With moderator NEIL GREENBERG, Editor, Healthcare Sales & Marketing


And lead panelist BRUCE GRANT, Principal, TransPHARM Consulting


Our panel of experts:


President, Pharmaceutical Business Research Associates



Partner & Chief Digital Officer and President, Havas Lynx US Havas Health



President KDS Consulting, LLC


What new legal/regulatory challenges does pharma face—not just from FDA but from FTC, CMS, state AGs, et al.?

Larry Mickelberg: There can be no doubt that pharma is facing an increasingly hostile and challenging regulatory climate, and at a time when leaps in science and technology are driving a fundamental transformation in the business model. In digital and connected health, the regulatory environment is not straightforward and the extent of privacy and safety concerns is as yet not fully known, yet the sheer degree of innovation and the volume of entrants is growing rapidly. These new possibilities, new players, and new expectations are changing the face of healthcare forever. And so healthcare marketers must find opportunities to supplant existing product and service offerings with disruptive new methods and approaches that require working in new ways.

“Working in new ways” is anathema to those in the legal/regulatory space – and often for good reason, as many non-pharma players such as tech companies and other start-ups have come forward with products and services that lack the safety- and efficacy-related rigor expected of pharma and more established players, and are marketing them directly to consumers.

Established healthcare players have core competencies (ie, medical expertise, clinical facilities, and the ability to develop drug therapies) that have traditionally been highly prized—and priced. Few new entrants would be able to say the same, but, increasingly, this doesn’t always matter. In fact, it’s becoming apparent that healthcare outcomes depend on a lot more than just those expensive core competencies. There is a shift towards the more cost-effective approach of encouraging and empowering consumers to take more responsibility for their health, both in preventive healthcare and in chronic disease management.

Further, the pace of innovation and change in this space is breathtaking. In drug discovery, in sensors and wearables, in data and analytics, and more. Not just by pharma standards, but by any standard, and shows no signs of receding any time soon. Part of pharma’s success in this space will be inventing and/or partnering with these new technologies. That poses an unprecedented challenge to pharma’s slow, encumbered, and very complex med/legal landscape.

Legislating innovation is a tricky business, and getting trickier. In particular, for an industry that struggled with social media for a decade, apps, software, sensors and devices may represent an insurmountable challenge.

There are some perhaps encouraging signs that regulators are working to find ways to embrace innovation, within the traditional bounds of their traditional remits to serve the public interest. Within some pharma companies, and the industry at large, there are already re-engineered regulatory frameworks that are specific to digital health. Government agencies such as FDA and FTC are working within their respective spheres to find ways to define standards and embed quality process.

Bruce Grant: Ironically, the FDA, having now effectively lost the battle over off-label communication and dialing back enforcement actions against sales and marketing practices overall, may be the least of pharma’s worries. Indeed, legal, legislative, and policymaking threats—including Anti-Kickback Statute and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecutions, qui tam whistleblower suits under the False Claims Act, state Medicaid fraud suits, class-action product-liability actions, new Treasury rules designed to thwart tax inversions, and the continued threat of limitations or loss of tax-deductibility for DTC advertising—all loom larger in the near term. To the extent that we do see FDA letters forthcoming, the best bet is that they will focus on well-understood “no-fly-zones”—expansion of indication, minimization of risk information, and omission of material facts—and the rookie (or reckless) marketers who violate them.

Dan Hoffman: The CMS cost control testing could pose a formidable challenge to the currently unrestrained pharma pricing in oncology and other, physician-administered, therapeutic areas. Among several issues that CMS is testing, the agency is exploring value-based pricing and cutting add-on fees to physicians and outpatient infusion centers. This would effectively end the buy-and-bill approach that is so lucrative to pharma in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology and other therapeutic areas because it would discourage physicians from seeking to use the more expensive brands that provide them with larger margins.

Kim Slocum: The biopharmaceutical industry has been winning the pricing “battle” but losing the policy “war” for some time now, in essence sacrificing longer term strategic business objectives vital to the industry’s sustainability for short term financial gains. This loss will be felt across the entire constellation of actions that can be broadly labeled “freedom to operate” and will be seen most acutely in a whole series of legal/ regulatory challenges to industry’s actions. Perhaps the highest profile recent example of this has been the federal government’s new regulations on tax inversions that essentially stopped the Pfizer/Allergan merger. We can certainly expect to see a lot more “name and shame” congressional hearings. This is very much what we saw with the Senate Finance Committee’s actions involving Gilead and its price-setting process for Sovaldi. In the near future such documentation could eventually be turned over to the Department of Justice for potential action—either civil or criminal. States will also be conducting more of their own investigations in support of their Medicaid programs. We have already seen the substantial penalties such actions can generate against companies deemed to have violated the law. Given the new focus on accountability for various decisions within firms, individual employees—especially those in sales and marketing—could reasonably expect to be more exposed to inquiries from law enforcement. Depending on the outcome of the November election, the new Congress could consider modifying patent law in the name of generating more competition for branded products. We already know that specialty drug pricing is among the top concerns for both employers and hospital/ health system executives. These groups would almost certainly applaud such actions and might actually use their lobbying clout on Capitol Hill to get the process rolling. At a more operational level, the CMS already possesses the regulatory authority to either make national coverage decisions or to initiate a “Coverage with Evidence Determination” (CED) process.


We have also seen the recent announcement of a major change to the way Medicare Part B drugs are to be reimbursed that is designed to remove some of the perverse incentives for physicians or hospitals to use the most expensive treatments available. As specialty prescription drugs become a bigger and bigger part of Medicare spending, we can expect to see the CMS leadership use all the levers available to help manage the growth in per capita spending as the onslaught of boomers aging into Medicare escalates. For companies that continue to take aggressive stances on pricing and promotion, it will be an increasingly challenging time.

What will be the engines of growth, both organic and new, for pharma in the next decade?

Kim Slocum: Expanded knowledge of genetics will probably be the most important scientific base for the future of the industry. This will fit into a broader theme of enhanced patient segmentation—identifying those patients in whom the latest and greatest treatment modality is most likely to produce success. This will require not just biology, but also far more detailed knowledge of an individual patient’s life situation (environment, behaviors, etc.) All these data points will need to be integrated to optimize the patient selection process. Industry will need to work closely with providers and payors to ensure that this process is as complete and well-integrated as possible.

It is axiomatic that margin is what you get to keep after you have paid for the expenses associated with creating revenue. As it becomes more and more difficult for industry to grow revenue through price increases, substituting technology for labor wherever possible will also become an important driver for manufacturers looking to maintain and grow their profits. Above all, the industry’s best source of growth could well lie in selling “outcomes” rather than “products.”

Dan Hoffman: If I could define the engines of growth I’d be earning the same eight-figure annual incomes that pharma CEOs make for themselves. For a decade or more the industry kept tantalizing investors with the prospect that the emerging markets were the growth engine. With the slowdown of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economies during the past year, that fantasy has been dispelled. At the same time, the managements have tried focusing on certain specialty therapies where physician administration and the buy-and-bill system insulated drug pricing from PBM constraints. As noted before, that haven is currently under challenge. Then a segment of companies such as Valeant, Endo, Actavis/Allergan, Mallinckrodt and others embarked on a pattern of find-and-gouge. That has subjected the entire industry to political and media condemnation. In a larger sense, the question is unrealistic because few managements think about growth/sustainability for a decade ahead. Most of them recognize that making effective adjustments to the emerging landscape will require some short-term pain that they’re not willing to endure in their slavish fawning to the short-term demands of Wall Street.

Larry Mickelberg: Despite its many virtues, healthcare is fragmented through time and between providers. Interaction with patients tends to be sporadic, occurring only when there is a clinical need that requires providers’ expensive services. And sometimes, it occurs only when the need is urgent. By contrast, the hallmark of the next decade’s healthcare will be increasing connectivity through time and among providers. Interaction with patients will happen more regularly and in a coordinated way, reducing costs while keeping people on track for optimal health outcomes.

By embracing this, a pharma company can achieve several important objectives: improve the real-world outcomes of its drug portfolio; get closer to patients, thereby building greater brand awareness and esteem for the brand; increase the company’s value in the health outcomes that patients want; and create new opportunities for revenue streams.

In today’s model, pharma companies seek to attain high levels of technical competency in their therapeutic field. Competitive advantage has come from their drugs being better known, more effective, or having fewer side effects. This has created a condition-centered mindset that is focused on drugs and their impact on the disease. In contrast, the next model is more patient-centered. Soon, delivering effective healthcare will focus not only on objectively measurable disease parameters, but also on patients’ experiences of their condition and its treatment. This may involve helping patients remember to take their medication. It may involve dietary guidance, connections to social support, nudges to undertake physical activity, or other non-drug interventions.

Significant growth will come from this fusion of brands and products with advanced services, devices and digital technologies that create new ways to improve patient care and deliver better outcomes.

Bruce Grant: Don’t count R&D out. Old pharma hands have seen repeated cycles of boom and bust in drug discovery over the last half-dozen decades, and there are hints of another upswing in the making—including advances in targeted- and immuno-therapies in oncology, our growing understanding of the biologic pathways in degenerative diseases, and the ability of massively parallel computing to extract evidence and insights from the very big data that is modern bioscience. Already, talk of the “patent cliff ” is fading as a flurry of new drugs come to market. And, at the same time, financially driven “pharma-ashedge-fund” strategies —M&A (of whole companies or single drugs), followed by cuts to R&D and marketing costs, plus steady price increases—are fast running out of runway. One area to watch will be expansion of pharma companies into adjacent areas—such as companion diagnostics, connected-health applications, and care-management programs—which, while intrinsically lower-revenue than their traditional core drug business, will help protect drug revenues moving forward by positioning their manufacturers for active participation in value-based care.

Where will the centers of innovation be, in R&D, operations, and mission?


Bruce Grant: As Big Pharma becomes increasingly consolidated at the top, innovation among the survivors will become correspondingly more difficult. Even with draconian staff cuts, the sheer size, accumulated process, and incompletely merged cultures will make these dreadnoughts difficult to turn—agonizingly slowly in the best case, impossible in the worst. In contrast, I believe that the mid-pharma sector, with its flatter organizations, nimbler processes, and younger management—as well as a greater need for differentiators that will help companies “break out” and grow—will be the key locus of innovation within pharma. At the same time, new entrants, like Samsung, Google, and IBM, are vying to disrupt business as usual—with venture investments, JVs with traditional pharma, and startups of their own. Their fresh perspectives hold the promise of innovation in totally unexpected directions—especially in the area of mission, where pharma needs the most self-examination. But, as the recent flameout of the all-too-self-confident Theranos shows, it will be important for them to be as grounded in Pharma Alley as in Silicon Valley.

Larry Mickelberg: I see innovation happening in a few distinct zones. As we’ve noted, digital and connected health will be a major area of innovation for pharma and the entire industry. Another area will be the application of cognitive computing to the healthcare industry. Cognitive computing is the simulation of human thought processes in a computerized model. It involves self-learning systems that use data mining, pattern recognition and natural language processing to mimic the way the human brain works. In our sector, cognitive computing can help physicians build stronger cases by providing extensively researched and argued factual support for their treatment decisions. In other words, it provides not just facts, but reasoning based on those facts. This enables physicians to deploy their uniquely human skills: tuning in to patients, picking up clues, and deepening the patient-physician relationship. Physicians already use online medical references to build their cases, but cognitive computing takes this practice up several levels and opens it to new sources of information.

Early healthcare applications have been in chronic care diseases such as cancer, diabetes, cardiology and mental health. Another application is clinical trial matching. For patients and their doctors, it can identify trials that may be relevant to a patient’s condition, as well as show how the condition might be modified to make it eligible for the trial. For researchers running clinical trials, it can help increase trial recruitment and fulfillment. For healthcare marketers, too, there are areas of real opportunity using this technology, including more effective communication to trigger desired behaviors, better customer experience design, integrating information from sensors and other wearables, and more.

Another area will be personalized medicine, an approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes account of individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles. This approach uses an individual’s genetic profile to guide decisions made in regard to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Some of the component parts of personalized medicine, and where I would expect to see immense amounts of pharma-sponsored innovation, include genomics, biological markers, sensors and digital biomarkers, analytics, and health communications platforms such as portals and EHRs. As marketers, we bring our knowledge of products, services, and systems; expertise in communication,persuasion, and motivation; creativity in devising programs that integrate disparate elements, and experience in activating them.

Kim Slocum: The biopharmaceutical industry has always been innovative scientifically and there is a high likelihood that this will continue for the foreseeable future. The change to presumably more targeted therapies, many of which could be paired with diagnostics, also creates some interesting changes to business models. The center of gravity for innovation might well shift away from its traditional science base and toward the commercial function.

As health care in US continues to hit the “wall of affordability,” funding drug development and the sales force will require novel strategies. As access becomes more of an issue, firms will need to find ways to adjust to the increasingly ubiquitous on-line availability of essentially the entire world’s published medical literature. Physicians will soon be able to use hyperlinks embedded in clinical decision support software to call up clinical papers while they are in the exam room with patients. Companies are already changing both the absolute numbers of reps and their role to focus instead on relationship management. Meetings now involve discussions with Value Analysis Committees. The best evidence will be that collected in real time in real world settings. Manufacturers need to immerse themselves in and entirely new field—healthcare information technology—and begin to develop innovative ways of accessing data they will need from the “alphabet soup” of EHRs, EMRs, and HIEs.

Dan Hoffman: Who says innovation in R&D, operations and mission will be parts of pharma? Currently the fervent hope of industry managements is for a Groundhog’s Day return to 1985 with no pricing constraints on increasingly costly me-too’s. The finance people that drive operations want the companies to quit R&D and marketing/sales, becoming instead high expertise competitors to private equity.

How will the historically US-centric industry operate profitably, compliantly, and collaboratively on a global basis?

Dan Hoffman: Both domestic and foreign-based pharmas will continue to ride the rigged US market as a cash cow for as long as their political payoffs and influence permit. Their thinking is that this will give them sufficient time to transition to a volume-based business model in the rest of the world. The time horizon for such a transition will constantly be pushed back because the global companies will find themselves consistently losing out to domestic pharmas from China, Russia and the other emerging markets.

Kim Slocum: The industry has relied on the “Ramsey” pricing model (aka differential pricing) for many years and it has served to benefit both industry and global society by making innovative medications accessible in less prosperous nations that would otherwise be unable to afford them. However, the world is getting smaller as global travel and easy information flows brings the world’s population closer together. While this is largely a positive development, it also means that it will be increasingly difficult to isolate one market from another. This means that when companies grant ultra-low prices to firms in the emerging world (e.g. Gilead in Egypt) it becomes known everywhere in a matter of hours. The result is progressively more serious resistance from the markets that are asked to pay more and even stronger incentives for parallel trade. Industry will need to think harder about whether these traditionally beneficial strategies are worth the policy pain they create in a more transparent world.

Bruce Grant: In the 19th century, immigrants and would-be immigrants from China called America “Gold Mountain.” And until just recently, it’s clear that the pharma industry viewed China (as well as its BRIC companions Brazil, Russia, and India) in similar terms. These “emerging markets,” it was thought, would provide a counterbalance to more developed global markets in western Europe and APAC, where assessment of cost-effectiveness and imposition of price controls by national health authorities were the order of the day. The awakening from this pipe dream has been somewhat rude. Instead of unlimited profits, pharma has found demands by emerging markets for differential pricing and compulsory generic licensing of some of the industry’s most profitable and highest priced drugs. In addition, pharma has found to its dismay that the “lubrication” regarded as normal business practice in many ex-US markets is regarded by the US Department of Justice as prosecutable criminal bribery under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Navigating through these shoals will require the historically US-centric pharma industry—where, in many companies, ex-US markets are still dismissively referred to as “RWE” (rest of world)—to shed its “Ugly American” worldview and listen more closely and deferentially, to the experience and viewpoints of its global affiliates.

What does the shift to value-based care mean for pharma?

Larry Mickelberg: Today, nearly 20% of all healthcare payments are value-based. Experts expect this to increase to 75% or more by 2020. By almost any count, that’s a trillion-dollar-value shift that will take place in the next five to 10 years. In order to play in a world where payors and providers take on financial risk for their patients, pharma will have to share in the burden of a poor outcome and the upside of more efficient and higher-quality care. There is an emerging new ecology of players involved in the shift to value-based care, encompassing areas such as bundled payments models, population health, care coordination, behavioral health, telemedicine, and many others that pharma will need to partner with at every level, from investment and acquisitions, to more comprehensive clinical trials, to the inception of pilots and prototypes. Technology and partnerships aside, the X factor is how will doctors respond to this shift.

Bruce Grant: The evolution of Medicare and Medicaid and the advent of the Affordable Care Act and other healthcare-reform initiatives has spawned a new and increasingly influential set of customers—payors and organized provider systems. And when these customers talk about value, they’re talking about measurable improvements in the health of populations, in patients’ experience of care, and in reducing per-capita healthcare costs—in a word, outcomes. If pharma wishes to avoid becoming a purely commoditized vendor, competing on price, it must learn to speak this new language. And it must join forces with payors and providers to lobby for changes to policies—including Medicaid Best-Price, CMS AWP reporting, FDAMA 114, and Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors—that currently prevent the industry from offering “pill plus” programs, performance-based pricing, or even talking meaningfully about the kind of real-world evidence that payor and provider customers are demanding today.

Kim Slocum: The “volume to value” transition for US healthcare is by no means finished, nor is it a certainty that it will actually become the dominant way in which health care products or services are delivered. This change is not happening everywhere and only a minority of provider systems are “all in” on migrating their business to new forms of payment. There is also still only limited evidence that a transition to value based healthcare will actually address the nation’s overriding concern about system costs. While most policy experts have high hopes about a movement to value, there are still many potholes in the road. “Value” itself is an extremely elastic word. For example, biopharmaceutical manufacturers tend to believe that novelty alone conveys value. New products, new mechanisms of action are often touted as bringing “value” to customers. However, many of those customers are looking for considerably more substance and are seeking proof that the industry’s products are in some fashion faster, cheaper, and/ or better than the alternatives. It is crucial that we have a common language when we talk about value. In a value-based environment, premium drug pricing will probably be coupled with the emergence of outcomes-based, risk-sharing contracts. We have already started to see a groundswell of interest in such arrangements, although the barriers to such contracts at present are formidable. Over the next several years, it seems probable that these barriers will be resolved and industry will be financially accountable for the clinical effects innovative products produce.

Dan Hoffman: Pharma will try to pay off confederates among leading specialists to define value in terms that distort the meaning of the word by favoring generous reimbursement for higher-priced brands that offer only marginal benefits over less costly alternatives.

What will the industry look like in 2026, and how will it get there?

Larry Mickelberg: Summarily, healthcare will be connected through time and between providers. Healthcare interactions will take place in a coordinated way, mostly in the background, reducing costs while keeping patients on track for optimal health outcomes. Healthcare marketing will fuse brands with advanced services, devices and digital technologies that engineer new ways to improve patient care and deliver better outcomes.

Our industry will be smarter, more efficient, more personalized, and more pervasive.

The combination that I’ve been discussing here today of targeted drug therapies, sensors, cloud-based analytics and feedback loops makes for a smarter health system and a more potent effect. The industry of 2026 (and hopefully sooner) will know the human body and disease on an unprecedented level and be able to rapidly segment patients on the basis of which treatments will work for them, generate treatment algorithms and clinical decision support, apply predictive algorithms to tracking and monitoring data, and anticipate events and/or respond to triggers in real time. We will be decisively addressing the heretofore thorny issues of managing outcomes and will be leading in the key drivers of same, including ruthless expertise in areas such as early diagnosis, adherence, lifestyle and behavior modification, and clinical decision making. There will never have been a better time to be in healthcare.

Kim Slocum: Companies should now be spending time and resources on tracking what’s happening with key stakeholders like employers, insurers, health systems, and government agencies in addition to the work they already do with physicians and consumers. Policy issues are going to matter a great deal over the next several years. In the worst case situation, the US never makes the transition to a value-based system. As ever more aggressive consumer cost shifting puts more and more households into financial distress, voters finally demand (and get) a regulatory solution. In such an environment, price controls become the predominant way of making health care affordable . The sad result would be a downward spiral in innovation and the surviving industry firms would probably have to diversify into other sectors such as generics and OTC products to maintain a modicum of their former revenues. In the best of all worlds, the industry will continue to exist as a hub of innovation in biology and chemistry—developing and marketing products that make a difference in people’s lives. The leading firms will have found the optimal balance between short term financial success and the longer term goals that are critical to the industry’s survival.

In a value-based world, by 2026 most companies will have become regular users of the “learning healthcare system” IT architecture that is now slowly being assembled in the US. This will be critically important for taking time and cost out of the drug development process. These data sets will also be pivotal in creating the “real world” evidence that will be vital to securing access and adequate reimbursement for new products. Promotion will also be simple, faster, and cheaper because companies will no longer need to rely on face-to-face visits to convey most medical information. Winning organizations will have actively moved to support the “volume to value” transition which the US healthcare system is now attempting and will be benefiting from it as well. Outcomes based “at risk” contracting will be the norm for all providers and suppliers in health care—the biopharmaceutical industry included. The good news is that products that can document that they make a meaningful different in peoples’ lives will still be richly rewarded. The major change is that those rewards will be reaped over time rather than immediately.

Dan Hoffman: The big question is whether the rigged health care system in the US will persist by guaranteeing pharma exorbitant profits, exempting it from the market’s hazards, allowing regulatory capture to continue and otherwise exploiting American consumers and taxpayers. Other changes will be mostly window dressing.

Bruce Grant: As previously suggested, continued consolidation is likely to winnow today’s dozen or so diversified global pharma companies down to a handful—fewer than half a dozen—of premier league players at the top, with a larger cohort of low-overhead, low-margin suppliers of the increasing arsenal of generic drugs for healthcare’s most common conditions. Additional niches will be carved out in the middle by specialized companies, including those producing genomically personalized medicine and integrated drug/diagnostic/device systems—such as continuous glucose monitor/insulin pump/ insulin combinations. The place to watch closely will be the second tier of $500-million-to-$5-billion opportunists immediately below the premier-league players, where I believe, the future of the industry will be forged.




BRUCE GRANT, Principal, TransPHARM Consulting

A veteran of more than three decades in healthcare marketing, business strategy, and organizational change management, Bruce currently works at TransPHARM with leading life-sciences companies to develop transformative strategies, analytics, offerings, and business processes to deliver value to today’s payor and provider-system customers. As team leader, coach, creative strategist and mentor, he has previously been SVP Strategy at Epsilon, SVP Strategy at Digitas Health, VP of Strategy and Business Development at Medical Broadcasting Company, Director of Innovation at Qwest Internet Solutions, Director of Innovation at Frontier Media Group, and was a founding board member of the Internet Healthcare Coalition, the first NGO to support Web development for the life sciences. Bruce is a widely published author, a dynamic, results-producing presenter and a sought-after business development strategist.  


DANIEL R. HOFFMAN, PH.D. President, Pharmaceutical Business Research Associates

Dan has worked in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries for over twenty years. His experience in business research includes formal marketing research (e.g., moderating focus groups, conducting individual depth interviews), competitive intelligence, strategic planning and business development. On the manufacturing side of healthcare, he has conducted product research involving virtually every therapeutic category of pharmaceuticals. He also directed numerous consulting engagements for manufacturers in several diagnostic areas as well as hospital supplies and therapeutic devices. In recent years many of his assignments have involved the analysis of licensing opportunities and preliminary due diligence profiles of merger and acquisition candidates. Large proportions of these latter engagements have been based in the E.U. and other international markets. His previous positions include work for a Big Five global consultancy, marketing research manager at a major pharmaceutical company and visiting professor of marketing at a Philadelphia area university.  


PBRA is a healthcare research and consulting company specializing in strategic assessments, market planning and product positioning/messaging.


Partner & Chief Digital Officer and President, Havas Lynx US, Havas Health

Larry is a digital marketing professional with 20+ years of activating digital customer experiences for leading brands worldwide, with deep experience in DTC and HCP audiences and proven expertise within healthcare and pharmaceuticals. He is a frequent author and speaker, and is considered a leading authority on digital health & wellness, having presented to the FDA and other policymakers. Today, Larry leads a revolutionary marketing agency/ network model for Havas, serving clients at the nexus of digital, marketing, and wellness. His understanding of brands and markets has enabled companies and brands to know what’s ahead and get to the future first.  


Havas Health houses Havas Life, Health4brands (H4B) and Havas Lynx, three wholly owned health and communications networks, and defines policies and processes for the entire group. With offices in over 60 countries around the world, Havas Health is one of the largest and most successful agency networks in the world. Its customer-centric approach has the talent, tenacity and technology that companies, brands and people need to thrive in today’s world. For more information, go to



President KDS Consulting, LLC

At KDS, Kim is devoted to helping health care organizations understand the environment in which they operate and assisting them in finding strategic, sustainable solutions to the business challenges they face. Before founding KDS Consulting in July 2006, Mr. Slocum worked for more than thirty-three years as an employee of a variety of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and health care firms. Most recently he was Director of Strategic Planning and Business Development for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, where helped to lead the company’s effort to develop innovative tools to better understand and shape its external environment. Over his corporate career Mr. Slocum worked in a series of positions in sales, sales training, marketing, new product development, managed care marketing, disease management, health care consulting, strategic planning and externalization efforts. Engaged in healthcare IT, Kim is a Fellow Member of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), a former member of the Society’s Board of Directors, a recipient of the Society’s 2005 Board Service Award, and a recipient of the July 2005 “Spirit of HIMSS” award. He also continues to be active in health policy issues and among other activities he is the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees for the Texas Health Institute in Austin,Texas. He has given numerous presentations to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Deputy Commissioners of the FDA, the Harvard University School of Public Health Policy, the European Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Association, the Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Group, the National Managed Health Care Congress, the World Healthcare Congress, US Senate staff, and members of various state legislatures. Kim has also written “Consumer Directed Health Care, A 360 Degree View,” describing the history of US health insurance, factors that contribute to its higher cost relative to other countries, and the role consumers might be able to play in a transformed health care delivery system.


KDS Consulting, LLC provides services to a growing list of clients including health plans, providers, life sciences firms, information technology firms, trade associations, and health care industry advisory organizations.

TOP LISTS the publication for healthcare sales & marketing leaders ™

The Turnaround Tool-Box