- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2025-12-19 17:27:18
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Gvn't policies hinder KOR pharma growth
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Jul 04, 2023 05:37am
- It seems that the pro-business policy the new administration has been implementing to promote Korea’s industries is not benefiting the domestic pharmaceutical companies at all. Rather, the companies have expressed their regrets on how the authorities have been implementing policies that hinder their corporate activities, such as those that lower generic drug prices. Although the policy to reduce the price of generics has not been implemented yet, the industry believes the policy will surface with the release of the 2nd Comprehensive National Health Insurance Plan in the second half of this year. In particular, the drug price-reducing policy is expected to come to the fore because Professor Jinhyun from Seoul National University who has been at the forefront in arguing for generic drug price reductions, has been appointed the joint head of the 2nd Comprehensive National Health Insurance Plan Promotion Team with Korea’s 2nd Vice-Minister of Health and Welfare, Minsoo Park. Therefore, the industry also expressed concerns about the rumors that Vice Minister Park is revamping the drug pricing system to reduce the number of generic items on the market. All in all, it seems that a series of policies unfavorable to domestic pharmaceutical companies will be introduced to Korea in the near future, along with the reorganization of the generic drug pricing system, the complete revision of the actual transaction price discount system, and comparison with overseas generic drug prices. Therefore, it is only natural that domestic pharmaceutical companies are expressing their dissatisfaction regarding the changes being made. The companies have pointed out that the policies are in direct contrast to the government’s goal of becoming one of the 6 global biohealth powerhouses and developing two homegrown new blockbuster drugs that can bring in annual sales of over KRW 1 trillion in 5 years. The Korean pharmaceutical industry has constantly stressed that Korea’s generic drug industry is the driving force behind the self-sufficiency of Korea’s pharmaceutical market. Therefore, adopting a direct comparison model that compares Korea’s situation with other countries that gave way to cheap imported generics is illogical. Also, the companies implored that they cannot fund the long-term research and development required for the introduction of new blockbuster drugs if the government reduces the sales revenue from generic drugs, as it is the major driving force for R&D in most domestic pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, the Korean pharmaceutical industry plans to take action and relay its message on the need to protect the domestic industry before the government implements its generic drug price reform plan. Policies to reduce generic drug prices have been steadily proposed by every administration, regardless of their political tendencies, liberal or conservative. However, the impact made by the conservative governments has been stronger. One leading example is the lump-sum drug price cuts in 2012 made during the Lee Myung Bak administration. The industry, therefore, is more worried that the Yoon Suk Yeol administration will also come up with a policy similar to Lee’s lump sum drug price cut. Of course, the companies are also welcoming some policies that they have longed for, such as regulatory reform. However, most domestic pharmaceutical companies seem to believe that the positive effects of other policies are offset by the generic drug price cut that will inevitably affect most pharmaceutical companies. The Korean pharmaceutical industry is not understanding why the government is so obsessed with measures to reduce Korea’s drug use volume and generic drug prices. One official emphasized, “The company needs to first do well for it to pay the corporate taxes and contribute to the national wealth. However, domestic pharmaceutical companies are applied the lowest rate for corporate taxes due to low revenue. In this context, are policies that further reduce profit really right and necessary? With pharmaceutical companies that have no money to pay corporate taxes, and the unwavering government pushing to cut their profits, this reporter must ask, are pharmaceutical companies included in the government’s business-friendly policies?
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Signs of concern about the Saxenda craze
- by Jun 29, 2023 05:56am
- Five years ago, there was a Saxenda craze in Korea. People rushed to the clinics because they could easily lose weight with self-injection once a day at home, and there were no central nervous system side effects, unlike existing obesity drugs, which are psychotropic drugs. The saying, 'There is no one in Gangnam who does not take Saxenda' was circulating like a trend. Health authorities also launched an intensive crackdown on the indiscriminate use of Saxenda, but the effectiveness was temporary. Saxenda posted record sales of 42.6 billion won in the second year of domestic launch. As of 2023, the diet pill craze is showing signs of spreading once again. This is when the next-generation version of Saxenda appears. Novo Nordisk, which created Saxenda, introduced an injection that is more convenient and more effective for weight loss than Saxenda. Unlike Saxenda, which needs to be injected once daily, the new Wegovy only needs to be injected once a week. Patients participating in the trial lost an average of 15% of their body weight. Following the news that Lilly's 'Mounjaro', which is said to have the most powerful weight loss effect, was soon approved in Korea, people's expectations have risen to the peak. In the United States, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the influencer Kardashian sisters revealed that they succeeded in dieting with these injections, causing a 'shortage phenomenon'. It is currently impossible to obtain these injections in Korea. Wegovy has been approved in Korea, but the domestic release date is undecided due to a lack of supply worldwide. There is a high possibility that it will be difficult to release within the year. As the situation is like this, some people are turning their eyes to overseas direct purchases. It is also illegally purchasing diabetes medications made with the same ingredients as oral medications, not Wegovy. In fact, this drug is for diabetes treatment, and the dose is one-third, so the purchase is pointless, but illegal purchases are not going away. Because news praising the effectiveness of a new anti-obesity treatment is pouring in every day, the targets for which this drug can be used or its side effects are often not mentioned or forgotten. The focus is on just how much weight you lose. First, in the United States, where the craze took place, purchasing and taking Wegovy raw materials at random has emerged as a social problem. Korea, where Wegovy will be released in the future, will not be an exception. In order to receive a prescription for injections, it may be common to run 'open runs' in hospitals or engage in illegal transactions by paying a higher price. There is a high risk that exaggerated advertisements using people's desire to buy will also pour out. These are examples that have already appeared in the Saxenda craze. Preemptive efforts are needed to prevent indiscriminate abuse of obesity drugs. When this drug can be used and when it should not be used, side effect information should be clearly communicated and safe usage instructions should be provided. It is also necessary to pay close attention to the overuse of exaggerated advertisements by some hospitals. There is something we should also remember. A new drug that claims to have lost more than 10 kg, it is difficult to expect such an effect if the participating patients are all overweight and obese and their body mass index (BMI) is less than 30 kg/m2. At the time of the clinical trial, the patients controlled their diet and exercised together. In the end, medicine is the only medicine, and in the end, if you do not continue to control your diet and exercise appropriately, weight loss is only temporary.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Where's the wrong answer note
- by Kim, Jin-Gu Jun 26, 2023 05:53am
- The government is preparing the '2nd National Health Insurance Comprehensive Plan' to be implemented for five years until 2028. The focus of the pharmaceutical industry is on drug spending policies. This is because it is expected to contain the framework of the entire reimbursement system, from new drugs to generics. In the first National Health Insurance Comprehensive Plan announced in 2019, the government set the macro direction of the benefits system as a 'trade-off'. In a word, instead of lowering the price of generic drugs, the plan was to expand insurance coverage for new drugs. In fact, over the past five years, the government has reduced generic drug prices in various ways. In 2020, it revived the tiered drug pricing system and changed the framework of the system. In addition, the re-evaluation of benefits that started with choline alfoscerate is being repeated every year. In addition, the re-evaluation of the maximum amount of 15,000 registered drugs is in progress. The pharmaceutical industry predicts that the government will further strengthen this reevaluation stance in the 2nd Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. If the previous re-evaluation was conducted based on clinical evidence, it is predicted that social necessity and cost-effectiveness will be considered in the future. Ahead of the announcement of the second health insurance comprehensive plan, opinions of criticism are raised here and there. If you listen to their voices, you can see that the complaint is not just because they are simply lowering the price of generic drugs or because the listing of new drugs is not accelerating. The basis of criticism is the 'absence of evaluation' of the last 1st health insurance comprehensive plan. It is said that there is no evaluation of how effective the macroscopic drug spending policy called trade-off was. There is currently no way to know how much money was saved from generics and how many new drugs were listed on the reimbursement list through this. In this situation, the government is showing a move to strengthen the stance of trade-off, so it is perhaps natural that the pharmaceutical industry is resisting. Evaluation and reflection are essential elements in setting a constructive policy direction. You can't cover everything up as in the past. It is the same reason that test takers write incorrect answer notes to get better grades. It isn't easy to create better results without objective evaluation and reflection on oneself. Where is the Ministry of Health and Welfare's wrong answer note about the 1st Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan? How much has domestic pharmaceutical spending decreased over the past five years and how much has insurance coverage been strengthened? What was good about the 1st Comprehensive Health Care Plan and what could be improved? Without a detailed evaluation of this, the resistance of the pharmaceutical industry will inevitably continue. The government should remember that the first step toward creating a better system is to evaluate and reflect on the past.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Closer look into Korea’s new drug access
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jun 21, 2023 05:53am
- “Korea has low new drug access. It needs to be improved.” As much as the phrase comes to heart, we need to look more closely into the matter to correctly assess the situation. Recently, the Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association (KRPIA) recently published a report on Korea’s current new drug release status based on the ‘Global Access to New Medicines Report.’ The Global Access to New Medicines Report was published by the ‘Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ in April. The report investigated new drug release and health insurance reimbursement status in a total of 72 countries including Korea, and subdivided the investigation results by G20, OECD status, and region. The results were based on a survey of a total of 460 new drugs approved for marketing in the US, Europe, and Japan over the past 10 years from 2012 to 2021. According to the report, it takes longer than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country average for new drugs to be introduced to Korea since their global launch, and Korea’s release rate and reimbursement rate were also below the OECD country average. In its report, KRPIA stressed how Korea's release rate of non-reimbursed new drugs was only 5%, which is much lower than the average of 18% found in OECD countries. Non-reimbursed release means the release of drugs without government support. However, one can wonder how significant the comparative advantage in non-reimbursed releases is in this era of high-priced drugs. The rate can be significant for patients who have the financial means to receive prescription drugs without reimbursement, but they are certainly a minority. Moreover, it is also worth noting that it is individual pharmaceutical companies, not the state, that decide whether to release drugs without reimbursement. The reimbursement-related numbers were also interesting. According to KRPIA's data, it took a total of 46 months from the first global launch of a new drug to its reimbursement in Korea. The average in other OECD countries was not that different, at 45 months. However, KRPIA pointed out that compared to Japan (17 months) and France (34 months), it took 10 months to twice as long in Korea for drugs to be reimbursed in Korea. Also, KRPIA stressed that the proportion of new drugs covered by health insurance in Korea was 22%, which was below the OECD average (29%). This is only half that of Japan (48%) and the UK (48%). In fact, my first impression of the data was that ‘the numbers are higher than expected.’ I believed that the time taken to list new drugs in Korea and the reimbursement rate would be much less than that of OECD countries. However, the data showed that there was no difference in the average number of years taken to reimburse new drugs. Although the report compared Korea’s numbers with Japan, unlike Korea, Japan adopts a negative list system rather than a positive list system. Under the negative list system, new drugs that are approved are granted reimbursement after only conducting domestic clinical trials. In addition, we should also bear the characteristics and advantages of Korea’s universal health coverage insurance system in mind. The same goes for the reimbursement rate. It is doubtful whether a 7% difference in reimbursement rates should be considered a significant gap considering the specificity of each country. However, it is noteworthy that the reimbursement rate in the UK, whose health insurance system is most similar to Korea, is 48%. Although the UK is also a reference country for many countries like Korea, its reimbursement rate was fairly high. It stings a little to think that the difference in market size and the influence of NICE in the UK would have contributed to this difference, as a similar system has served as a reason for ‘passing’ Korea. Korea’s reimbursement system has many advantages, but there are definitely areas for improvement. There is also a clear concern that listing new drugs in the future will become increasingly difficult under the current system. Therefore, it remains a regret that the association’s points were not supported by more meaningfully organized data. For example, it could have been possible to elicit stronger awareness if the data presented more detailed indicators that reflect Korea’s reality, such as the listing rate of additional indications rather than the registration of a single drug itself.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Homework left by ASCO 2023’ hot topic
- by Jung, Sae-Im Jun 16, 2023 05:53am
- There is one thing in common with the major studies that drew attention at this year's Annual Conference of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO 2023). It has achieved successful results in adjuvant therapy targeting early cancer where surgery is possible. New drugs used in terminal cancers, such as metastasis and recursation, have already surpassed the standard treatment in early cancers. The CDK 4/6 inhibitor Kisqali has demonstrated post-operative adjuvant treatment in early breast cancer. The risk of recurrence or death was reduced by 25% with a three-year dose of Kisqali after surgery. The blockbuster immuno-oncology drug Keytruda completes the treatment journey not only after non-small cell lung cancer surgery but also before surgery-surgery-after surgery. Patients capable of surgery from the second to third period used Keytruda before and after surgery, reducing the risk of recurrence or death by 42%. It has been proven that using new drugs in early patients also improves the overall survival rate of actual patients. One of the studies selected for this year's ASCO keynote lecture was the non-small cell lung cancer EGFR targeted anticancer agent Taglisso. Looking at the overall survival (OS) of patients when using Tagriso as a post-operative adjuvant therapy, the five-year overall survival rate of the Tagrisso group was 88%, a 51% lower risk of death compared to 78% in the placebo group. Kisqali, Keytruda, and Tagrisso are all drugs used in terminally ill cancer patients. With the recent publication of adjuvant therapy studies of these drugs, they have built confidence that they can be effective enough on early cancer. In addition to these, several anticancer drugs such as the CDK 4/6 inhibitor 'Burgenio', the immuno-oncology drug 'Obdevo', 'Imping', and 'T-Sentrick' have been named for pre- and post-operative adjuvant therapy. In a situation where it is increasingly difficult to create new drugs, this is the result of the efforts of pharmaceutical companies to expand the use of new drugs to the early days of cancer. Early use of new drugs is also welcome for medical staff and patients. Even if they are diagnosed with cancer relatively quickly and have surgery, patients are always at risk of relapse. For example, lung cancer is caused by about 20% of patients in the first period after surgery, and the recurrence rate increases by 75% for patients in the third period. Early cancer is targeted for cure, but many patients follow the steps that progress to terminal cancer. As the latest drugs advance to early cancer, more active treatment is expected for these patients. An oncology professor I met at ASCO rejoiced, saying, "It's significant that the targeted and Immune anticancer agents that have been used for Care have ushered in the era of Cure." There is also a point for our society to think about at a time when more and more chemotherapy adjuvant studies are expected to be conducted in the future. In the meantime, adjuvant therapy has been dismissed as a relatively less important treatment compared to the treatment of terminal cancer, which has often been pushed back from the salary priority. There was no place for adjuvant therapy in front of the question of whether it was a life-threatening situation right now. But ultimately, if the path of our society is to reduce the number of severe patients and lower the mortality rate through early diagnosis and treatment, it is now necessary to properly value adjuvant therapy. Pharmacists should make an effort to find ways to screen patient groups that can maximize the effectiveness of new drugs. Because it's not all-purpose because it's a new drug. Some of the adjuvant therapy studies showed data showing that it was dramatically effective in some groups of patients, while some groups had a tilted head. In the end, it is the challenge of the pharmaceutical industry to find a clear group of patients who can maximize their effectiveness and persuade regulators. This will be a necessary process in the reality that all new drugs are becoming more expensive and health insurance finances are limited.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] It's time to share the achievements
- by Lee, Seok-Jun Jun 13, 2023 05:43am
- Biopharmaceutical companies attend major overseas conferences in late May and early June. ASCO, EULAR, and BioUSA. During this period, it is said that key workers in the R&D and BD fields are not in Korea. Looking at BIO USA alone, more than 500 Korean companies participated in the event, second only to the US. It is truly a global conference. The purpose is to promote its own pipeline. Through this, it promotes achievements such as partnering and technology transfer. Intangible assets such as building a human network for future partnerships are also obtained. Numerous companies announce their participation through press releases before overseas conferences. content is similar. They were 'invited' to the world's largest academic conference for related diseases, 'selected as a presenter', 'there are plans to meet with a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies', and 'we will promote technology transfer for our own pipeline'. Some attend posters but do not hesitate to advertise extensively. Occasionally, the name of a global pharmaceutical company scheduled for a meeting is also mentioned. The stock price also shines before publicity. Many companies are different before and after attending the conference. It is difficult to make an accurate count, but looking at the annual trend, half of the public relations companies before attending did not release additional data as if nothing had happened. Suddenly, a certain biotech CFO Ha So-Yeon comes to mind. After going public in 2015, the company regularly attends overseas conferences every year. It does not discriminate between large and small conferences. However, it is not producing any significant results. The reason was simple. This is because the company did not have global meeting capabilities. Just because you're good at English doesn't mean you're good at it. To get results, you need to know the global pharma process. Even if clinical results are shared at meetings with foreign pharmaceutical companies, there is no way to transfer technology. The head of the research center discusses the technology transfer contract, and the CFO discusses clinical trials. There are many times when communication is difficult because attendees do not understand the value of their company. Foreign pharmaceutical companies have the property of not moving to the next stage even if the clinical results are good if the communication is not professional. This is the reason why our company has not achieved results despite participating in overseas conferences for several years. Meetings do not bring out the needs of global pharmaceutical companies. From a certain point on, the significance of participation is placed on it. It is safe to see it as a way to raise domestic stock prices. This may be an example of some ventures. There is a way to clear up the misunderstanding. to share achievements. Of course, contracts such as technology transfer are made secretly and can be broken even a few hours in advance, so it is right to keep them confidential. However, the part that can be disclosed should share the achievements. Only then can the objective corporate value be judged. Clinical progress updates, conference attendees' roles, main track presentations, booth grades, number of meetings, and scale of participation can be objective indicators. Now that most of them have returned to Korea after completing overseas conferences, it is necessary to share their achievements. There are already places that share feedback from overseas academic societies through press releases. However, most of them are limited to a few, including large domestic pharmaceutical companies. In addition to this, it is necessary to make efforts to publicize the results. The data that can be disclosed can be limitless, depending on what the company thinks. Investors can judge the value of a company only when there is a lot of information that can be shared. It may be part of it, but it should be part of it, but there should be no more one-time publicity press releases before attending conferences to raise stock prices. Now is the time when it is important to share even small achievements and have their value objectively recognized in the market.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View]Rise of adjuvant therapies amid concerns
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jun 05, 2023 05:37am
- Although it may not be the same, the concept of administering a drug for ‘prevention’ has been around for a while. Patients who have chronic diseases have been taking drugs to ‘manage’ their condition rather than treat it. Also, some drugs just exist to prevent a condition, like anticoagulants. The same has just recently been applied to anticancer drugs. Companies have been acquiring or seeking indications as adjuvant or neo-adjuvant therapy for early-stage disease with their various new anticancer drugs through various research. Even at the 'American Society of Clinical Oncology 2023 Annual Meeting’ that is being held in Chicago, USA, adjuvant therapy research data are pouring in for 'Keytruda (pembrolizumab)', 'Kisqali ( ribociclib)', 'Herceptin (trastuzumab)' and others. However, concerns have followed the uprise of adjuvant therapy, with the biggest burden being financial. As everyone knows, even after being cured, cancer can frightfully recur. Depending on the type of cancer, some cancers have a recurrence rate that nears 80%. In the current era of high-priced pharmaceuticals, prescribing anticancer drugs that are leading the high-priced trend as adjuvant therapy and granting insurance reimbursement would naturally pose a burden for the health authorities. Another fact is that the benefits of adjuvant therapy are also receiving attention from the academic world. Already, adjuvant therapy has begun to be listed in the guidelines of world-renowned academic societies, with higher and higher grades of recommendation. So this is now the time for all those involved to ponder. Carefully examine the necessity of adjuvant anticancer therapy for each drug, and weigh the practical benefits rather than the indistinct and vague worry about its 'burden.' Treating patients with recurrent cancer may be less cost-effective. Recurrence and metastasis are fatal factors that increase cancer mortality. Since there is no right answer, we have to weigh the good and the bad. It is not possible to leave the piling number of applications for drugs to be used as adjuvant or maintenance therapies unattended. It is not just about the profits and losses. The stakeholders should also consider the specificity of each drug and the patient's situation and find consensus that takes into account Korea’s unique health insurance system and the pharmaceutical industry’s ecosystem.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Please wait for policies to take effect
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Jun 01, 2023 05:39am
- The government is pushing to reform the drug pricing system to reduce the number of generics. It is said that the authorities are considering a plan that does not grant the premium price allowed for innovative pharmaceuticals to generics that exceed a certain number. The analysis is that the government's decision to regulate the number of generics was influenced by the large amount of Forxiga generics that entered the market at once in April. 57 generic drugs were released as soon as the patent term for Forxiga expired. However, this was possible because the generic drugs were approved before the consigned bioequivalence test restriction system was implemented. The amendment to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, which restricts consigned bioequivalence testing companies to 3, took effect in July 2021. Forxiga generics were first approved earlier last year, but the development of the drugs was carried out before the consigned bioequivalence test restriction policy was implemented. Therefore, at the time, there was no restriction on the number of companies that can receive consigned bioequivalence tests. Therefore, one consignor could share its bioequivalence test results with multiple consignees without restriction. The industry expects the number of new generics to gradually decrease due to the restrictions made for bioequivalence tests. In the midst of this, the government's plan to add price cuts for generic drugs is nothing but a clampdown on the pharmaceutical companies. It would not be too late for the government to wait for the restrictions on bioequivalence tests to take effect before making further judgments. Rather, if the bioequivalence restriction regulations contract the generic market and negatively affect not only the domestic pharmaceutical industry but also consumer accessibility, the government should even consider deregulations. It would be unreasonable, even reckless for the authorities to pull the reigns on the price of generics further before checking the effect of the policies it had implemented. If the government considers generics as just a means that deplete health insurance reimbursement finances, it is the same as giving up the domestic drug market. In order to maintain the fiscal health of Korea’s health insurance, more fundamental measures that recognize the proper function of generics and activate it should be prepared.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Are you ready to use
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung May 18, 2023 05:45am
- The 'Act on the Safety and Support of Advanced Recycles and Advanced Biomedicines' will be in effect for three years in August. The Advanced Recycled Bio Act prepares a system for securing the safety of advanced renewable medicine, provides a plan for technological innovation, and practical use, and stipulates the necessary matters to secure the quality, safety, and effectiveness of advanced biopharmaceuticals, and to support commercialization.The Advanced Recycled Bio Act has been implemented, and 36 cell treatment facilities and 32 human cell management institutions have been approved in Korea. Cell therapy is made in Korea to export technology to foreign countries, or the CMO/CDMO business of biopharmaceuticals is actively underway. As if proof of this, 'BioKorea 2023', which was held from May 10th to 12th, was presented by a high-tech renewable medical center for the first time, and various sessions were held on the theme of revitalizing clinical research on advanced renewable medicine and exploring the direction of the development of the high-tech biopharmaceutical industry. A speaker who attended the site at the time said that the regenerative medicine session was formed for the first time in Bio Korea, and that it was time to seek industrial development as well as domestic advanced regeneration bio research. However, it has only been three years since the High-Tech Recycled Bio Act was implemented, so it seems that there is still a long way to go. The Ministry of Health and Welfare has expressed its will to improve regulations to revitalize clinical research on cutting-edge bioregenerative medicine treatment technology. It is said that the clinical research application target will be expanded and the clinical research results can be linked with approval, but the position of the researchers conducting the actual research was a little different. It is said that it is urgent to prepare a legal basis for the activation of clinical research data based on the Temple of Heaven's Regenerative Bio Act. In fact, there have been various attempts to utilize the health care big data platform, but the linkage rate between each institution is low as it still hits the wall of personal information. Even if you use data from multiple platforms, you have no choice but to hit the limits of using it with your gender, name, and date of birth alone. In the end, this phenomenon seems to be bound to occur in the use of advanced regeneration bio clinical research data. There is a provision in the Advanced Recycled Bio Act that 'if you need a head of a safety management agency, you can request the provision of data such as unique identification information', but it is not enough to expand it to pharmaceutical companies and clinical research practitioners. In accordance with the Advanced Recycle Bio Act, the basic plan for advanced renewable medicine and advanced biopharmaceuticals is established every 5 years. Three years are coming, and the time is coming soon to come up with a second basic plan. When you try to take advantage of the accumulated endless health care big data, you have to remember the many hurdles. Data from high-tech regeneration and biopharmaceuticals that have just crossed 2/3 of the first basic plan is being collected one by one. In order to actively conduct clinical research with this data, it is necessary to come up with various strategies that can utilize individual unique identification information.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Bitter ERPs following spin-offs and sales
- by Eo, Yun-Ho May 17, 2023 05:38am
- The operation of Early Retirement Program (ERP) schemes following sales of business units has been frequenting as an issue in the pharmaceutical industry. Although the spin-off and sales by multinational pharmaceutical companies aim at ‘separation of innovation and legacy, ‘this premise of ‘selecting and focusing’ on its strengths inevitably entails the negative situation of ‘layoffs.’ Also, the layoffs that occur from sales of businesses are different from general ERPs. Despite the notion of ERPs being a ‘voluntary retirement,’ ERPs that occurs during such situations are much less ‘voluntary.’ This is why such ERPs bring about labor-management conflict. Of course, multinational pharmaceutical companies provide immense compensation for their ERPs. In particular, the ERPs offered after spin-offs or sales offer industry-leading compensation. For employees that were considering whether to change jobs, ERPs can even be a fortune. However, there is no guarantee that there will be new jobs for everyone. Also, for some, a company is more than a place to earn a living but is also a place of value and pride. If layoffs are unavoidable, the company should focus on providing maximum compensation and ensuring succession of employment. The coercions being made under the word ‘voluntary ERP’ must be addressed, and the size of the layoffs should not be determined by a rule of thumb. There is no such thing as good layoffs. Only a few leave satisfied. Some will feel a sense of loss and separation just by the fact that they were being laid off as 'legacy'. As the companies that were the pride and hope of their employees, the companies should work to live up to their employee's expectations, whether those are being laid off as ‘legacy’ or not, and actively work to persuade its head office and take responsibility for the future course of the employees, if there is even the smallest room for improvement.
