crisis has accelerated the need for implementing new strategies to address rapid global and technological changes. We refer to these new standards as ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) principles.

There were two key milestones in the ESG evolution. The first was the creation of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in 1999, a stock index focused on sustainable investments which allowed for broader financing options. The second, much more recent, was the UN Global Compact of the Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI, 2023).

One of the key elements of responsible investment is active incorporation of ESG criteria. This implies everyone in the chain (organization, shareholders, financiers, management) must adhere to rules and be proactive agents of mobilization.

ESG criteria is based on three pillars:

  • Environment: Refers to the environmental impact of an organization and the activities to reduce it, especially in areas such as emissions, waste or use of natural resources.
  • Social: Refers to the management of people in the workplace and the community in various aspects such as human rights, gender, inclusion.
  • Governance: The way in which corporations or institutions are organized. The key is respect for rules and transparency.

As with any regulatory change, responsible investment has also been strongly pressured by changes in production conditions, stricter regulations and strong activism. ESG criteria seeks to respond to scenarios with measures that allow us to face challenges while maintaining profitability (Shakil, 2021).

With this in mind, we interviewed key executives from Chilean and multinational corporations operating in Chile to learn the latest trends and challenges in responsible investment and ESG.

Key trends:

  1. Investors—especially investors in international companies—are driving the movement for responsible investment by pressuring these organizations to incorporate ESG criteria.
  2. ESG criteria are beginning to include the full value chain, transferring good practices to all steps of a company’s operation.
  3. Although incipient in Chile, there is pressure to achieve higher diversity on boards (gender, class, race/ethnicity, professional backgrounds).
  4. There is a movement toward clear and effective tools to guide compliance and measure accountability. Regulations can help ensure higher ethical standards across industries.
  5. A diverse, inclusive workforce with a safe workplace environment is positive for workers and business alike.
  6. Companies are now more motivated to seek new ways of doing business and transforming their forms of production, in order to maintain profitability.
  7. Climate change mitigation is seen as a strategic pillar of a company’s ways of doing business.
  8. The traditional way companies engage with interest groups (advocacy groups, etc.) is evolving to include new ways of working.

In addition to these positive trends, come challenges. The biggest challenges relate to the speed of adoption of these practices, and whether they can generate profitability.

Challenges to be addressed in the short term

  1. A move from tactical actions and rankings to a genuine modification of the ways of doing business and the governance structure at a high level.
  2. Convince executive boards of the importance of ESG trends and responsible investment criteria.
  3. Strengthen the ethics of executives.
  4. Raise standards in industries and ensure all companies adopt ESG.
  5. Improve the legislation applied and the bureaucracy of the authorities.

EXECUTIVES INTERVIEWED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION

  • Kelly, Conrod, Managing Director MSD Chile
  • Margozzini, José, Gerente general TEG Chile
  • Orrego, Carolina, gerente de asuntos corporativos y cumplimiento Empresas Melón
  • Pinto, Patricio, gerente de asuntos corporativos Minera Los Pelambres
  • Vergara, Ana Luisa, subgerenta de sostenibilidad corporativa Colbún
  • Vilches, Javier, gerente general Grupo Eulen Chile
  • Wood, Alejandra, directora Codelco

BIBLIOGRAPHY