The US spends an annual $8,233 per person on healthcare, a figure that represents more than 2.5 times what comparatively developed nations spend. By a significant margin, the US spends the most on healthcare of any country in the world, a massive 17.6% of national GDP. *

In the face of this, costs only continue to rise, and the 2011 National Scorecard on US Health System Performance suggests that healthcare access is still constrained by cost and a weak national primary care foundation. Primary care is the most cost-efficient form of medical care, many times cheaper than an urgent care visit.

HealthSpot is a start-up that’s thinking outside of the traditional doctor’s office, aiming to assuage access issues by providing tiny, portable health clinics that offer patients a comprehensive primary care visit for $60-80 per visit.

Their offering consists of a 10-foot mini-clinic equipped with dashboard screen, a chair, and medical tools you would expect to find in a primary care facility. A certified medical assistant is there to help patients check in, and a physician guides the patient through basic diagnostics via a graphic interface.

Patients can visit for a variety of conditions usually treated in primary or urgent care settings, from a cold or flu or minor illnesses, to allergies, infections, and more. HealthSpot is working on finding ways to secure coverage for telemedicine and e-prescriptions, and they plan to place these tiny clinics conveniently, near highly frequented places like your local pharmacy, where you can be treated and walk right out to pick up your prescription.

What do you think about this tiny, portable health clinic? Would you visit?

Katherine Lee is Senior Creative Manager, Science Writer for InterbrandHealth.

*OECD Health Data 2012

Over the past few years, we have seen many non-healthcare organizations focusing more and more on health. Companies including Bosch, Philips, Siemens, Microsoft and GE, to name just a few, have done significant work in healthcare related areas and earned a lot of positive credit. Healthcare businesses are leading ambitious drives in corporate citizenship as well, but attention for these campaigns seems minimal. Did you know that the same company that created VIOXX also helped cure river blindness in developing nations?

So the questions we've been asking ourselves are: Why are healthcare businesses, whose primary focus and goal are advancing care, getting less credit for their work in healthcare than other businesses? And how can they amplify this message effectively?

The answers to these questions are not all that simple. Corporate citizenship used to center mainly on sustainability and green initiatives, but health initiatives have gained increasing importance. As we’ve been saying: If five years ago “green was the new black,” then health is now the new green.

Given this shifting focus, the health and life sciences industry is faced with a unique business opportunity and some questions. At the precise time that corporations across other industries are placing greater emphasis on corporate citizenship efforts, how does corporate citizenship play a role in this unique field? What role does it have in brand strategies and, ultimately, in driving business goals?

I imagine that when most people think about the healthcare industry, corporate citizenship is rarely a subject that rises to the top. Instead, what comes to mind are typical issues that have continued to demonize the industry over the past few decades—pricing strategies, limited access to care, rising costs, and ubiquitous lawsuits, to name a few. No one seems to be talking about the incredible advances in cancer therapy or initiatives to eliminate preventable disease across the world. The result: work that is essentially good for people and society is most often viewed through only a negative lens.

It seems as though health and life sciences companies are missing a large opportunity. So why is it that health and life sciences companies are not leveraging their brands to help mitigate some of this risk and negative perception?

It’s not that healthcare companies haven’t been doing good work all along— it’s that they haven’t been able to effectively communicate the good work that they do. The reason is that product brands have historically dominated the pharma, biotech, and medical device industries, and product brands don't have the ability to communicate the positive impact of corporate citizenship. A product brand can’t take credit for creating drastic advances in cancer care— but a corporate brand can. A product brand can’t take credit for corporate citizenship activities— but a corporate brand can.

At InterbrandHealth we’ve been focusing on the increasing role of the corporate brand in healthcare— see Wes Wilkes’ white paper “Vital Times: The Changing Role of Brand in the Health and Life Sciences Industry.” We believe the health and life sciences industry is experiencing dramatic value-driven transformational change, and along with that comes the need to shift the focus from product brands to corporate brands.

As health and life sciences companies begin to emphasize the corporate brand over product brands, the commitment to corporate citizenship can finally benefit the brand and business.

While we’re not so enthusiastic as to assume that this shift will make people think only positively about the industry, we do believe this will allow companies to at least get credit for the good that they do. Health and life sciences companies will always have to deal with risk, for example, product failures and black box warnings, but being a good corporate citizen— and letting the world know about it— can potentially help mitigate some of the risks that inevitably will come by demonstrating company cultures focused on helping society and developing innovative solutions to global health problems.

Ultimately, with this increased focus on corporate citizenship and the growing visibility of corporate brands, there’s one question left to ask: Is your current corporate brand strong enough to support the increased presence and visibility?

Jonathan Lanznar is a Strategy Consultant for InterbrandHealth.

The true market potential for biosimilars has been under a microscope. In our last blog post we framed the industry, looking at some of the varying and conflicting points of view of major players in the industry. In this post we will begin exploring InterbrandHealth’s perspective on biosimilars.

We recently participated in the Financial Times US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference on June 6, 2012 in New York City. Below are some of the points that were discussed during the biosimilars panel that Wes Wilkes, our Executive Director of Global Strategy, participated in during the panel Biosimilars: Coming of Age?

Biosimilars are here. Most of the conversation today is how the regulatory pathways will shape the landscape in the US, EU, and the rest of the world. What we are helping most of our clients with today is looking past the regulatory approvals and focusing on the uptake and competition post-regulatory approval.

The uptake in developed markets will ultimately provide significant savings and access to a new population of patients. But new entrants may be underestimating the loyalties that exist with reference product manufacturers, and the trepidation that may exist for providers and patients to switch to the biogenerics, specifically those that treat more chronic conditions.

We are not talking the same price disparities we see with generics in the small molecule space. In some markets we may be talking less than 30% in price savings, not to mention the price elasticity reference product manufacturers are willing to explore as the basement price for many of the big products is still unknown. Pair that with the brand loyalty, trust and safety that have been built up over the last decade — and we have a much different game on our hands.

Some of the newer entrants can learn from the mistakes made in the past in the small molecule space, especially in how they will compete and differentiate themselves in a highly competitive environment.We see the future successors differentiating themselves on:

1) The corporate/manufacturer brand

2) The manufacturing process

3) The technologies and delivery devices

However, we see most of the efforts to date being placed in the reverse order. Of course the technology and delivery device is an obvious differentiator, but we are encouraging our clients to consider the uptake barriers that do and will exist post-approval.

One of the greatest barriers is concern over safety and quality controls. Yes, the price will be a driver of choice, but the hurdle of a relatively “unknown” player with different manufacturing technologies may not be enough to overcome the price disparity.

Starting now to lay the foundation of the corporate and manufacturer equities will be key to post-approval commercial success. Providers and payers will have an increased scrutiny on this space especially in the more chronic conditions. We feel that focusing only on the differences in delivery and dosing may be a bit myopic in a category where brand loyalty, trust and respect will be key.

Stay tuned for a white paper on biosimilars where we will be exploring these commercial strategies in more depth. For more information on this topic please email: info@interbrandhealth.com

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

Biosimilars have been in the news recently as testimony has been offered to the FDA on the subject and excitement mounts as some see significant growth opportunities for the pharmaceutical and generic industries. The Financial Times' US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference is bringing together an international line-up of industry experts, government decision-makers and leading market commentators to explore the market potential for Biosimilars. InterbrandHealth's Executive Director of Global Strategy Wes Wilkes is a confirmed panel speaker on this significant subject.

The Financial Times describes the current atmosphere, promise and controversy around Biosimilars and topics for discussion within the panel, "The emerging market for Biosimilars is expected to represent an important growth opportunity for pharma and generic companies in the years ahead. Regulatory pathways for Biosimilars are already well established in Europe, where the focus is moving to more complex biological products, and the FDA is in the process of establishing a framework. Opinion is split, however, on the true real potential of this market, with some suggesting that the market will grow to a multi-billion dollar market in the next 5 years, while others point to the slower development of Biosimilar products in Europe, as well as regulatory and cost challenges to show that Biosimilars will never be a serious threat to branded pharmaceuticals."

Doug Trapp of American Medical News explained Biosimilars in a piece on the FDA's release of a draft proposal in February to give a detailed explanation of approval requirements. "Biologics includes a variety of vaccines, blood and blood components, gene therapies, tissues and proteins, according to the FDA guidance. Biologics are made using complex, large molecules and typically are significantly more difficult to manufacture than small molecule drugs, such as aspirin. A Biosimilar is a product based on an original biologic that has no meaningful clinical differences from the original."

In 2010 the FDA reported the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCI Act) amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) to create an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products demonstrated to be Biosimilar with an FDA licensed product. The Immune Deficiency Foundation's (IDF) President and Founder Marcia Boyle testified before the FDA this month, urging the agency to exempt immunoglobulin (Ig) therapies from the Biosimilars pathways of drug approvals. Boyle argued the FDA should follow the example of the European Medicines Agency to exempt Ig therapy from Biosimilars pathway or to require Biosimilar products to undergo clinical trials to determine if clinical outcomes are the same with proposed interchangeable therapies.

While opinions differ on the potential of the Biosimilars market, Zachary Russ in a recent article in Genetic Engineering and Biotech News argues, "...the EMA is properly handling the question of how to evaluate Biosimilars." But he raises a number of questions.

Russ asks, "An assay technologies and expression systems continue to improve, will we ever see two different manufacturers with different processes make identical Biologics? Can the Biosimilar approval model be used for approving Biologics with intentionally different kinetics? What level of similarity is worth pursuing? In the event that a biologic finds a new indication, how will the approval of that indication for approved Biosimilars be handled?"

The Biosimilars: Coming of Age? panel at the Financial Times Healthcare Conference will explore the true market potential for Biosimilars -- the drivers and resistors to future growth. And InterbrandHealth's Wes Wilkes is an avid thought leader and speaker on the changing role of brand within the healthcare sector, including the rapidly developing markets. The Financial Times US Healthcare and Life Sciences Conference will be held at The University Club, New York City June 6, 2012 and Biosimilars: Coming of Age? will be from 4:30pm - 5:30pm.

Next week we will continue our blog series on Biosimilars with a post exploring the role that Brand plays in the Biosimilars market.

On Wednesday April 4th, IBH Creative Manager, Meredith Harris, gave a presentation at her alma mater, Harvard University Graduate School of Design. Meredith provided graduate students with insight into how she was able to parlay her degree in architecture into a career in healthcare branding. There was a brief Q&A session after the presentation. Here are some of the questions the students asked Meredith.

Q&A with Meredith Harris

Q: What did you hope to accomplish as you entered the design/consulting profession?

A: I wanted to find a way to work in the healthcare industry and still apply my creative side. I liked the inherent structure and regulations that are built into the healthcare industry, which to me present an interesting challenge, especially from a design standpoint. Ultimately, I wanted to work in a field that could provide a balance between my interests in medicine and design, and required a strategic application of the skills I developed in architecture school.

Q: Any previous employments that contributed to your current role?

A: Because of my undergraduate experiences in the healthcare industry, ranging from the volunteer work I did in hospitals to internships at the National Institute of Health; I have an understanding of what these working environments are like and where the opportunities are for brand in these areas. When I speak with our clients, I can easily understand the scientific context of their work and the lengthy processes required in order to make their research come to life.

Also, my internships at various architecture firms contributed to my current role because each firm offered more than just architectural services; I contributed to several other design projects for graphic design and product design. Thus, I was experienced in balancing several different types of projects at once and present design work to a client.

Q: What is it about your job in healthcare branding that you enjoy the most?

A: I enjoy being able to manage design work for the healthcare industry as a whole, which goes beyond architectural services and includes visual, verbal, and experiential design. I enjoy the challenge of creating brands that are truly engaging for audiences that are currently disengaged or simply unaware of how these healthcare companies can provide them with a revolutionary experience.

Q: Tell us about your most ambitious goals in the role that you play today.

A: I am truly passionate about brand and what it can do for the healthcare space. I aspire to bring a more total brand experience to InterbrandHealth clients and demonstrate how this can bring value to their business and to the people who need their services/products.

One’s health is so incredibly personal and inherently experiential. I am always looking for ways in which we can deliver on designing an experience and not just a logo that reaches an audience and influences how they think about their own health.