- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2026-03-10 08:28:04
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] Legalization of Non-face-to-face Care
- by Lee, Jeong-Hwan Aug 18, 2022 05:48am
- Non-face-to-face treatment has become a social topic beyond the health and medical community. Non-face-to-face treatment, which has been temporarily allowed since February 2020, has been on the rise for three years, and the public and domestic medical systems, which are users, have naturally become accustomed to non-face-to-face treatment. Non-face-to-face treatment, which has become a hot topic, is now beyond temporary permission and the need for legislation is emerging. This is because the current medical law and pharmaceutical law principles are shaking due to excessive expediency and some illegal acts of non-face-to-face treatment platform companies derived from temporary permission. The Ministry of Health and Welfare recently reiterated its willingness to institutionalize non-face-to-face treatment to the National Assembly's Health and Welfare Committee and submitted a position to strongly control illegal attempts by delivery pharmacies or non-face-to-face treatment platform companies. The Ministry of Health and Welfare plans to start legislating within the year based on the non-face-to-face treatment bill pending in the National Assembly, and believes that the current face-to-face treatment alone cannot solve the problem of access to medical services such as islands and wallpaper. One more thing is needed to strengthen the legislation of non-face-to-face care. It is an interest in non-face-to-face treatment of the power of the ruling people. Currently, two cases (Choi Hye-young, Kang Byeongwon) have been proposed in the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea alone, including the legislation of non-face-to-face treatment. Shin Hyun-young, the main opposition Democratic Party, also announced plans to propose additional non-face-to-face treatment bills. In the power of the people, the non-face-to-face treatment bill has not yet been proposed. The Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Democratic Party are waiting for the ruling party's representative to propose a bill to strengthen the legislation of non-face-to-face care, but no lawmaker is reportedly interested in the bill yet. Non-face-to-face treatment should start discussions on legislation to strengthen the management of platform companies and the current medical law and pharmacology law principles at the same time as the need to stipulate the system itself as a law. At a time when the number of users of non-face-to-face treatment and non-face-to-face treatment services is exploding, there may be many side effects that need not be experienced if related regulations are established too late. Starting with the representative presentation of the non-face-to-face treatment bill, the ruling party should make efforts to improve legislative completeness by widely accepting the needs of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the medical community, the Pharmaceutical Association, and the platform companies. It is a way to improve the stability of the health care industry and to prevent the principles of medical law and pharmacology law from being disturbed. It is expected that the ruling party will make an agile move to prevent platform companies from making mistakes in shaking the domestic health care system by neglecting non-face-to-face treatment with some expedient and illegal methods.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Industry sullen over revised PE exemption
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Aug 17, 2022 05:52am
- The pharmaceutical industry is sullen despite the government's announcement of a measure to expand drug coverage, as the so-called measures for expanded coverage are closer to reductions from the industry’s point of view. The main issue lies in the improvement of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation (PE) exemption system that was included in the “Measure to improve patient access and reinforce reimbursement management for high-priced severe disease treatments” that was recently presented by the government. The goal of the improvement is to expand coverage for the pediatric patients. The government added a clause allowing PE exemption for "drugs used to treat pediatric patients that are therapeutically equivalent or has no available treatment option, and demonstrates improvement in quality of life or is otherwise approved by the committee." The added clause excluded the “life-threatening disease” condition required for PE exemptions in pediatric patients. In other words, if drugs used for pediatric patients satisfy the remaining conditions, the PE exemption may be applied even if the condition is not life-threatening. On the surface, it seems like an encouraging improvement. Many multinational pharmaceutical companies and the Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association have been requesting the ‘life-threatening’ condition be removed from the eligibility criteria for PE exemptions. In this sense, this exclusion, although limited to pediatric patients, is a valuable step forward. However, a major premise for PE exemptions had also been revised. The government had added the phrase “a small number of eligible patients ” in the revision. This condition had previously been an “OR clause" included in Article 2c of eligibility for PE exemption regulations, along with other clauses such as ‘if a single-arm study was conducted,’ etc. In other words, if the amendment is applied in the current state, all drugs that wish to take the PE exemption track would have to have a small number of patients (as defined as 200 in the current criteria) and receive recognition from the committee for its difficulty in producing evidence to satisfy Article 2c of the regulation. Multinational pharmaceutical companies have been criticizing that this has narrowed the pathway for PE exemptions rather than expanding it. In fact, the KRPIA had issued a statement immediately after the government announced the revision, criticizing that the amended measure “overlooks the fact that it can demotivate companies from developing innovative new drugs and impede access to severe rare disease treatments.” Although such industry complaints are common following government policy announcements, considering the fact that the new government promised prompt listing of anticancer and rare disease drugs upon inauguration, and the non-reimbursed blind spots still exist for drugs that apply for special exemptions, the government needs to consider whether this revision is achieving its original purpose.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] MFDS opens up, discloses contact info
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Aug 16, 2022 05:46am
- The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety is changing. The ministry's efforts to transform into an ‘Open MFDS’ as emphasized by Minister Yu-Kyoung Oh since her day of appointment on May 27th, is showing results. After holding 7 ‘ultimate debate’ sessions in June this year, the MFDS also held 16 roundtable meetings and discussion sessions with the industry, associations, and academia, as well as 2 separate public debates for the medical and food sector to prepare '100 tasks for regulatory innovation.' Based on the feedback accrued, the MFDS announced the final 100 tasks for regulatory innovation on the 11th. The Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Korea National Council Consumer Organization attended the announcement, signifying the deep public-private communication that had been made in its process. A bigger change is that the contact information for each department in the organizational chart on the MFDS’s webpage that had been hidden since February 22nd last year was disclosed again. At the time, the MFDS deleted the contact information of the officials in charge, deciding that regular business was difficult due to the flood of inquiries and complaints made by the general public regarding COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Complaints followed this deletion of contact information, but the MFDS only repeated its response that it has prepared a main representative number system for inquiries to resolve the difficulty of making contacts arising from the absence of officials in charge and to increase focus on the ministry's review work. Therefore, the inconvenience caused by the lack of communication was entirely borne by the complainant. The introduction of the ‘core time system’ to allow officials to focus on their regular work, had further caused hardships in reaching MFDS officials. However, the contact information for each department in the organizational chart on the MFDS’s webpage has been disclosed since the 8th. Although the core time system will still be in place, the MFDS decided to reduce its period from the previous 7 hours (10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) to 4 hours (11:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.). On the day of her appointment, Minister Oh said, “The MFDS needs to become a science and technology expert, crisis management expert, and public communications expert. Communications between ministries, departments, and various stakeholders, as well as internal inter-field and inter-function communication, must be encouraged for growth. I will create an open MFDS in which employees can actively communicate, and one that encourages public-private communication and cooperation." Minister Oh had constantly emphasized communication during her official appearances. She said she will listen to various opinions in the process of preparing and implementing the 100 tasks for regulatory innovation. In 100 days after her appointment, Oh’s determination for communication is coming to fruition in various ways. The reporter hopes that the MFDS’s efforts for ‘open communication’ continue.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Seek industry opinion before implemention
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Aug 12, 2022 05:58am
- Although the government announced measures to reinforce patient access to high-priced severe disease treatments on the 20th of last month, the pharmaceutical industry’s response to the new measures has been lukewarm at best. Moreover, the industry is ferociously criticizing how the government presented the measure without collecting industry opinion. The main point of implementing the new measure was to reduce the reimbursement period while reinforcing post-marketing management, however, the industry is claiming that the measure will have little effect in reducing the reimbursement period while focusing too much on drug price reduction, ultimately further impeding patient access. The government plans to reduce the reimbursement review period of treatments for life-threatening conditions by 60 days through the concurrent operation of reimbursement evaluation and pricing negotiations, among other measures. On this, the Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry criticized, “Reducing 60 days from a review period that already takes up to 3 to 4 times the actual statutory period (210 days) will be insignificant from the patient’s perspective in feeling any improved access. The industry added, that preparing a pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption regulation for treatments with a small number of patients and improving the maximum discount rate of the Price-Volume Agreement system from the current 10% will only lower motivation for new drug development or reimbursement. The problem is that the government did not seek the pharmaceutical industry’s opinion before announcing the measure. KRPIA also expressed concern regarding this matter, saying that “It is a shame that the government, which had been emphasizing private-public cooperation, disclosed a major policy that may affect the whole field without conferring it with the biopharmaceutical industry.” Since early last year, the government and pharmaceutical associations have been meeting every month through a private-public consultative body established to improve the drug pricing system. However, the measure for improving access to high-priced drugs that had been announced was found to have never been discussed at the meetings. It is difficult to properly implement or promote a policy that is unilaterally announced without collecting the opinions of its users and suppliers. The ‘Lowering the elementary school entry age to 5 years’ policy that was recently withdrawn due to opposition from the education community, was also aborted due to this non-collection of opinions from the education community. Why the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which lacks a head, made such a hasty decision to announce an important policy without collecting opinions from the industry remains in question. If the government respects the pharmaceutical industry as its future driver of growth, it should not exclude the industry in the process of making such serious policies.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] COVID-19 vaccination strategy
- by Aug 09, 2022 05:56am
- The MFDS has begun a preliminary review of the vaccine for COVID-19 in Moderna and Pfizer. The preliminary review is to review the submitted clinical data in advance and to quickly determine whether to grant permission when the company applies for an item permit by adding non-clinical and quality data in the future. The divalent vaccine, which Moderna and Pfizer applied for a preliminary review, is a vaccine that expresses each antigen for the initial coronavirus (Wuhan) and the omicron mutation virus BA. It is a combo vaccine that combines two antigens in half, and the two companies began developing it early this year and announced major clinical results in June. The two vaccines were found to have produced more neutralizing antibodies to omicron mutations than conventional vaccines. The problem is that BA.5, an omicron subvariant, spread rapidly and became dominant in Korea. According to the detection rate of major mutant viruses compiled by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the BA.5 detection rate in the fourth week of July was 66.8%, up 10.5 percentage points from the previous week. It became the dominant species 11 weeks after the first BA.5 stool confirmed in Korea on May 12. Modena and Pfizer's divalent vaccine basically expresses antigens against the circular omicron virus, so it has a higher preventive effect on sub-variations than conventional vaccines. However, it was relatively ineffective as it targeted BA.1. According to the announcement of the two companies, the neutralization value of the bivalent vaccine for BA.4/5 was one-third of the number shown in the BA.1 mutation. That's why the FDA has demanded that Moderna and Pfizer develop a new vaccine containing BA.4/5 which is included. At that time, sub-variations were spreading rapidly in the United States, so the FDA seems to have decided that it was necessary to target these mutations. The two companies are focusing their efforts on developing a new vaccine targeting submutation of omicron. South Korea should also consider what vaccination strategy to establish at a time when the omicron submutation has become the dominant species. The FDA is showing its willingness to inoculate vaccines targeting submutations even while minimizing clinical trials of the new vaccine. If there are more BA5 confirmed patients in Korea, the introduction of a BA4/5 vaccine should be accelerated. At the same time, there are differences between the U.S. and Korea. The United States, the mainland, spends the least time getting permits and vaccines. The U.S. health authorities have already signed a purchase contract for the BA.4/5 vaccine with Moderna and Pfizer. On the other hand, South Korea has relatively late permits, contracts, and domestic introduction schedules. A situation beyond the end of this year may occur. Unlike the United States, which has not been approved for a divalent vaccine, Korea needs to have an alternative solution called a divalent vaccine for omicrons. Health authorities should benefit the public most through reasonable choices within limited time and resources.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] New guideline refrains off-label NOAC use
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Aug 02, 2022 06:02am
- Off-label refers to the use of drugs for an indication other than those approved by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Although people may question the need for off-label use when the appropriate use for a drug has already been set by the health authorities, these off-label prescriptions are made at the doctor’s discretion. Often, off-label use of a drug is encouraged or shunned according the situation of each disease or drug. Voices on their necessity or non-necessity are also raised accordingly. The latter goes for new oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Relevant societies and specialists have continuously raised concerns over the prescription of low-dose NOACs, but still, this low-dose off-label prescription trend persists in Korea. Recently, the Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRA) published the revised “Guidelines for NOAC use in atrial fibrillation patients," which presented specific standards for NOAC use according to each situation. After collecting and discussing all data on the use of various doses, the KHRA guideline decided to recommend the use of on-label doses according to each indication. The first NOAC was approved in 2011 and listed for reimbursement in 2013. Currently, 4 NOACs have landed in the field in Korea. Quite a time has passed since NOACs landed in Korea, but still, off-label prescriptions of NOACs have not lessened much. According to the National Institute of Health, over half - 64.4% - of the patients that use NOACs in Korea are being prescribed low-dose NOACs. The leading cause of this off-label use is bleeding concerns. Asians have a smaller physique and different genetic characteristics than Westerners, therefore, worries that the bleeding risk may increase with the use of standard-dose NOACs is why doctors have been prescribing the low-dose NOACs against indications. Of course, off-label use of drugs is allowed at the doctor’s discretion according to his/her medical judgment. However, the indication of a drug is approved based on clinical research on a large number of patients that is conducted to identify the appropriate dose. The ultimate purpose of using NOACs is to prevent strokes. If prescribing low-dose NOACs in fear of bleeding rather increases the number of stroke patients, this in itself would be a huge loss. Off-label use of drugs is like a double-edged sword. It is this reporter's wish that the new guidelines will guide patients who are tired of using warfarin and practitioners that were reluctant to use anticoagulants due to lack of high-priced monitoring equipment and difficult prescription management to fully enjoy the benefits provided by NOACs.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] MFDS minister wills regulatory innovation
- by Lee, Hye-Kyung Aug 01, 2022 05:58am
- The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety’s determination to seek regulatory innovation has surfaced with the inauguration of President Suk-Yeol Yoon’s administration. The MFDS had previously conducted 7 internal debates for each of its fields during the past 2 months to come up with a plan for ‘administrative innovation in food and drug at an international level', in line with the national goal of Yoon Suk-Yeol’s administration. In fact, regulatory innovation is the first assignment given to the MFDS by Yoo-Kyung Oh, the Minister of Food and Drug Safety that was appointed on May 27th. After holding internal debates and public forum for food and drug regulatory innovation on July 21st and 25th, respectively, the MFDS reported the administrative innovation measures for advancing into a global food and drug industry to become a core bio-digital healthcare country to the state affairs review and coordination meeting on July 28th. The MFDS plans to establish and present a ‘100 project roadmap’ to support its innovative measures on the 100th day of Yoon’s inauguration. Minister Oh’s determination for regulatory innovation was evident in the public debate. Oh sat through the public forum for food and drug regulatory innovation that had been conducted for 2 hours. Oh, who said she will humbly listen to the voices of the public rather than conduct a unilateral debate, closed the public forum saying that “We will make one step further from being an institution that answers questions asked by the public. We aim to enable a two-way communication where the MFDS also asks questions to the public for answers.” Also, the key Director Generals of bureaus that represent the drug area at MFDS appeared on the podium. An official from MFDS said, “During my over 20 years of service at MFDS, I have never seen a forum where 4 key Director Generals from major bureaus personally give presentations and answer questions.” This is because a comment made by MFDS Director Generals at such an event is like an oath made to the public. It needs to be kept, no matter what. Minister Oh’s determination had largely influenced the decision of MFDS Director Generals’ personal presentation of the regulatory innovative tasks under review. Oh is that much determined to achieve the national tasks set by the new government. Oh is expected to personally make the presentation on the 100 tasks that will be made in August. Industry expectations are also rising with the MFDS Minister’s personal interest in regulatory innovation. Among the various regulatory innovations planned, the Korea Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharma Manufacturers Association expressed that it was pleased by the MFDS’s plan to provide global support and reinforce the fast track system. However, the ministry would need to pull through with its plan to the end. As much as the MFDS had endeavored to identify tasks for regulatory innovations, the ministry would need to keep its determination to implement regulatory innovation measures that can lead to changes in the actual field in 5 or 10 years.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Secrecy no more in pricing negotiations
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jul 18, 2022 06:06am
- The importance of providing a clear explanation about an administrative decision is essential in the process of handling administrative affairs. This becomes all the more important when an exception arises in the application of a regulation, which raises more questions than an introduction or abolition of a system. But the National Health Insurance Service and pharmaceutical companies have never provided an explanation on a drug that extended their drug pricing negotiation period after passing the set deadlines. This non-explanation of such events has persisted despite the increasing drug pricing negotiation extensions that are been made between the NHIS and companies to newly list or expand insurance benefits for select drugs. From the patient’s perspective, the drug pricing negotiations have become a stage of endless wait, a stage without promise. This is in part due to the fact that the negotiation expiry date, extension decision, and other matters discussed and set by the NHIS and the companies are all kept undisclosed under a confidentiality agreement. In other words, there is no way for the third party to know when the 60-day negotiation period has started or ended. This is why more and more patients and healthcare professionals are expressing feeling smothered by the increasing number of negotiation extensions. The NHIS needs to seriously contemplate why the Drug Reimbursement and Evaluation Committee and Cancer Disease Deliberation Committee decided to disclose their deliberation results. In the current “high-priced drug era,” there are plenty of very effective but expensive drugs being introduced to the market. Therefore, it can be difficult for the government and the pharmaceutical company to reach an agreement within the set period of “50 days.” However still, the emphasis needs to be laid on the word, deadline. Deadline is a kind of promise. Also, the NHIS has described the negotiation deadline as a sort of "benefit" when announcing its plan to shorten the deadline for new domestic drugs. In other words, the period is set for the final negotiation period to speed up listing and allow others to estimate the time to listing or rejection. Also, the people need to know why the negotiation fell through so that they could criticize the faulty party and find a compromise. Of course, both are to blame for the deadline extension. Negotiation extensions prevail due to a lack of a mindset to bring results within the set period as well as the vague underlying sentiment that the drug will not be listed on the first try because it is an expensive and difficult drug to negotiate. Such sentiment and mindset are what lead to the repetition of exceptional cases. Also, the companies’ time-wasting acts due to delays in communication with their HQ and the administrative department’s complacency of delaying the imminent “negotiation breakdown” due to the fear of the flood of complaints filed by patients obscure the purpose of the system itself. The HIRA’s review process, during which a drug is evaluated based on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, and the drug pricing negotiations, which will directly affect fiscal spending on the authorities’ part, would have to be a sensitive issue for both parties involved. However, on how long the ‘confidentiality’ clause will be considered justifiable must be considered. Times have changed. The patients and patient families will not wait idly anymore.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Postponing clinical reevaluations by 1 yr
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Jul 18, 2022 06:05am
- The National Health Insurance Service’s Drug Reimbursement Evaluation Committee conducted its first reevaluation to assess the reimbursement adequacy on the anti-inflammatory streptokinase/streptodornase combo and decided that the combination is inadequate for insurance benefit. The drug has been used to ▲relieve acute inflammatory edema exacerbation due to ankle surgery or trauma, and ▲ to address the expectoration of sputum difficulties that accompany respiratory disorders. However, as the drug is not listed for reimbursement in any of the A8 reference countries (the US, the UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada), the combination was highly likely to receive negative results during reevaluation. The issue that arises here is that Korean pharmaceutical companies are conducting domestic clinical trials to supplement the lacking evidence on its use overseas. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety ordered companies to conduct a clinical reevaluation for the drug, under which companies have been investing their own resourcesinceom 2017 to demonstrate the efficacy of the combination. SK Chemical, which owns the original Varidase Tab, is taking lead in demonstrating the drug’s efficacy in the first indication, and Hanmi Pharmaceutical, which has made the highest performance in the market with its Mucolase Tab, is leading the clinical trials for the second indication. With patient recruitment complete for both trials, the companies only have final analysis reports left. The companies are required to submit the final result report to the MFDS in 1H next year. In line with this progress, the companies subject to reimbursement cancellation requested that the reimbursement reevaluation be pushed back one year, to after the final report for the clinical reevaluation is submitted. However, on the 7th, DREC turned down the companies’ requests. It could seem harsh, as the companies were only asking for a 1-year grace period rather than avoiding the reevaluation in its entirety. However, HIRA’s reasons for the refusal, such as maintaining equity with other ingredients and the differences that exist in their purpose and method was also reasonable. However still, the streptokinase/streptodornase combination is the only drug that will submit clinical reevaluation results next year among drugs subject to reimbursement reevaluations this year. The result report for drugs such as acetyl L carnitine and oxiracetam that will receive reimbursement reevaluations next year are scheduled to submit results this year. Also, the differences in purpose and method that HIRA pointed out can be addressed by HIRA’s postponement of the reimbursement reevaluations. If streptokinase/streptodornase receives a non-reimbursement decision during reimbursement reevaluations, the drive and momentum to conduct its clinical re-evaluations will dissolve into thin air. The company would see no reason to verify the efficacy of a drug that lost marketability due to non-reimbursement. If its efficacy is demonstrated through the clinical trial next year, this would then bring more serious problems, as it would be difficult to reverse the non-reimbursement judgment even though there is evidence to prove reimbursement adequacy. HIRA needs to stop drawing a line between clinical re-evaluations and reimbursement re-evaluations and rationally adjust the order of drugs subject to reevaluations by period. Then no objections will arise regarding the procedure or results. The drugs that had received non-reimbursement decisions last year are still being sold in the market after 1 year. The companies had filed a suspension of execution to the court to suspend the disposition. In this sense, 1 year is not that long a delay. The companies will be proposing 1-year grace period again in the 30-day objection submission period. Upon receiving the request, I ask HIRA and DREC to seriously consider what s more reasonable.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's view] The 2nd Danaher, SD BioSensor
- by Jul 13, 2022 06:05am
- Danaher is considered one of the leading companies in the global diagnostic market along with Roche and Abbott. Danaher's growth engine, born in 1984, lies in aggressive M&A. So far, it has grown in size with more than 50 M&As. Rather than developing its own technology when entering a new market, it mainly used the method of acquiring promising companies and settling in the market with active management participation. It has grown into a comprehensive medical device company by acquiring companies in various fields such as molecular diagnostic company Cepheid, tooth implant manufacturing company Nobel Biocare, and diagnostic reagent company Beckman Coulter. Danaher didn't just focus on increasing the size of the company. All of Danaher's M&A activities are based on the company's business philosophy, DBS (Danaher Business System). Danaher established its own business system DBS in accordance with Japan's Kaizen principle, which means 'continuous improvement'. DBS measures companies or businesses to be acquired according to four principles: people, planning, process, and performance, and prepares and applies strategic plans after the acquisition. By successfully implementing this DBS system, Danaher was able to achieve overwhelming growth compared to its competitors. Companies that want to become the second Danaher have also appeared in Korea. It is the SD BioSensor in the domestic M&A market recently. After steadily focusing on diagnostic research, sales rose vertically due to COVID-19, recording 3 trillion won last year. Operating profit also reached 1.364 trillion won. As of the end of the first quarter, SD BioSensor's cash and cashable assets were 1.1636 trillion won. Since then, SD biosensors have launched aggressive M&As. Following the purchase of Brazilian diagnostic device distributor Eco Diagnostica for 47 billion won, it acquired Italian Relab and German Bestbion for 61.9 billion won and 16.1 billion won, respectively. And on the 8th, it also decided to acquire Meridian Bioscience, a U.S. diagnostic device company. It is the largest deal in the domestic pharmaceutical industry, with a total acquisition volume of 2 trillion won. Meridian Bioscience is considered a diagnostic device company that is strong in diagnosing digestive systems. SD BioSensor announced additional mergers and acquisitions this year. It showed its ambition to secure distribution networks in major global countries. Chairman Cho Young-sik of SD BioSensor announced such a plan and said, "We will increase various diagnostic device products such as STANDARD M10 and grow it into a global company that can compete with Danaher." This is not just a meaning of growing size by acquiring companies, but a willingness to establish a business philosophy to pave the way for growth as a global company. We hope that the domestic pharmaceutical bio industry will also establish its own philosophy and show that it is willing to invest. It is hoped that a domestic pharmaceutical bio environment will be established to strengthen internal stability, increase appearance, and compete globally.
