As the political winds shift on a whim and public distrust of the pharma industry reaches fever pitch over drug pricing, executives are being asked to navigate an impassible path.
Being a pharma CEO in this moment in history is not for the faint of heart. Policy is changing like the wind. The high cost of drugs has been blamed squarely on drugmakers. The markets are in upheaval. Investors are anxious.
A very select few men and even fewer select women who sit atop the world’s biggest pharma companies must answer for all of this and more. It’s a thankless and lonely gig at the moment, experts say.
“These times are unprecedented... Incredible different forces are at play in the environment that can impact the effectiveness of a CEO, their team and their overall organization,” Susan Sandlund, a managing director at Pearl Meyer who has worked in executive succession and leadership in the healthcare and biotech industries, told BioSpace. “There’s a lot—be it the administration, be it AI, be it other geopolitical issues—there’s a lot to be dealt with, and it’s never been at the levels that it is now.”
Even in the best of times, running a pharma company is not easy. In recent years, it’s gotten even harder, with pharma CEOs now navigating a political minefield. Earnings calls have seen executives peppered by questions on the latest policy from the White House and having to come up with the industry’s response in real time. Many of the choices they are faced with—respond to a policy or face consequences—are prickly catch-22s. That has led to many executives choosing to play along with the Trump administration’s policies.
One thorny policy that pharma CEOs are dealing with right now is the Most Favored Nation drug pricing proposal. While the president has yet to offer a legal backing for the idea, he has asked pharma companies to comply or face the might of the regulatory agencies, from the FDA to the patent office.
“If you talk to different executives, in some cases, there’s a pretty compelling case why they have had to play ball,” Sandlund said. “And it is, maybe, in some cases, giving in, but when you speak with them, they’re saying, ‘But our viability was on the line.’”
Continue reading...