50-year-old Pfizer Korea “For both patients and innovation"

Interview with CEO Oh Dong-wook of Pfizer Korea

“Striving for patient’s treatment access, but need adequate drug pricing”

“Upjohn under same leadership for a while, GSK joint venture processing still ongoing”

CEO Oh Dong-wook

Half a century in Korean pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer Korea seems to have mastered ‘how to win’ in the Korean market.

 

Pfizer took its first step into the Korean market as a joint corporation with Joongang Pharmaceutical in 1962 and founded Pfizer Korea in 1969.

 

Except for a couple of times, Pfizer Korea’s sales have been the top among global pharmaceutical companies in Korea.

 

Last year, the company had the highest sales so far of 734.4 billion won, a level no global company has ever reached.

 

The key to its driving force is in ‘evolution’.

 

The company has sought after ‘cash cow drugs’ by acquiring numerous companies like Warner-Lambert Company, Wyeth, Pharmacia, and Hospira, and also undergone various organizational reform like the recent split-up with Upjohn.

 

Through series of changes, Pfizer and Pfizer Korea have achieved successful ‘survival’ and ‘development’ every single time.

 

But, not all good drugs can make a success.

 

If it were not for Pfizer’s solid foundation, its profitable drugs would not have made it.

 

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Pfizer Korea, CEO Oh Dong-wook (50) of Pfizer Korea spoke of the company’s history and the future.

 

- Half a century in Korea, what have been the most important milestones for Pfizer Korea? I can say about three major achievements to note.

 

First, Pfizer contribution on making patients live happier lives by providing outstanding new drugs.

 

Second, Pfizer’s continuous effort to become a responsible corporate citizen of the community and to conduct long-running corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.

 

Many of CSR activities Pfizer Korea provide are over a decade old.

 

Last but not least, the fact that Pfizer Korea has consistently contributed in creating a healthy pharmaceutical and bio environment along with various stakeholders to advance new drug development, health and society in Korea.

 

Numerous clinical trials have been conducted in Korea so far, which we expect the gained experience and tips on developing innovative new drug with global company would come through eventually and immensely contribute to the future of new drug in Korea.

 

-‘Drug’ has a unique quality as a commodity, which is why the sense of ethics is always under the limelight.

 

But as a business, profit would have to be the main objective.

 

What is Pfizer doing to balance out two polarizing values?

 

Pfizer seeks for an ‘innovation that changes patient’s quality of life’.

 

Not only Pfizer, but many of pharmaceutical companies used to maximize profit centering customer (healthcare provider) in the past.

 

However, this day and age requires immensely high level and standard of ethics.

 

And it makes a sense for stakeholders to have higher level of expectation on the industry than any other industry.

 

In such strict environment, Pfizer would never seize to make every decision prioritizing and centering patients.

 

-Reflecting patients’ voice is not that easy.

 

A pharmaceutical company directly engaging with patients has its limitation, and a lot of times patients cannot have their way regardless.

 

Despite availability of a great new drug, limited access (health insurance coverage) puts a gap between patient and the treatment.

 

That is why patient advocacy groups usually voice out on drug approval review and National Health Insurance (NHI) listing policy-making processes.

 

Medical industry has a quite unusual ecosystem, where a patient is an ultimate consumer, but an experienced and knowledgeable healthcare provider is making decisions on prescription.

 

While a company supplies drug, consumer and National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) are paying for the drug.

 

Even the ultimate consumer raises an issue, changes can only be made when experts’ judgment and reasonable decision making coincide.

 

The decision making process has improved significantly compared to the past, but it still has a room to grow.

 

As a leading company in pharmaceutical and bio sector, Pfizer plans to engage in various activities with various stakeholders in community, such as industry organization, healthcare providers’ group and patient advocacy group, to reflect patients’ voices on government policies.

 

-As you mentioned, patients’ voices in Korean society is skewed on ‘NHI reimbursement’ and now their interest is growing on drug pricing for the same reason.

 

The administration plans to reduce their expense on drug with expired patent and reuse the saved finance on introducing new drug to Korean market.

 

After separating the organization into two and ‘Pfizer Upjohn’ solely dealing with expired patent, the said government’s plan could be a bad news.

 

As a whole company, what do you think of the direction government policy is taking?

 

Pfizer Korea has a say in making the best choice for patients, regarding what Pfizer Upjohn Korea and Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals Korea do in respective treatment sectors.

 

My role is to represent general operation of the company when discussing with government body and other stakeholders, and respective branches are to make a reasonable decision for their own businesses.

 

-Going back to Pfizer’s principle of ‘centering patient’, would it be safe to say Pfizer Upjohn would not oppose against Korean government when it reduces pricing of drug with expired patent?

 

That is correct.

 

As I said before, Pfizer’s aim is to supply as many new drugs as possible to patients and to bring changes to their lives.

 

Regardless of patent expiration, we believe changing the lives of patients has enough meaningful merit.

 

-But as the age of high-cost drug approaches, the gap between the government and pharmaceutical industry’s views on drug pricing is getting wider.

 

I assume Pfizer Korea would experience discrepancies when negotiating with Korean government and persuading the headquarter office.

 

Some are concerned about global pharmaceutical companies giving up on Korean market as more countries are referencing drug prices in Korea.

 

Many have contributed for patients to benefit from Pfizer’s innovative new drug, but our companies’ staffs had poured in vast amount of work into it as well.

 

We do our best to promptly introduce new drug to Korean market.

 

And in the process, the company tries to find the middle ground between negotiating with Korean government and convincing headquarter as soon as feasible.

 

One could simply think, lowering drug price would be the answer for putting patients first.

 

Or in an extreme sense, providing drugs for free would be the answer if we were to truly think of patients.

 

But, in the end, we are a company, and a company has to be sustainable.

 

We are always faced with discrepancy between insured drug pricing and headquarter-approved drug pricing.

 

Obviously, we are working hard to make Korean patients to receive benefit as soon as possible, and that is that is the direction we taking.

 

While Chinese market is growing rapidly, many markets around the globe, including Taiwan, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and China have started to reference drug price in Korea.

 

The U.S.

 

also announced it would reference price in Korea as well.

 

As for the headquarter office, making deficit after investing astronomical amount in R&D for new drug and receiving inadequately low pricing would be a devastating result.

 

It would ultimately hinder any company from investing in future pipeline.

 

This is why we need an appropriate pricing.

 

-Let us now focus more on Pfizer.

 

Upjohn was split from the recent reorganization.

 

What is it like to manage the company in the new state?

 

To enhance efficiency of Global Pfizer’s organizational structure, Pfizer Korea separated itself into two; Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals Korea focusing on new drug development and innovative drug, and Pfizer Upjohn Korea providing drug with expired patent and generic.

 

We expect the two corporate bodies to mutually strengthen potential growth in respective fields.

 

Based on a variety of drug pipelines and treatments each business sector owns, Pfizer aims to improve patient’s quality of life by providing treatment timely to many more patients.

 

The approaches we would take are still in talks, but staffs’ role and responsibilities would be unchanged.

 

-When a drug owned by Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals has its patent expired, then is it transferred to Pfizer Upjohn? No, it wouldn’t be.

 

Drugs are categorized by disease group.

 

-It feels like in the future, Pfizer Biopharmaceuticals and Pfizer Upjohn would be completely split up and would become completely different two entities.

 

For now, management direction or timing has not been specifically discussed, yet.

 

Until everything is set, both bodies would be managed under the name of Pfizer Korea.

 

-How is the current status of the consumer healthcare (OTC) sector joint venture with GSK?

 

As far as Global Pfizer goes, it officially announced closing of joint venture with GSK, as of Aug.

 

1.

 

And accordingly, Pfizer’s consumer health sector was transferred to the new joint venture.

 

However, each region would have different timing as to when the joint venture would take over the management.

 

In case of Korea, the closing is delayed as the company has to complete the necessary approval process and end some ongoing operations.

 

When the deal is finally closed, Pfizer’s staffs would undergo some organizational changes and those would be notified after everything is set in stone.

 

-How would you define the last 50 years and the next 50 years of Pfizer Korea? Looking back at past 50 years, the company went through absence of well-established healthcare and corporate environment when it was first founded in 1969.

 

Back then, Separation of Prescription and Dispensing (SPD), or proper medical and pharmaceutical regulations were not stipulated.

 

But now, we feel quite proud of how Pfizer Korea contributed in building the current healthcare environment alongside many stakeholders by placing a brick at a time.

 

In the end, we think Pfizer contributed in bringing meaningful changes to local communities and patients suffering from disease.

 

But it also means Pfizer Korea still has a long way to go, although it made proud achievements under the corporate objective and goal.

 

As a responsible corporate citizen and leading pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Korea would continue to keep its leadership among patients and in local community.