- LOGIN
- MemberShip
- 2025-12-18 05:17:18
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Trodelvy makes way to reimb in KOR
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Feb 10, 2025 05:51am
- The wait was worth it. The triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treatment Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan-hziy) has passed the Drug Reimbursement Evaluation Committee review, nearly 15 months after passing the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service’s Cancer Disease Review Committee review. The most promising aspect of the news is that the drug met the new drug requirement that was revised in August last year (the detailed evaluation criteria for negotiated drugs, including new drugs) and was the first to receive a flexible application of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold. Of course, another antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan) had previously been applied as an exceptional ICER threshold. However, Trodelvy is the first drug to pass DREC review after the amendments were implemented to define the exact criteria for an innovative new drug. The fact that a drug that is so good that it costs as much for the pharmaceutical company as well has passed DREC review, suggests that the ICER threshold has increased for innovative new drugs. Although there is no documented figure, it is generally accepted that the maximum ICER threshold for insurance coverage in Korea is KRW 50 million. And even the KRW 50 million threshold has been recognized for only a rare few cases. Raising the ICER threshold has been a long-standing desire of the pharmaceutical industry. In a study published last year in the online edition of the medical journal Springer, “Survey of Unmet Needs in the New Drug Registration System,” the ICER was the number one improvement that market access managers in the industry desired. 93% of respondents had selected the response. The ICER threshold was also the most anticipated element of the government's proposed innovative drug pricing incentives, and this is the first time it has been implemented. The criteria for innovativeness are drugs that satisfy all of the following three conditions: ▲ there is no substitute or therapeutically equivalent product or treatment ▲ demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement, such as a significant extension in survival ▲ the new drug has been approved by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety under Article 35(4)(2) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (designation of priority review) and were approved through the fast-track (GIFT) or is deemed equivalent by the committee. Now that there is a more concrete definition, new drugs that meet the requirements will surely line up. Regardless of the speed, it is the reporter’s hope that more promising new drugs will be able to pass review, enabling better access for patients.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Slow but steady wins the race
- by Whang, byung-woo Feb 04, 2025 05:55am
- The Korean government has finally launched the National Bio Commission. The launch of this proper control tower has come several years after the government declared the bio-health industry as a national strategic industry. The news of its launch is encouraging, considering how the launch of the committee itself was almost stranded due to various issues. However, regardless of the delay in its launch, the committee's top priority now should be focused on setting the right direction for its future. The National Bio Committee was established to organically connect the policies being pursued individually by related organizations through cross-ministerial top-level governance. This means that it should not be a mere show-off policy, but should be backed by substantial support and regulatory innovation. Although Korea’s biohealth industry is growing rapidly in the global market, there are still many obstacles. The overall industrial ecosystem, from new drug development to medical devices and digital healthcare, is not moving forward due to regulatory barriers. In particular, Korea’s clinical approval process for the development of innovative new drugs or medical devices is still regarded as complicated and time-consuming despite the efforts of the government. This is why domestic bio companies have been turning their eyes overseas. The role of the National Bio Committee is clear in this context. It needs to reflect the voice of industry and lead regulatory reforms to meet global standards. Of course, the government has not completely neglected the bio-industry over the past few years. However, there were many cases where policies lost consistency or were redundant due to each ministry’s separate affairs. This was why the launch of the National Bio Committee was important. It is positive that the president has personally taken the chair and organized the commission so that key ministries such as the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety could work closely together. However, just creating an organization is not enough to solve the problem. Setting clear goals and executing them quickly is of the utmost importance. At the first meeting of the National Bio Committee, the government announced that it would first build a 'Korean-style bio cluster.’ Although the need for its resolution has been consistently mentioned, it is also true that doubts have been cast on its effectiveness, as it is an age-old issue that has not been resolved for various reasons over the years. It is necessary to consider whether it is appropriate to launch a new committee if the committee’s goal stands at just wrapping up what has been done so far as if it were new. The industry had expressed concern that the commission might have little role to play before its launch. This is because the pharmaceutical and bio sector, which is a new growth engine, needs stronger leadership support. The role of the National Bio Committee is simple. The aim is to support companies’ focus on the development of new drugs and medical devices and to reorganize regulations in a way that promotes innovation. It is essential to strategically foster next-generation technologies, such as cell and gene therapies, mRNA vaccines, and AI-based drug development, which global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are competing to invest in. Rather than focusing on short-term results, policies that change the nature of the biohealth industry are necessary from a mid to long-term perspective. The domestic bio-industry has much growth potential. However, if the government fails to play its role, companies that run into obstacles will only experience limitations. Proper support must be provided for this now. Although it is late, in the right direction, there is still time for Korea’s industry to catch up. It is this reporter’s hope that the launch of the National Bio Committee will mark the starting point for the establishment of such 'proper' bio policies.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Improving rare disease care environment
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jan 17, 2025 05:54am
- A few patients can only make a small noise. Despite the need for the improvement of the rare disease treatment environment, which has risen year after year, the voice of its patients that implore difficulties has never ceased to exist. In particular, there are cases where a drug is available, but due to the small number of eligible patients, it is difficult to prove the drug’s cost-effectiveness and predict the potential financial expenditures, rendering the drug’s reimbursement listing difficult in Korea. According to the 'Status of Severe Diseases that were applied Special Calculation' released by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, rare and incurable diseases accounted for 37%, 32%, and 33% of the distribution of the doctors’ office personnel, medical expenses, and reimbursement expenses per severe disease in 2022, respectively. From 2012 to 2019, the relative proportion of reimbursement paid for rare and incurable diseases among the severe diseases that were applied special calculation was around 33%. However, the government has a different story. The average reimbursement rate for rare disease drugs was 85.3% (2016-2020) and 100% in 2020. This would seem to indicate that patient access to rare disease drugs seems picture-perfect. However, why isn’t it so in reality? Results published by HIRA are based on the reimbursement rates for drugs that have undergone the review and evaluation process, which are different from the reimbursement rates of approved rare disease drugs. In other words, they exclude various factors such as applications of drugs that dropped out or made voluntary withdrawals. In order to increase the true reimbursement rate of rare disease drugs, the utilization of risk-sharing agreements and the special economic evaluation exemption system must increase. Rare diseases are those with a prevalence of 20,000 or fewer people, or where the number of patients is unknown due to difficulty in diagnosis. It is often difficult to conduct clinical trials due to the small number of patients. Due to the small number of patients, it is difficult to expect profitability in the market, making it difficult to actively develop new drugs, and even if a new drug is successfully developed, it is difficult to prove its cost-effectiveness through cost-effectiveness analysis. As a solution to this, the industry has been advocating the expansion of the pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption system. The industry has been advocating for the expansion of the exemption system, such as applying the exemption system even if the drug is approved with placebo-controlled trial data if there is no alternative drug or applying the number of patient requirements same as those used for special calculation. However, it is also true that the government needs to worry about its limited finances. The government is even considering introducing a system to further control the listed drugs due to the increased number of drugs covered by the system. This means that the price of some drugs may be reduced even further from the current price. If the government wishes to reduce the risk, they also need to tend to the blind spots. As these are areas where there are few patients and no available medicines. It is important to hold a closer year to the small but desperate voices.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] K-Bio's development and human resource
- by Whang, byung-woo Jan 14, 2025 05:56am
- The Korean pharmaceutical and biotech industry (known as 'K-Bio') has grown robustly over the past few years. K-Bio has successfully out-licensed new drug developments, including the In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD), biosimilar, and CDMO, since the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the industry is concerned about sustainability. The key issue is human resource development. The difference between 'development' and 'human resource development' indicates that development is defined by technological‧material advancement, whereas 'human resource development' is focused on fostering human skills and developing potential. The biotech industry requires both types of development. Technology development is necessary for fostering product quality and competitiveness, and human resource development is a key source. However, K-Bio is currently struggling to juggle the balance between the two. Based on statistics reported by the Korea Biotechnology Industry Organization (Korea Bio), the number of employees working in the biotech industry in South Korea is approximately 64,849 people as of 2023, up 6.1% (3,705 people) from last year. Yet, considering the industry's growth rate, the workforce supply is significantly below rising demand. In particular, the R&D workforce shortage has been indicated as a significant problem. The number of employees in the biotech industry rose an average of 6.9% over the past 3 years (2021-2023). However, the rate of change showed a decreasing trend: 8.5% in 2021, 7.8% in 2022, and 6.1% in 2023. The statistics on the workforce in the biotech industry by degrees indicate that the number of employees with college degrees increased compared to last year. However, those with master's or Ph.D. degrees decreased by 12.7% and 22%, respectively. Overall, the industry is lacking employees with higher education. The statistics indicate that the key workforce for leading the technological innovation is in shortage, and it can be a key factor in weakening the competitiveness of the industry. This highlights the challenge of addressing human resources issues. Companies must consider not only the shortage of human resource but also skill sets. Industry experts say that it is often challenging to immediately put graduates from universities and research institutes into ongoing projects. One factor is the significant gap between academic knowledge and industry technology. Although Industry-University collaboration has increased, it remains insufficient for overall human resource development. Biotech companies in South Korea unanimously voice that systemically organizing human resource development is crucial to consistently generating achievements in the global market. Yet, the government's initiatives have primarily focused on expanding the industry's overall size rather than on developing the human resources needed. While fostering industry growth is needed, this approach falls short, especially considering that a skilled workforce is the main driver of the industry. The biotech industry needs people with convergent skills, similar to the AI-based new drug development. This is why the government-organized human resource development project may be necessary in addition to the current efforts by industry and academics. The biotech industry is often referred to as requiring highly skilled expertise and creativity. To achieve this goal, the industry needs long-term human resource development rather than short-term achievement. In other words, continued support and patience are required. This approach is in line with the new drug development direction. The industry stresses building an innovative system around human resources to sustain competitiveness in the global market. It is now the time for the industry, academics, and the government to collaborate for the sustainable growth of K-Bio.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] Korean drugs go international this year
- by Son, Hyung Min Jan 14, 2025 05:56am
- Last year, new drugs developed by domestic pharmaceutical companies recorded remarkable achievements overseas. Hanmi Pharmaceutical's Rolontis (U.S. brand name Rolvedon) has continued to grow in the U.S. market. Rolontis is a neutropenia treatment developed by Hanmi Pharmaceutical and became the 33rd new domestic drug to be approved in Korea in March 2021. The drug was also approved in the U.S. in September of the same year. Since its launch in the U.S. in the fourth quarter of 2022, Rolontis has posted cumulative sales of USD 110.3 million (approximately KRW 155 billion). SK Biopharm's epilepsy drug Xcopri has also shown success in the U.S. market. Officially launched in the U.S. market in May 2020, Xcopri generated sales of KRW 78.2 billion in 2021, KRW 169.2 billion in 2022, and 270.8 billion in 2023. SK Biopharm expects Xcopri’s sales to have exceeded the KRW 400 billion mark last year. This year, Yuhan Corp’s new cancer drug Leclaza will be launched in the U.S. and European markets. Leclaza was approved in the U.S. and Europe last year for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in combination with Janssen's targeted therapy Rybrevant. The combination is currently recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Leclaza is expected will be able to break the dark history of domestic anti-cancer drugs. In the past, SK Chemicals' Sunpla, the first new domestic drug, Hanmi Pharmaceutical's Olita, and Samsung Pharm’s Riavax have challenged the market dominated by foreign anticancer drugs, but they have left the market through cancelation or voluntary withdrawal. In contrast, Leclaza has gone from strength to strength, receiving domestic approval, and then global approval. HLB’s rivoceranib also seeking approval from global regulators this year. In May of last year, the company and its Chinese partner Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine received a complete response letter (CRL) from the FDA, but a was found to have no deficiencies in the recent review. The combination of rivoceranib and Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine’s immuno-oncology drug camrelizumab has shown the longest survival benefit among first-line liver cancer treatments. Domestic new drugs that emerged last year are also eyeing the global market. Onconic Therapeutics is in the process of licensing out its technology for its P-CAB-based gastroesophageal reflux disease drug Jaqbo. Vivozon Pharmaceutical's non-narcotic painkiller Unafra is also emerging as an alternative to narcotic painkillers. The domestic companies need to keep in mind not only the domestic market but also global expansions for survival. Last year, the global pharmaceutical industry market was valued at USD 1.44 trillion (about KRW 1901.6 trillion). Compared to Korea's market size of USD 18.2 billion (about KRW 25.5 trillion), the global market is about 79 times larger. To put it bluntly, none of the homegrown new drugs developed to date can be called a “global blockbuster drug.” Global blockbuster drugs usually refer to products that post annual sales of more than KRW 1 trillion, but a sufficient market is required to achieve such sales. A small market cannot generate KRW 1 trillion in sales. In the end, going global is not an option but a necessity to grow further in the domestic pharmaceutical bio-industry. It is necessary to consider various research institutions such as clinical sites with the global market in mind from the initial stages of development. If homegrown new drugs successfully go global, this is expected to drive the performance of later drugs. In addition, if the domestic pharmaceutical and biotech industry shows results overseas, a virtuous cycle of reinvestment in R&D and investment in promising biotech companies is expected to be established. Currently, various domestic new drugs such as K-CAB and Fexuclue are conducting clinical studies to enter the global market. If domestic pharmaceutical companies' new drugs pave the way this way, it will be easier for latecomers to enter the market. I hope this year domestic drugs will show performance not only on the domestic stage but also on the international stage.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Pharma bio stocks shunned for good reason
- by Kim, Jin-Gu Jan 08, 2025 05:53am
- The sarcastic comment that “escaping from the KOSPI (Korean stock market) is a matter of intelligence” has become a trend for some time. Although the so-called “Korea discount” is not new, the distrust of the Korean stock market among individual investors has been rising recently. Pharmaceutical, biotech, and healthcare stocks are no exception. In fact, compared to other sectors, pharma bio, and healthcare stocks are even more shunned by these individual investors. According to the Korea Exchange, individual investors sold more than KRW 1.5 trillion worth of pharma bio and healthcare stocks last year. This leaves a bitter aftertaste, considering how these individual investors made net purchases of more than KRW 1 trillion in the overall securities market and the KOSDAQ market. Many of the largest stocks were shunned by individual investors. Individual investors sold more than KRW 1 trillion worth of Samsung Biologics shares alone. The same investors sold Alteogen and Celltrion stocks worth KRW 800 billion, and SK Biopharm, HLB, and GC Biopharma stocks worth KRW 100 billion. This is a large-scale disposal of stocks of pharma and biotech companies ranking 1-2 in market capitalization in the securities and KOSDAQ market. Various reasons have been pointed to as the cause of this massive sellout. Some analysts believe that the expanding global economic uncertainty has greatly dampened interest in pharma bio stocks that require long-term investment, while others say it is due to the lack of tangible results such as global drug approvals. In addition, the “Korea discount” has also been cited as a factor. Individual investors complain about insufficient shareholder returns, poor profitability and growth, weak corporate governance, and lack of transparency in accounting. While the Korea discount is not limited to pharma and biotech companies, it is argued that weak corporate governance leads to a lower valuation of pharma and biotech companies. In fact, domestic pharmaceutical bio companies are regarded to be more strongly influenced by their founders and owners. Major decisions are often made by the owners rather than their managers. Outside directors only act as yes-men, tending to the needs of owners. There are no checks and balances. Decisions are made against the interests of shareholders. Gimmicks abound. In the past year alone, dozens of pharma and biotech companies have engaged in so-called “owl disclosure”. They tried to divert investors' attention by disclosing bad information after the market closed. There were also cases of “trick block deals” by key executives. Seven executives and major shareholders of a medical AI company sold shares worth KRW 4.99 billion late last year. Controversy arose over the fact that they sold less than the KRW 5 billion per person limit to avoid disclosing block trades (large after-hours transactions) in advance. Disclosures and press releases that inflate or distort clinical results also continue to arise. Recently, as licensing-out deals were favorable, there have been many cases where the companies inflated the overall contract’s worth instead of disclosing the upfront payment amount. There are also many cases of accounting irregularities and “split listings” that violate the rights of existing shareholders. Such maneuvering and misbehavior of some companies have led to a loss of trust in the industry as a whole. Many pharma and biotech companies plan to pay cash and stock dividends this year as well. Many companies are expected to increase their dividends year-on-year. Many are reportedly planning dividends worth hundreds of billions of won. There are also more cases of free capital increase, stock buybacks, and stock burning. However, some companies' efforts to increase shareholder value are not enough. The entire pharma and biotech industry needs to rebuild trust from the ground up to win back the hearts of individual investors.
- Opinion
- [Reporter's View] Switching of drugs reimbursable
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Jan 06, 2025 05:57am
- When a patient chooses one medication and switches to another, reimbursement does not cover the latter. Non-reimbursable drug switching has been a long-standing issue in South Korea. At the end of last year, a long-standing issue in one field was resolved. The Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) granted approval for drug switching for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who discontinued treatment because of a lack of response to either tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors or JAK inhibitors. It is a victory. Until now, the government has been stating that reimbursement would be challenging because of the lack of clinical evidence relating to JAK inhibitor drug switching. However, organizations like the Korean College of Rheumatology have continuously submitted reports and evidence about prescription practices of drug switching. Ultimately, the government reconsidered the issue and reached a favorable decision. At that time, the MOHW stated, "The MOHW has decided to provide insurance coverage for drug switching between JAK inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after referencing approval cases in both South Korea and overseas, textbooks, guidelines, clinical research articles, and academic (experts) consultations. However, an issue is still remaining. Concerns persist regarding drug switching between JAK inhibitors for atopic dermatitis. When a patient uses biological agents, such as interleukin-based agents, or oral agents, such as JAK inhibitors, and then switches to another medication, reimbursement is no longer provided. Even if a patient experiences side effects during the course of the initial treatment and does not benefit from the treatment, one cannot easily switch to another medication. Like drug switching for rheumatoid arthritis, drug switching for atopic dermatosis may lack direct clinical evidence. However, clinical practices have been suggesting opinions on this matter. The Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association submitted an opinion report to the MOHW requesting drug switching to be covered with reimbursement when treating atopic dermatitis. Furthermore, the association clarified that there are no differences in therapeutic status between biologic agents and oral medication through the guideline revision made in 9 years. Ultimately, at the end of last year, the government resumed reviewing reimbursement coverage for atopic dermatitis drug switching. The time is ticking. It is important that the government decide quickly on a result that the majority can agree to. If the government hesitates, it will take a long time. Furthermore, companies must put efforts into increasing the volume of use and finance.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] The dilemma of companion diagnostics
- by Whang, byung-woo Dec 31, 2024 05:56am
- A drug is available but unusable. This is the story of the Claudin 18.2 targeted gastric cancer drug Vyloy (zolbetuximab). This is not the typical situation where a breakthrough drug is approved but is inaccessible due to its high price. The problem is companion diagnostics (CDx). In order to use a Vyloy, which targets Claudin 18.2, it is essential to first confirm that the patient's tumor is Claudin 18.2 positive. For this reason, the MFDS approved the companion diagnostic device, VENTANA CLDN18 (43-14A) RxDx Assay from Roche Diagnostics Korea, on the same day that Vyloy was approved. However, the device’s launch in Korea has been delayed due to the issue of whether the companion diagnostic technology requires evaluation as a new health technology. In Korea, new biomarkers must pass a new health technology evaluation by the National Evidence-based healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) before they can be used in practice. Late last month, the National Evidence-based healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) held a meeting of its expert evaluation committee to discuss Vyloy’s companion diagnostic agenda and put the decision on hold. Whether the Claudine 18.2 companion diagnostic will be classified as an existing technology for reimbursement determination or a new technology for NECA’s new health technology evaluations is expected to be decided upon early next year. As the process is bound to take time, the industry expects the process to take up to 15 months if the companion diagnostic receives new health technology evaluations. Clinics had been preparing to prescribe Vyloy upon its launch next January, but this has become impossible. Astellas is also reportedly struggling to decide on the timing of the drug’s launch. For now, experts have believed Vyloy holds significance in the treatment of gastric cancer. It could be a turning point in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in Korea, where treatment options have been limited. In particular, the number of patients who can benefit from the treatment is not small, with 30 to 40 percent of new patients testing positive for Claudin 18.2. The Vyloy case is likely to be repeated in the future, given the development of new drugs, such as cancer drugs that target specific targets. This is why experts are calling for an overhaul of the current companion diagnostic system. As technology advances, changes to the system are essential. We need to take a long-term view to allow patients to benefit from new drugs as quickly as possible.
- Opinion
- [Desk’s View] No external reference pricing next year?
- by Lee, Tak-Sun Dec 24, 2024 06:22am
- The plan to reevaluate drug prices based on foreign drug prices (external reference pricing), which was expected to be announced by the end of the year, has been delayed. The agenda did not make this year's list at the last Health Insurance Policy Review Committee meeting set for Friday (27th). It is unlikely that the plan will proceed as scheduled due to the impeachment of the president and the government's transition to an emergency system. This does not mean that the reevaluation plan for the next year has been completely scrapped. The government initially planned to announce the plan within the year with the goal to conduct the reevaluations next year and adjusting the drug price in the second half of the year. Due to the political situation, the announcement of the reevaluation plan has been delayed, but the goal of adjusting drug prices in the second half of next year may still be intact. The reevaluation plan could resurface at any time once the situation stabilizes. For the government, which prioritizes the stabilization of health insurance finances, reducing drug prices to save finances can be an attractive card. After freezing the health insurance premium 2 years in a row, the government is unlikely to expand government support in the face of a tight budget. Also, the authorities will not dare touch the rebellious physicians' service fees in the current state, so the easy way out would be to tighten the pharmaceutical companies' pockets. But the situation is not easy at all. Since the political turmoil following the imposition of martial law on December 3, economic growth forecasts for the next year have been lowered to 1%. Year-end specials have also disappeared, with group dinners being canceled one after another due to the unrest. Many have said that they cannot feel the Christmas spirit this year. Pharmaceutical companies are also worried about their livelihood next year. With the won-dollar exchange rate soaring to KRW 1,450, domestic pharmaceutical companies that rely on imports for raw materials are facing a heavy cost burden. Last year, the self-sufficiency rate of raw drug materials reached 75%. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that reducing the price of domestic chronic disease drugs with expired patents compared to foreign drug prices will further deteriorate the profitability of pharmaceutical companies. The industry expects losses worth tens of billions of won per company. While healthcare finances are important, we also need to look at the companies' pocket situation. Korean pharmaceutical companies have recently begun to show results in overseas markets based on their excellent human resources. The performance of pharmaceutical companies comes from research and development. However, if profits cannot support R&D, new drug development will have to be reduced. The government should not postpone the announcement of the external reference pricing reevaluation business plan, but at least declare that it will not be carried out within 2025 due to the recession and uncertainties. Delaying the announcement of the business plan will only increase the uncertainty of pharmaceutical companies' livelihoods next year. The government should urgently scrap next year's plan to conduct external reference pricing reevaluations, at least to revitalize the economy.
- Opinion
- [Reporter’s View] ERP hits industry again
- by Eo, Yun-Ho Dec 18, 2024 05:55am
- Another round of layoffs at multinational pharmaceutical companies are underway with the nearing end of the year. Starting in the second half of the year, 5 companies have already launched early retirement programs (ERPs). The reasons are varied. Whether it's their cash cow crisis, divestitures, or mergers and acquisitions, multinational pharmaceutical companies are taking a hard look at their situation and making layoffs where they deem necessary. This has become a common occurrence in the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, multinational pharmaceutical companies have made mergers and acquisitions (M&A) this year in a variety of rare disease areas, including autoimmune diseases, radiopharmaceuticals, cell therapies, and Alzheimer's disease treatments. They have focused on acquiring rare disease pipelines through small deals under $5 billion. Most of the spin-offs and divestitures of multinational pharmaceutical companies are driven by their “separation of innovation and legacy.” While the companies have undergone activities under the major premise of “choice and focus,” the spin-offs and divestitures have also brought a negative side effect - layoffs. Especially when it comes to layoffs as a result of divestitures, it's not your typical ERP. It's called voluntary retirement, but it's much less “resource-oriented." That's why the news of such an ERP process often leads to labor-management conflicts. The good news is that ERPs in multinational companies offer significant compensation. Especially ERPs that were initiated by spinoffs or selloffs often offer industry-leading compensation packages. For those who have been thinking about changing jobs, ERP can be a good thing. But not everyone wishes to change jobs. For some people, a company is more than just a place to make a living, it's a source of value and pride. When layoffs are unavoidable, companies should focus on maximizing compensation and succession. The coercion behind the word “voluntary” is something that needs to be addressed, and the size of the layoffs should not be vague. There are no good layoffs. Even if some people are happy, they are few and far between. Some people will feel a sense of loss and disconnection just knowing that they've been labeled as redundancies. As the company the employees relied on and were proud of, as an independent pharmaceutical company and not just a Korean subsidiary of a multinational pharmaceutical company, the companies should take the initiative to convince the headquarters if there is room for improvement and take an interest in the future of their employees.
