¶ … CEO in question was personally responsible for the off-label marketing and yet it was the company that received penalty. In the readings I've done on the subject I've noticed that same trend -- penalties always fall to the companies rather than the people directly involved in the illegal market. A question arises from this. Does the lack of individual culpability lead some biotech companies to blatantly ignore FDA marketing regulations? They know that at worst the company will be penalized and they may be fired -- executives often will have already negotiated a golden parachute anyway. So the question is raised as to whether executive compensation encourages such marketing practices.
Excellent article. It seems that for most consumers, there is no inherent difference between pharma and biopharma. Ultimately, both industries often serve the same consumers and deal with the same problems. Yet it is perfectly reasonable that small biopharm firms would wish to disassociate themselves with big pharma. The question the article leaves unanswered, though, it what such a classification would look like. Where should such a line be drawn, on what grounds and for what purpose? These are key questions for marketing, since it is an issue of industry-wide branding.
Biotech firms need to ask themselves why they wish to be decoupled from pharmaceutical companies. They also need to ask what the benefits and costs associated with such a move are. Such a move may, for example, exacerbate the ongoing situation with respect to a lack of venture capital. A biotech firm is attractive to the extent that venture capitalists believe the firm can hit a home run. To an extent, decoupling from big pharma sends a signal to VCs that the biotech industry lacks those types of big league ambitions. This could be a major obstacle to rebranding biopharm, but the issue is an interesting one and well worth analyzing.
