Playing the same tune: analysis showed that Kuzminykh and "Darnytsia" promote identical theses

People's Deputy, Head of the Subcommittee on Pharmacy Serhiy Kuzminykh publicly acts as a fighter for patients' rights and a reformer of the drug market. However, if you analyze his blogs, social media posts, and public speeches, a strange trend emerges - his key theses almost literally coincide with the public statements of the top management of the pharmaceutical plant "Darnytsia". From the messages "pharmacy is not a store" to formulations about marketing - the arguments are repeated almost word for word, as if written by one author. UNN journalists investigated whether this could be a mere coincidence.

Details

Information about the possible "cooperation" of MP Kuzminykh with "Darnytsia" to promote the latter's interests is not new in the public space. Journalists have already found out how the deputy turned the subcommittee on pharmacy into a lobbying tool.

The systematic lobbying of the pharmaceutical giant's interests by Kuzminykh is also supported by common theses and the synchronicity of their statements.

"A pharmacy is not a store"

Kateryna Zahoriy, Director of the Board of Directors of the pharmaceutical company "Darnytsia", emphasized in her blog that today pharmacies operate on the principle of "what sells is good".

"A pharmacist should not be a salesperson, but a consultant. He helps choose a drug, explains how to take it, ensures that patients do not buy unnecessary drugs. No "fuflo-medicines". If drugs do not have proven effectiveness - they cannot be on the shelves... A pharmacy is not just a place where medicines are sold. It is part of the healthcare system," Zahoriy noted.

Now it is worth paying attention to Serhiy Kuzminykh's blog.

"The philosophy of the law is simple: a pharmacy is not a store, and a pharmacist is not a salesperson. His task is not to 'sell something more expensive', but to help the patient find effective, affordable and safe treatment... We are building a country where a pharmacist is a specialist, and a pharmacy is not a supermarket with bright signs, but part of the healthcare system," the MP emphasized. 

This is not just a similarity of formulations - it is an identical idea, supported by the same set of arguments.

Another argument that both the pharmaceutical giant and Kuzminykh have been promoting for several months is that pharmacy chains are too strong and need to be restricted.

"The top five chains occupy 50% of the market in terms of the number of pharmacies and 70% in terms of money," Kateryna Zahoriy stated in an interview. 

The MP also focused on this thesis.

"According to various estimates, 5 pharmacy chains control 60-70% of retail sales of pharmacy basket goods," he emphasized. 

Marketing is the main enemy

But two statements can well be a mere coincidence, so let's delve deeper. One of the most ardent supporters of banning marketing payments in the pharmaceutical market is precisely MP Serhiy Kuzminykh - a significant part of his recent posts and public statements on social networks are on this very topic.

"I emphasize once again: marketing payments should be tied not to the total turnover of the pharmacy, but to a specific medicinal product," he noted in one of his posts.

Andriy Obrizan, CEO of the pharmaceutical company "Darnytsia", stated virtually the same thing.

"It is unclear to me how marketing can be measured from the total turnover of a pharmacy, when 65% today are prescription drugs, for which any marketing is prohibited. There is a very simple definition, the resolution states what marketing services are. And when we talk about a conditional 10% of the total turnover, it means 35% of OTC, because a third of the turnover is OTC," he emphasized.

And again - similar formulations, identical logic, even a similar way of explanation.

In addition to the discussion about how to calculate marketing, both Kuzminykh and representatives of "Darnytsia" actively paint a similar picture: marketing payments are the main driver of price increases in pharmacies.

"In the price of any medicinal product, until March 1, 22-23% was marketing - that's what we paid the pharmacy for the right to be on the shelf... For "Darnytsia" products, marketing reaches 68% of the price. Out of 100 hryvnias, we have to give 68 to the pharmacy for the right to sell this product," Kateryna Zahoriy stated.

Serhiy Kuzminykh voiced almost mirror estimates.

"It is not precisely known what percentage of the price this marketing occupied. Some say that on average it was 12-15%. Some documents show that sometimes marketing payments for a separate drug reached up to 60%. Pharmacy chains asked for so-called "marketing" to allow such drugs to be sold in their stores. Of course, all this led to an increase in drug prices for consumers," he assured.

These quotes are strikingly similar. Both the deputy and the manufacturer's representative operate with similar figures, describe the problem in the same way, and even emphasize that it is precisely "payment for the right to be on the shelf."

Such synchronicity of rhetoric once again emphasizes: Serhiy Kuzminykh and "Darnytsia" do not just view the market in the same way - they promote the same narrative, which is beneficial to large manufacturers and harms pharmacy chains.

Own brands - evil

In unison, representatives of "Darnytsia" and MP Kuzminykh criticize pharmacies for their private label brands (PLBs).

"According to Kateryna Zahoriy, pharmacies sell PLBs without investing in promotion, as powerful pharmaceutical manufacturers do, for example. According to her, pharmacies have usurped access to the consumer, and pharmacists can directly advise them to buy their own PLB without any marketing promotion," Kateryna Zahoriy commented to the media.

Kuzminykh also promotes these narratives.

"Pharmacies' own brands are products manufactured by third-party producers but sold under the pharmacy's own brand name. It would seem - nothing terrible. But: pharmacies massively offer only their PLBs, ignoring or hiding analogues; the buyer often does not know who the manufacturer actually is; other manufacturers simply do not have a chance to get on the shelf - if they did not agree to work according to the PLB model. This is 'manipulation of consumer choice', which turns a pharmacy from a medical institution into a marketing platform," he emphasized.

And again, the same message: pharmacies abuse PLBs. But why is this not beneficial to the manufacturer? Because PLBs are competition for companies like "Darnytsia". By banning or limiting this practice, they free up shelves for their products.

What does this mean?

These examples demonstrate that this is systemic rhetoric, not isolated instances. This leads one to wonder - is Serhiy Kuzminykh not working according to the same communication plan as "Darnytsia"? After all, when the same theses, even with the same figures and emotional coloring, are heard from different mouths in different media, it becomes difficult to believe in coincidence.

Such similarity suggests that he either coordinates his messages with large manufacturers, or the terms of reference for columns and blogs are prepared for him by the same people as for "Darnytsia" - for example, someone from the company's communication team.

And this forces us as a society to ask a simple but important question: whose interest is the people's deputy ultimately lobbying for - patients or a large pharmaceutical manufacturer?