Rita Peters is the former editorial director of 

Pharmaceutical Technology, Pharmaceutical Technology Europe

Rita C. Peters

Bio/pharma executives found themselves under fire in 2016 over allegations of excessive drug price increases, unethical business practices that contribute to the growth of opioid addiction, and executive compensation. While some top-level decision-makers made headlines, the bio/pharma employees who serve as the foundation for the development and manufacture of new therapies were generally optimistic about the employment picture amid negative corporate news, organization restructuring, and shifting priorities.

	These employees were slightly more confident in job security in 2016 compared to previous years 

) and expressed a continuing interest in career development, challenging work, and fair compensation, as reported in the 2016 

Pharmaceutical Technology/Pharmaceutical Technology Europe

 annual employment survey (1). Overall, the 2016 survey responses were similar to opinions about the employment market as the 2015 survey (2), but respondents also expressed strong desires to seek better pay and career opportunities.

	Nearly three-quarters (74.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that their job was secure despite changes at their companies. More than half of the respondents reported an organizational change in their companies; 28.8% via merger or acquisition and 24.7% by downsizing/restructuring. The company changes had a modest effect on respondents; 39.4% reported changes to job responsibilities and less than 5% said they left the company.

More than 440 bio/pharma professionals from around the globe responded to the 2016 

 employment survey, which was fielded in September and October 2016. Respondents were from innovator bio/pharmaceutical companies (25.8%), generic-drug manufacturing companies (23.8%), contract research and manufacturing organizations (17%), consulting firms (8.4%), equipment and raw materials suppliers (7.2%), academic institutions (4.8%), and government/regulatory organizations (2.5%).

	The companies that employ the respondents develop or manufacture both small- and large-molecule drugs (35%), small-molecule drugs only (29.5%), or large-molecule drugs only (10.3%); 5.3% are involved in cell therapy or regenerative medicine. The respondents are employed at a mix of privately held companies (53.1%), publicly traded companies (33.1%), and non-profit/academic/government groups (13%).

	Respondents reported a range of job responsibilities; quality control/assurance (27.3%), R&D (24.0%), and validation (22.5%) were the top responses. More than one-third (38.2%) work for companies with more than 5000 employees; 37.4% work for companies with fewer than 500 employees.

	Geographically, 49.1% of the respondents were from the United States; 26.7% were from Europe, 9.5% from Asia, 5.4% from Central and South America, and 1.6% from the Middle East. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents were over age 40, and 68% were male. Nearly one-quarter held doctorate degrees; 42.5% held Master’s degrees.

The respondents had a range of experience in the bio/pharma industry; 25.8% had fewer than 10 years of experience, 32.2% had 10-20 years, 32.4% had 20-35 years of experience, and 7.6% have worked in the industry for more than 35 years.

	Respondents also reported employment mobility. While three-quarters of the respondents have more than 10 years of experience in bio/pharma, 34.1% stayed with the same employer, on average, for 3 to 5 years; 28.7% stayed for 6 to 10 years; and 34.9% have stayed with the same employer for more than 10 years (

	While reported workloads remain stable or decreased slightly compared to recent years, most respondents are working more hours than they are contractually obligated. In 2016, 59.4% said their workload increased, down slightly from 60.7% in 2015.

	Nearly one-third of the respondents (32.1%) say they worked more hours in 2016 than two years ago, similar to responses in 2015. While more than one-half of the respondents said they were contracted to work approximately 40 hours per week, only 23.7% reported working 40 hours. More than one-third (36.2%) said they were contracted for more than 40 hours per week; however, more than 70% of the respondents said they work 40 or more hours per week.

	Only 26% reported that they used their full allotment of vacation, personal, and sick time. A similar percentage (27.5%) said they used less than half of the available time off.

Satisfaction with salary levels was stable for the past two years after jumping from 2014 and 2013 levels; in 2016, 62% reported dissatisfaction with their compensation. More than 41% of the respondents said they were paid at the low end of the salary range for their job function for their expertise and responsibility; nearly 21% said they were paid below market value, mirroring sentiments from 2015 (

	A slightly higher percentage of respondents reported pay increases; in 2016, 56.5% reported salary increases, up from 53.5% in 2015 (

). The rate is still off previous levels of 61.4% in 2014.

	Other factors besides compensation lead to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Most respondents said their work is fully valued by their employer (31.6% strongly agreed; 49.7% agreed). More than 80% said they do not experience discrimination in their work, and 86.7% said gender was not a factor in determining or limiting professional advancement at their current company. Female respondents reported slightly higher levels of perceived discrimination than males.

	A strong majority (83.9%) felt their skills and training are used to the fullest level; however, the sentiments for career advancement and professional development were less optimistic.

	Just more than half of the respondents (56%) said there was opportunity for career advancement in their present position; only 17% agreed strongly that there was potential for advancement at their present company. Two-thirds agreed that there was opportunity for professional development at their present company.

	While career development is a priority for bio/pharma employees, survey respondents reported mixed feelings about the type of training and opportunities in their present positions. More than 80% agreed or strongly agreed that their company provided adequate training for basic job skills. Nearly 40%, however, felt their companies did not provide advanced training for employee professional growth (

). Improving quality and regulatory knowledge, building management skills, and technical training were frequently mentioned areas for training.

	In 2016, more than half (54.5%) of the survey respondents agreed somewhat or strongly that they would “like to leave their job, given the opportunity,” down slightly from 55.8% in 2015. Once again in 2016, most respondents (63.6%) plan to stay with their positions next year, compared with 62.4% in 2015 (

). Nearly 17% believe they will leave their present position involuntarily in the next year.

	The actual frequency of job changes reported was much lower; only 17.2% reported a voluntary job change in the past two years. More than 22% of the respondents, however, agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to change careers and leave the bio/pharma industry (Infographic 2).

	Confidence levels of those seeking new positions within the industry were up slightly in 2016 compared to 2015; 20.4% said it would be straightforward to find a comparable new job; 46.9% said it may take a while, but they would be able to find a comparable position. Of the less optimistic responses, 15.8% said it would be straightforward to find a job, but the new job probably would not be as good as the current position; and almost 16.9% anticipated a difficult search and they would have taken the position that was available (

	Professional advancement was a recurring theme for survey respondents and was the most frequently cited factor (38.5%) that respondents “would change jobs for this alone.” Work/life balance (38.3%) and salary (35.1%) were other lead factors for changing jobs.

	Salary, intellectual challenge, retirement benefits, and a tolerant workplace were cited as the top factors that were important, but not sufficient on their own to change jobs. Health insurance, commuting time, geographic location, and vacation allotment were the least important factors.

	What motivated bio/pharma employees to continue in their job positions in 2016? Challenging projects (38.4%), intellectual stimulation (37.4%), a good work/life balance (34.2%) were the top three reasons respondents gave for going to work. Adequate resources/infrastructure for required tasks (68.4%), adequate time to complete projects (61.3%), and tolerance and opportunity for all employees (59.1%) were identified as important contributors to job satisfaction, but not the sole reason that people go to work.

	But not everyone was satisfied. Low pay (cited by 18.3%), discrimination and limited growth opportunities (16.5%), and issues with management (15.15), were reasons respondents said they would “quit their job for this factor alone.”

	When referring to this article, please cite it as R. Peters, “Building a Better Bio/Pharma Career," 

Articles

Survey reveals optimism, discontent, and a desire for better career opportunities.

Building a Better Bio/Pharma Career

This article was originally published in 

	While the pending exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union has generated uncertainty for industries and employees, including the bio/pharma markets across Europe, bio/pharma employees also expressed concerns about compensation, job security, and career development in the 2016 

 annual employment survey (1). Overall, the 2016 survey responses were similar to opinions about the employment market as the 2015 survey (2), but respondents also expressed stronger desires to seek better pay and career opportunities.

	Nearly three-quarters agreed or strongly agreed that their job was secure despite changes at their companies (

). More than half of the respondents reported an organizational change in their companies; 26.7% via merger or acquisition and 24.8% by downsizing/restructuring. The company changes had a modest effect on respondents; 43.4% reported changes to job responsibilities and less than 2% said they left the company.

	More than 440 bio/pharma professionals from around the globe responded to the 2016 

 employment survey, which was fielded in September and October 2016. Compared to the global audience of respondents, a greater percentage of respondents from Europe worked for generic bio/pharmaceutical companies (28%) than innovator bio/pharmaceutical companies (19.5%); and a greater percentage 68.8%) were employed at privately held companies.

	Europe-based respondents reported a range of job responsibilities; quality control/assurance, validation, R&D, and analytical studies were the top responses. More than one-quarter (28%) of respondents work for companies with more than 5000 employees; 41.5% work for companies with fewer than 500 employees.

	Nearly two-thirds of the respondents were over age 40, and 65.6% were male. One-half of the respondents held Master’s degrees and 29.3% held doctorate degrees.

	The respondents had a range of experience in the bio/pharma industry; approximately one-quarter had fewer than 10 years of experience, one-third had 10-20 years, and one-third had 20-35 years of experience, and approximately 7% have worked in the industry for more than 35 years.

	While reported workloads remained stable or decreased slightly compared to recent years, most respondents are working more hours than they are contractually obligated. Nearly one-third of the respondents (29.3%) said they worked more hours in 2016 than two years ago.

	In 2016, 56.6% said their workload increased due to an increase in business without an increase in staff, increased regulatory pressure, exploring new technologies, and staff cuts.

	European bio/pharma employees reported shorter work weeks than the global respondents; 60.3% of Europeans said they are contracted to work approximately 40 hours per week and 19% are contracted to work more than 40 hours per week. In contrast, 52.5% of employees in the global market said they are contracted to work approximately 40 hours per week and 36.2% are contracted to work more than 40 hours per week. One-third of Europe-based bio/pharma employees actually work 40 hours per week; 62.6% actually work more than 40 hours. In comparison, 23.7% of respondents from the around the globe work 40 hours and 70% work more than 40 hours.

	Salary satisfaction levels for Europe-based workers were similar to those for the overall global market. In 2016, more than 46% of the respondents said they were paid at the low end of the salary range for their job function for their expertise and responsibility; nearly 16.2% said they were paid below market value (

	More Europe-based respondents reported pay increases (48.7%) in 2016, compared to 33.9% in 2015. The percentage of respondents still lags the global audience; where 56.5% reported increases from 2015 to 2016.

	Other factors besides compensation lead to employee satisfaction, and European respondents provided slightly more positive responses than employees in other regions. Most said their work is fully valued by their employer (23.8% strongly agreed; 57.1% agreed). Nearly 90% said they do not experience discrimination in their work, and 89.4% said gender was not a factor in determining or limiting professional advancement at their current company.
	A majority (88.6%) felt their skills and training are used to the fullest level. The sentiments for career advancement and professional development, however, were less optimistic. While 60% said there was opportunity for career advancement in their present position, only 17.3% agreed strongly that there was potential for advancement at their present company.

	While career development is a priority for bio/pharma employees, survey respondents reported mixed feelings about the type of training and opportunities in their present positions. More than 84% agreed or strongly agreed that their company provided adequate training for basic job skills. Nearly 38%, however, felt their companies did not provide advanced training (

	In 2016, more than half (52.9%) of the survey respondents agreed somewhat or strongly that they would “like to leave their job, given the opportunity,” down slightly from 55.3% in the previous year. Most respondents (63.1%) plan to stay with their positions next year, compared with 60.1% in 2015. Nearly 12% believe they will leave their present position involuntarily in the next year.

	The actual frequency of job changes reported was much lower; only 17.1% reported a voluntary job change in the past two years to pursue better career opportunities or more challenging work. More than 17% of the respondents, however, agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to change careers and leave the bio/pharma industry (

	Confidence levels of those seeking new positions within the industry in 2016 were up comparable to 2015; 23.2% said it would be straightforward to find a comparable new job; 48.5% said it may take a while, but they would be able to find a comparable position. Of the less optimistic responses, 11.1% said it would be straightforward to find a job, but the new job probably would not be as good as the current position; and almost 17.2% anticipated a difficult search and they would have taken the position that was available (

	While three-quarters of the respondents have more than 10 years of experience in bio/pharma, approximately one-third stayed with the same employer, on average, for 3 to 5 years; 29% stayed for 6 to 10 years; and one-third have stayed with the same employer for more than 10 years (

	Professional advancement was a recurring theme for survey respondents and was the most frequently cited factor (43.3%) that respondents “would change jobs for this alone.” Intellectual challenge (38.1%), work/life balance (36.5%), scientific opportunities (27.1%), and salary (26%) were other lead factors for changing jobs.
	What motivated bio/pharma employees to continue in their job positions in 2016? Challenging projects (48.5%), intellectual stimulation (41.2%), and a good work/life balance (34.7%) were the top three reasons respondents gave for going to work.

	But not everyone was satisfied. Low pay (cited by 18.8%), discrimination and limited growth opportunities (22.9%), and negative workplace attitudes (16.7%) were reasons respondents said they would “quit their job for this factor alone.”

Pharmaceutical Technology/Pharmaceutical Technology Europe Employment

	When referring to this article, please cite it as R. Peters, "Career Consensus: 2016 Employment Survey?” 

Europe-based bio/pharma employees are unified on satisfaction with employment conditions-and dissatisfaction with salaries.

Career Consensus: 2016 Employment Survey

	Often, the details of everyday work problems and challenges divert your focus from the ultimate goals: the proverbial ‘you can’t see the forest for the trees’. It is programs such as the 2016 CPhI Pharma Awards that offer the opportunity to reassess the goals of the pharmaceutical development and manufacturing industry and appreciate the contributions of the talented individuals and committed companies working to advance patient well-being.

	The demand for quality, effective, and affordable drugs places great responsibility on drug companies, which must produce these products while meeting financial expectations. These innovator and generic-drug companies need materials, equipment, instruments, facilities, and expertise to meet these requirements.

	Behind every therapy is a team of researchers and scientists that develop the tools needed to create better therapies, to get them to market faster, and make them cost-effective.

	At CPhI Worldwide in Barcelona in October 2016, the CPhI Pharma Awards recognized the companies that provide these important tools, materials, and services, often in an unsung role.

	The technologies and services represented by the 60 finalists were the result of intensive R&D efforts and investment. I’m sure there were many moments of frustration where the ‘trees’ seemed to close in and block the overall view of the forest.

	The 2016 Awards competition featured more than 100 entrants, challenging the judging panel to evaluate high-quality products and services for all phases of drug formulation, manufacturing, and distribution, as well as corporate sustainability and leadership.

	The increased competition is a sign of strength of the market. Competition breeds better technology and services, which will help drug companies make better therapies.
	Companies that develop products or provide services to support the bio/pharma industry should be recognized for their innovation, attention to details, and efforts at developing the systems that serve as the foundation for advancing the pharma industry.

	The winners should take a moment to appreciate the ‘forest’ and all the patients around the world who benefit from their efforts and innovation.

	The winners of the 2016 CPhI Pharma Awards are as follows:

		API Development-Novel synthesis of Dronederone intermediate, Cambrex

		Formulation and Excipients-Intrinsically Enteric Capsule Technology for enteric protection and delayed release, achieved without functional coating, Capsugel; and Parteck SRP 80 Excipient, Merck KGaA’s life-science business (referred to as MilliporeSigma in the United States and Canada)

		Manufacturing Technology and Equipment-The future of continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing: ConsiGma, GEA Group

		Bioprocessing-BioSC Lab: downstream purification breakthrough for the biopharma industry, Novasep

		Analysis, Testing, and Quality Contro-NanoLIBS, B&W Tek

		Drug Delivery Devices-3M Intelligent Control Inhaler, 3MPackaging--Pyclear Protection for patient protection and cost efficiency, Pylote SA

		Supply Chain, Logistic, and Distribution-MENA region, Raising Star with New Challenges, Pharma Venture Mena FZC

		Contract Services and Outsourcing-OptiForm Solution Suite and Opti-Form Solution Suite Bio, Catalent Pharma Solutions

		Regulatory Procedures and Compliance-Emprove program, Merck KGaA’s life-science business (referred to as MilliporeSigma in the United States. and Canada)

		Corporate Social Responsibility-Centella asiatica project in Madagascar, Indena S.p.A.

		CEO of the Year-Udit Batra, member of the executive board and CEO, Merck KGaA’s life-science business (referred to as MilliporeSigma in the United States and Canada).

	Additional information about the winning technologies will be published in future issues of 

	When referring to this article, please cite it as R. Peters, " Keeping an Eye on the Ultimate Prize," 

CPhI Pharma Award winners were recognized for sweating the details for the bigger picture.

Keeping an Eye on the Ultimate Prize

At the CPhI Pharma Awards Gala at CPhI Worldwide in Barcelona, Spain, held on Oct. 4, 2016, I had the privilege to address the audience of finalists and guests on behalf of the judges’ panel. The awards, which recognize excellence in pharma development and manufacturing, were presented to 

More than 60 technologies and services were 

for the awards, and I shared these thoughts about the efforts of all companies identified as finalists and winners.

	Often, the details of everyday work problems and challenges divert your focus from the ultimate goals: the proverbial ‘you can’t see the forest for the trees’. It is occasions such as this 2016 CPhI Pharma awards program that offer the opportunity to reassess the goals of the pharmaceutical development and manufacturing industry and appreciate the contributions of the talented individuals and committed companies working to advance patient well-being.

	Patients turn to medications out of necessity: to sustain life, cure disease, ease pain, relieve symptoms, improve quality of life, and participate in daily activities. They need assurances that these drugs are safe, authentic, free of contaminants, and are affordable.

	Doctors and medical-care providers want a stable supply of quality medications in forms that promote patient adherence. And, everyone, including insurance companies, government health authorities, and other payers, focuses on affordability.

	This demand for quality, effective, and affordable drugs places great responsibility on drug companies, which must produce these products while meeting financial expectations. These innovator and generic-drug companies need materials, equipment, instruments, facilities, and expertise to meet these requirements.

	Tonight, CPhI recognizes the companies that provide these important tools, materials, and services, often in an unsung role. The technologies and services recognized as finalists are the result of intensive R&D efforts and investment. I’m sure there were many moments of frustration where the ‘trees’ seemed to close in and block the overall view of the forest. 

	This year’s Awards competition featured more than 100 entrants, challenging the judging panel to evaluate high-quality products and services for all phases of drug formulation, manufacturing, and distribution, as well as corporate sustainability and leadership.

	The increased competition is a sign of strength of the market. Competition breeds better technology and services, which will help drug companies make better therapies.

	The finalists honored here tonight have developed products and services that contribute to the success of drug products. For that, we congratulate and thank them for their efforts at advancing the cause of providing safe and effective drugs to patients.

, I thank you for your innovation, your attention to details, and your efforts at developing the systems that serve as the foundation for advancing the pharma industry.

	And please take a moment to appreciate the ‘forest’ and all the patients around the world who benefit from your efforts and innovation.

PharmTech's Editorial Director, Rita Peters, addresses the CPhI Pharma Awards' finalists at this year's CPhI Awards Gala.

Industry Honored at CPhI Pharma Awards

	Although the calendar says October 2016, the editors of 

are thinking ahead to 2017. Our publishing schedule requires that we plan in advance, starting with a comprehensive editorial calendar for the coming year, and then looking at specific topics to cover in each month.

	As part of this planning process, I invite experts in drug development, formulation, and manufacturing to contribute to the print and online issues of 

. The editors welcome manuscripts on subjects pertinent to all aspects of bio/pharmaceutical drug development including API development; excipients; manufacturing advances; formulation; drug delivery; quality and regulations; analytical technologies and methods; packaging, facilities design and expansion; supply chain and logistics; laboratory operations; outsourcing; and serialization/track and trace.

	Both peer-review and technical article submissions are welcome. All submissions must be original, and cannot have been published previously in any format--including company literature or website postings--or any language. In addition, the articles must be objective and cannot promote a company’s products or services. Authors are expected to provide suitable references to published third-party literature to support all statements in submitted articles.

	We seek manuscripts that offer technical and scientific discussions of ongoing drug development challenges and solutions, which are sufficiently novel to be of interest to an experienced audience. Topics should be timely and useful and should focus on the development of small- or large molecule therapies.

	Manuscripts submitted for peer review are double-blind reviewed by the publication’s editorial advisory board using procedures standard for scholarly and technical journals. Four types of peer-review submissions are considered: standard data-driven, novel research; technical case studies/application notes; topics literature or patent review; and science-based opinion paper. Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication in 

 accepts technical article contributions from scientific and technical experts from biopharmaceutical companies, academia, industry suppliers, and contract service organizations for publication in monthly issues, supplements, and as online articles.

	Articles related to topics listed on the Pharmaceutical Technology 2017 editorial calendar are considered. You can access the editorial calendar via the Author’s Guidelines link on 

	The editors have prepared guidelines for submission of peer-review papers, technical articles, and other contributions for publication in Pharmaceutical Technology and on www.pharmtech.com. The guidelines explain article rights, originality, and licensing; provide instructions for preparing an article for submission; list acceptable file types for figures, tables, and images; and include a style guide for references.

Author’s Guidelines webpage explains the submission process, provides links to the editorial guidelines for peer-review and technical paper submissions, and contact information for authors. To access this information, visit www.PharmTech.com and click the Author’s Guidelines link on the navigation menu. Of course, you can always reach me directly at 

	When referring to this article, please cite it as R. Peters, "Calling All Authors," 

The editors seek drug development experts to contribute technical articles for 2017.

Calling All Authors

	Drug shortages can be caused by manufacturing and quality issues, outdated facilities, resistance by drug companies to update operations, supply issues, raw materials sourcing problems, regulatory actions, pricing pressures, and business decisions to not make products that are not profitable. The skyrocketing price of some drug products, however, is creating another type of drug shortage for individual patients: the lack of accessibility to life-saving drugs of choice.

	For consumer products, the buyer has a choice about what they will purchase and at what price. When a new technology-such as an electronic device-is first introduced to the market, the cost is high. Early adopter consumers can make the decision to pay the premium to be the first to get the latest gadget, only to see prices fall as the technology is more widely used and more competitors enter the market. Likewise, consumers drive markets by buying when the price is right, and not buying when the price is too high. When interest rates are low, home buying increases. When rates rise, sales stall.

	In these examples, consumers exercised their buying power to influence product pricing. Businesses adjusted to meet consumer demand. When a drug product is in short supply, or is controlled by one producer, however, patients lose their buying power.

	Mylan is currently at the center of a growing media storm over the cost of its EpiPen, an autoinjector that dispenses emergency doses of epinephrine. The company increased the price of the product 460% between 2007 and 2015. During the same time, the company’s stock price tripled, and the CEO Heather Bresch’s compensation increased 671% (1). A prescription for a two-pen package of EpiPens now runs about $350; patients are complaining and Congress is requesting that the Federal Trade Commission investigate.

	The company enjoyed a dominant market share thanks to an aggressive marketing campaign that targeted parents of children with life-threatening allergies, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. Annual sales grew from $200 million in 2007 to more than $1 billion in 2015 (2). The dominance solidified when Sanofi recalled its Auvi-Q injector in October 2015 due to dosage delivery problems.

	Mylan explained its position on its website (3), citing a changing insurance landscape and pointing to the company’s assistance programs, which offer limited financial help to patients.

	For many patients the price for this existing product is just too high. In August 2016, the State of Illinois enacted legislation to allow first responders to use vials and syringes to administer epinephrine manually at an estimated cost of $50 per dose. The emergency workers must be trained to  administer the drug (4). Having been sold on using Mylan’s life-saving product, parents now face the choice of paying the high price, learning to use an alternative injector, or carrying a syringe and vial wherever they go. That is not the way to build patient loyalty.

Mylan Execs Gave Themselves Raises as They Hiked EpiPen Prices

, accessed Aug. 23, 2016.
	2. C. Koons, “

How Marketing Turned the EpiPen Into a Billion-Dollar Business

k, Sept. 25, 2015, accessed Aug. 23, 2016.
	3. Mylan, “M

ylan’s Commitment to EpiPen (epinephrine injection, USP) Auto-Injector Access

,” Press Release, http://newsroom.mylan.com/access, accessed Aug. 23, 2016.
	4. WANDTV, “

New Law Complete with Life Saving Benefits

,” Aug. 22, 2016,  accessed Aug. 23, 2016.

	Pharmaceutical Technology
	Vol. 40, No. 9
	Page: 12

	When referring to this article, please cite as R. Peters, “When Marketing and Medicine Collide," Pharmaceutical Technology 40 (9) 2016.

Steep price increases for a popular drug have created patient and Congressional backlash.