For life sciences teams

A competitive entry turned a category with room in it into a red ocean. The question was whether to answer with money or with architecture.

As finance lead I controlled the assumptions everyone argued from, and we used them to reconfigure the channel around the patient journey, rebuild the hub, redesign the affordability bridge and consolidate specialty pharmacy data into one view. Structure took months where spend would have taken weeks, and it held.

NovartisArchitectureThe 10 Exits of Therapy™ Layer 4

Decision context

A competitive entry changed the category more or less overnight. The instinct in that situation is to spend into the fight, because spend is fast, visible, and defensible in a quarterly review. Structure is none of those things.

Answering a competitive entry with architecture rather than spend A competitive entry changed the category almost overnight. The instinct is to spend into the fight, because spend is fast, visible and defensible in a quarterly review, and structure is none of those things. The alternative taken was to reconfigure the channel around the patient journey, rebuild the hub, redesign the affordability bridge and consolidate specialty pharmacy data into a single view. No function was behaving incorrectly. Each was optimizing its own segment accurately, which is the harder problem. Structure took months where spend would have taken weeks, and structure is what held. THE INSTINCTSpend intothe fightFast, visible, defensiblein a quarterly review.WHAT WE DID INSTEADReconfigurethe channelAround the patient journeyrather than the segment.ANDRebuild hub andaffordabilityThe bridge redesigned,the hub rebuilt.ANDOne data viewSpecialty pharmacy dataconsolidated into one place.Nobody in those rooms was wrong. Every function was optimizing its own segment correctly.Structure took months where spend would have taken weeks. Structure held.
FIGURE 1. Spend is defensible in the quarter. Structure is what is still working four quarters later.

Nobody in those rooms was wrong. Every function was optimizing its own segment correctly. That is the harder problem, and it is the one I have worked on ever since.

My authority

I was the finance lead for the franchise. I did not control Market Access. I did not control the field organization. What I did control was the assumptions everyone was arguing from, and that turned out to be the lever that mattered, because the argument in the room could not be settled while three functions were each right according to their own dataset.

What I helped change

  • A reconfigured channel, organized around the patient rather than around our own convenience. That meant reworking the specialty pharmacy footprint and how patients moved within it.
  • A rebuilt patient hub, treated as the place the journey either works or does not, rather than as a cost line.
  • A redesigned affordability bridge, so that a covered patient was not still an unstarted patient. Those are different conditions and most organizations report them as the same one.
  • A specialty pharmacy data architecture that consolidated disparate sub-national data into a single view. This is the piece that made the rest possible.

The trade-off

Time. Reconfiguring a channel in the middle of a competitive fight costs months you feel you do not have, and the pressure to buy your way out instead is enormous. Functions involved were Market Access, Trade, Patient Services, Commercial and Finance, plus the specialty pharmacy network and the hub vendor. Every one of them had a faster alternative to propose.

What I would do differently

I would build the patient identification capability before the launch rather than after it. We stood up the machinery to serve patients who reached us, and then went looking for the ones who never did. That is the wrong order, and everything I have built since is an attempt to reverse it.

In a red ocean, your competitor is rarely the reason patients are leaving. Your own friction is.

Former employers and products referenced are matters of professional history. The views expressed are my own and are not made on behalf of any current or former employer, and no commercial outcome for any named product is attributed to me personally. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.

The affordability version of this argument is in Rethinking Copay Accumulators. The ten places a patient can leave are on the philosophy page, and terms used here are defined in the glossary. The patient-side view of the same ten exits is at Where did your treatment stop?

Free by email

The 5 Layers of GTN™, in your inbox

Gross-to-Net from someone who has run it. Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Subscribe on Substack
Disclosure: who pays for this work
LinkedIn Newsletter Podcast YouTube Instagram