A Sine Qua Non to Pharma Success in Digitized World

Posted on October 16, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A wind of change is now blowing at an accelerated speed – encompassing virtually anything, across the world, including India, with a varying degree, though. It leaves a profound impact on the day to day lives of many, including almost free access to a plethora of information of any kind available in the cyberspace. The way we express ourselves – connect with others – meet our various needs and requirements – make hassle-free financial transactions – increasing transparency – containing corruption, besides scores of others.

Fast evolving digital technology is predominantly catalyzing this paradigm shift. Its weighty impact can also be felt across the global business world, sparing virtually none. Digitally enabled recent GST implementation process in India is just one such example.

Newer technology driven transformation process of overall business ecosystem is sending a strong signal to all concerned to shape up – coming out of their respective comfort zones of the old paradigm, and embracing the new one. Squarely facing this challenge of change is equally critical even to one of the most conservative, tradition bound, and well-regulated pharma industry. It’s rather an absolute necessity for pharma, as virtually all its stakeholders, including the patients and governments, have already started stepping on to the digitized world. The fundamental choice is, therefore, between shaping-up and shipping-out.

In this article, I shall argue on this critical need, based on several recent, pertinent and contemporary research findings on this fascinating space.

Indian CEOs take:

The 20^th CEO Survey of 2017 titled, “Being Fit for Growth”, conducted by PwC

reveals that the term ‘digital’ evokes both excitement and a sense of apprehension among CEOs, both globally and locally. The following are some interesting findings involving the Indian CEOs, as captured in this survey:

38 percent observed that over the past 5 years alone, disruptive technological innovations have had a significant impact on competition within their respective industries.

47 percent believe that in the next 5 years, disruptive technological innovations will have a significant impact on competition in their industry.

77 are concerned about the speed of technological change.

76 percent expressed concerns about rapidly changing customer behavior.

77 percent mentioned the need to create differentiation in their products and offerings by managing data better.

Its relevance in pharma:

The relevance of taking this wind of change in stride and embracing it fast, is beyond any reasonable doubt today. The 2017 report of EY, titled ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India,’ also reaffirms: ‘Digital will play an ever-increasing role in this era of profound transformations, characterized by increasingly informed patients/physicians, new range of customers and new disruptive entrants. To stay relevant, pharma companies need to adopt a nimbler approach and make data the currency of marketing.’.”.

The urgency:

A sense of urgency for this change has also been epitomized in the same report, as it underscores that digital disruption has demolished 52 percent of Fortune 500 companies, since 2000. The study further reiterates: “The pace of transformation has increased, competition has intensified and business models have been profoundly disrupted. This shift is happening at breakneck speed across industries, and pharma can no longer be an exception. Customers have already embraced technological changes, through their many digital touch points, and pharma must look toward digital to re-imagine the customer experience.”

Just changing manual processes to digital won’t suffice:

This is exactly what is mostly happening today in pharma. Concerned employees, in general, are also receiving training inputs accordingly. Vindicating this point, a recent study reiterates that just changing manual processes to digital won’t suffice, any longer. Delivering greater value to the stakeholders continuously through digitization of business is the name of the game.

The above EY report unambiguously endorses that: “Whatever was being done manually earlier is now being done digitally. But we are not adding additional value.”

While capturing in the report Indian pharma’s journey to the digital world, it articulates, though some digitization initiatives are being taken now, Indian pharma companies are still way behind their global counterparts. The survey found 53 percent of the participating companies still at the ‘beginners’ stage, while 40 percent are at the ‘conservatives’ stage and only 7 percent have moved toward the ‘explorers’ stage.

Three fundamental non-technical barriers, and the way forward:

Two important studies – one by EY, as quoted above, flagged three fundamental non- technical barriers in this area, and the other one by McKinsey & Co that proposed three strategic actions for Indian pharma to start on a digital path by leveraging its intrinsic value, meaningfully.

EY study indicated, 86 percent of the senior pharma leaders exhibited a strong positive inclination toward digital as a ‘strategic’ rather than a tactical approach. It then highlighted the following three key barriers to embracing digital:

Lack of clear digital strategy for the organization
Incremental value proposition and effective delivery
Change management

McKinsey & Co in its August 2015 report, titled ‘The road to digital success in pharma’ also indicated, though differently, lack of a clear strategic direction and focus in this area. The study noted: ‘Most pharma companies have started to build some digital capabilities, but the talent and resources for their efforts can be fragmented, often across hundreds of small initiatives. Without clear strategic direction and strong senior sponsorship, digital initiatives often struggle to secure the funding and human resources required to reach a viable scale, and they cannot overcome barriers related to inflexible legacy IT systems.’

Based on the above finding, the paper proposed three strategic actions for pharma companies to place it on the right trajectory, capturing the differential value of digital, as follows:

Develop the right organization for new business models with significant value addition from digital. This, I reckon, would involve a cultural shift.

Focus on two or three flagship initiatives, such as building a digital ecosystem for patient adherence to a blockbuster drug.

Run collaborative experiments, and then scale what works, such as putting the right people from IT, business compliance, and outside partners in a ‘war room’ to run quick test-and-learn cycles of a well deliberated digital strategic initiative. Where results are positive, scale those up.

Personalization in every facet of the value delivery system:

As we move ahead, personalization in virtually every facet of the value delivery system is unlikely to remain optional for the Indian pharma players. With this wind of change gathering further momentum, many will eventually witness a mind-boggling level of personalization – spanning across from personalized diagnosis of serious ailments based on complex genomics, doctors’ writing personalized medicines to tech savvy pharmacists dispensing 3D printed individualized formulations.

This trend will continue evolving with an ascending trend of outcomes, breaking all conceivable barriers. Accordingly, services to patients and physicians would also demand more personalization, along with the other stakeholder engagement process.

Most of these may appear no more than a figment of imagination today, or probably a science fiction to many – just as what the incredible narrative of unleashing unfathomable potential of the Internet appeared to so many, not so long ago. Indian pharma players may prefer to wish away this emerging scenario, but at their own peril.

Conclusion:

The Indian pharma industry is currently passing through a phase of transition to move into the digitized world. Just doing digitally whatever is being done manually now or earlier, won’t suffice, any longer.

Giving shape to a robust, comprehensive digital strategic game plan for the organization, as a whole, is the need of the hour. Pharma CEOs would require leading their respective core teams to the drawing boards for charting out this digital pathway, without further delay.

This would be a game changer, as constantly delighting the stakeholders with the best possible value addition in business, emerges as the primary means for sustainable organizational excellence. Long term success in this effort, would call for constant upgradation of the state of the art digital platforms and tools.

This is sine qua non to pharma success in the digitized world – offering a strong foothold as the new paradigm ushers in. Envisioning, what all-round excellence in business would entail in a rapidly evolving digitized world, and championing its effective implementation on the ground, sooner, is now a critical accomplishment factor for pharma CEOs in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

Posted on October 9, 2017 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, the significance of trust is profound. It is virtually all-pervasive. Building trust is fundamental in retaining any relationship – be it in the family, society or even in business, such as pharmaceuticals. For long-term success and sustainability of any enterprise, trust is of strategic importance, and will continue to remain so.

In that sense, it is interesting to note that a growing number of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of a variety of corporate business entities, including pharmaceutical and also from India, have started experiencing a new challenge in a new paradigm, more than ever before. The rapid pace of evolution of the state of the art technology is further complicating the quagmire. CEOs, in general, are realizing the hard way that ‘in an increasingly digitalized world, it’s harder for businesses to gain and retain people’s trust’, keeping their nose to the grindstone of the conventional business process.

This feeling has been well-captured, among other issues, in the 20^th CEO Survey titled, “Gaining from connectivity without losing trust”, conducted by PwC. The participating CEOs mostly believe that social media could have a negative impact on the level of trust in their industry over the next five years. With this trend, ‘as new technologies and new uses of existing technologies proliferate, they envisage new dangers emerging – and old ones getting worse.’ 1,379 CEOs were reportedly interviewed from 79 countries, including 106 from India in PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey.

In the context of Indian pharma sector, the above finding is unlikely to raise many eyebrows, rather be construed as an obvious one. In this article, keeping the above as the backdrop, I shall discuss what the Indian CEOs recently expressed regarding their near-term business performance. After analyzing their confidence level on business growth, together with critical concerns, I shall try to gauge the quality of interconnection between the critical success requirements for business growth, and the optimism they voiced, drawing relevant data from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, and other important sources.

Indian CEO confidence in business growth:

CEOs confidence, or optimism or pessimism about the business growth prospect of their companies is often used as a measure of ‘Business Confidence’. Financial Times defined ‘Business Confidence’ as “an economic indicator that measures the amount of optimism or pessimism that business managers feel about the prospects of their companies/organizations. It also provides an overview of the state of the economy.” A score above 50 indicates positive confidence while a score above 75 would indicate strong positive confidence.

According to published data, ‘Business Confidence’ in India increased to 64.10 in the first quarter of 2017 from 56.50 in the fourth quarter of 2016 with an. average 58.08 from 2005 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 71.80 in the first quarter of 2007, and a record low of 45.70 in the third quarter of 2013.

More recently, as per Press Release dated September 22, 2017 of the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), ‘Business Confidence’ Index fell by 2.5 per cent in July 2017 over April 2017 on a quarter-on-quarter basis, for different reasons.

PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, by and large, captures similar optimism, as it says: “Nearly three quarters of India’s CEOs are very confident about their company’s prospects for revenue growth over the next 12 months as opposed to 64% in the previous year. In terms of optimism, CEOs in India surpass their global counterparts (38%) and their counterparts in China (35%) and Brazil (57%).”

Interestingly, as the report says, the motivation behind high CEO optimism is primarily driven by those factors, which are being widely discussed, at least, over a decade, such as favorable demographic profile, rising income levels and urbanization.

A mismatch:

Remarkably higher confidence level of the Indian CEOs on business growth, as compared to their global counterparts, is indeed encouraging. Nevertheless, while exploring the reasons behind the same, a glaring mismatch surface between high level of CEO optimism and their concern on uncertain economic growth, as PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey indicates. 82 percent of Indian CEOs expressed concern about uncertain economic growth in the country, in this study. A staggering 81 percent of them perceive over-regulation and protectionist policies and trends, as serious threats to their growth ambitions. Intriguingly, 64 percent of CEOs in India are concerned about protectionism as opposed to 59 percent globally, as the report flags.

The concern about uncertain economic growth in the country has also been voiced by many economists. For example, in an article, published by The Times of India on October 04, 2017, Ruchir Sharma – Chief Global Strategist and head of the Emerging Markets Equity team at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, wrote: “The global economy is enjoying its best year of the decade, with a worldwide pick up in GDP and job growth, and very few economies have been left behind. India is one of the outliers, with GDP growth slowing and unemployment rising.”

Sharma further added: “The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says that all 45 economies that it tracks will grow this year, the first time this has happened since 2007, the year before the global financial crisis led to a worldwide recession. Moreover, three quarters of all the countries will grow faster this year than they did last year; India is in the slumping minority, with GDP growth now expected to decelerate this year.”

This mismatch throws more questions than answers.

Wherewithal required to meet expectation:

It goes without saying that Indian CEOs must have required wherewithal to achieve whatever growth they think is achievable in their respective businesses. Besides financial resources, this will also involve having both, soft skills – which are basically ‘people skills,’ and the hard skills – that include an individual’s technical skill set, along with the ability to perform specific tasks for the organization.

A. Soft skills:

Indian CEOs identified ‘leadership’, ‘creativity and innovation’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘problem solving’ as the four important soft skills required to achieve the key business goals, according to the 20^th CEO Survey, as quoted above.

A mismatch:

Here again, a strong mismatch is visible between the ‘importance of the skill’ and ‘Difficulty in recruiting people with skill’, as experienced by the CEOs:

Skills	Importance of the skill	Difficulty in recruiting people with skill
Leadership	98	73
Creativity and innovation	95	74
Adaptability	98	66
Problem solving	99	64

(Source: PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey)

B. Hard skills:

Adaptation of any technology involves people with required hard skill sets in any organization. Currently, various state of the art technology platforms and tools, including digital ones, are absolutely necessary not just in areas like, research and development or manufacturing, but also for charting grand strategic pathways in areas, such as sales and marketing.

This is quite evident from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey data. While 76 percent of Indian CEOs participating in the survey expressed concerns about rapidly changing customer behavior, 77 percent of them highlighted the need to create differentiation in their products and offerings, by managing data better. Both these can be well addressed by digital intervention. Interestingly, 81 percent of CEOs in India have stated that it is important to have digital skills, and 66 percent have already added digital training to their organizations’ learning programs.

A mismatch:

The intent of having adequate hard skill, such as digital technology, within an organization is indeed laudable. However, here too a key mismatch stands out regarding their overall perception of the digitizes word. This is evident when 73 percent of CEOs participating in this survey felt that it is harder for businesses to keep and gain trust in an increasingly digitized world.

On the contrary, a 2017 report of EY, titled ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India’ says: “Digitization can not only enhance trust, transparency and brand equity, but also generate new revenue streams beyond the pill.”

The report further says: “Since 2000, digital disruption has demolished 52% of Fortune 500 companies. These companies have either gone bankrupt, been acquired or ceased to exist. The pace of transformation has increased, competition has intensified and business models have been profoundly disrupted. This shift is happening at breakneck speed across industries, and pharma can no longer be an exception. Customers have already embraced technological changes, through their many digital touch points, and pharma must look toward digital to re-imagine the customer experience. The urgency of acting is acute. It is time that pharma companies in India took a step back and re-envisioned digital as a core strategic enabler.”

I am, therefore, not quite sure about the thought process behind this perception of the CEOs in the digitized world. Instead, by increasing business process transparency, digitized world helps gaining and retaining trust not just of the customers, but all stakeholders, including the employees and the Government, further strengthening the relationship. This is now a well-established fact.

Conclusion:

While analyzing the optimism of Indian CEOs for business growth in the near future, alongside the key concerns, it appears, they are quite perturbed on retaining trust of the stakeholders, especially the customers. More importantly, a telltale mismatch is visible between their level of business confidence, and the reality on the ground – including wherewithal needed to translate this optimistic outlook into reality.

Such incongruity, especially in the Indian pharma sector, calls for a quick reconciliation. Ferreting out relevant facts for the same, I reckon, will be the acid test for evaluating the fundamental strength behind CEOs’ confidence for near-term business growth in India.

In tandem, reasonable success in creating a high degree of trust and transparency in the DNA of their respective organizations, will undoubtedly be pivotal for this optimism coming to fruition. The name of the game for business excellence in this complex scenario is – breaking status quo with lateral thinking.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on October 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

“The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”

Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.

Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.

Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.

Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.

Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.

Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Tapan Ray

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently – annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.

On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families – spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”

Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”

However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging. Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Posted on September 11, 2017 by Tapan Ray

It started way back – spanning across many developed countries of the world. However, probably for the first time in the last five years, an international media group focused on this issue thriving in India, with so much detail.

Reuters reported it with a headline “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” The report was supported by a detailed description of the relevant events, with ‘naming and shaming’. It drew the attention of some, apparently including the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), but escaped the attention of many, and finally – got faded away with time, without any reported official investigation.

In this article, I shall revisit this subject against the backdrop of draft pharma policy 2017. My focus will be on the current marketing practices, with the moot question ‘why pharma does what it does’ occupying the center stage of this piece.

Bothering many across the world:

Pharma marketing practices wear different hues and shades. Many of these are contentious, and often perceived as gross ‘malpractices’. Nevertheless, across the world, these have mostly become an integral part of pharma business. Many law-enforcing authorities, including in the US, Europe, Japan and even China, have started taking tough penal action against those transgressions. Interestingly, the draft pharma policy 2017 intends to take this raging bull by its horn, with a multi-pronged approach, as I see it.

It’s a different debate, though, whether the policy makers should bring the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) under the Essential Commodities Act, or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India. Let’s wait and see what exactly transpires in scripting the final version of the new National Pharma Policy to address this issue, comprehensively.

The net impact of the fast evolving ‘newer norms’ of pharma ‘marketing’ practices, has been bothering a large section of the society, including the Governments, for quite some time. Consequently, many top-quality research studies are now being carried out to ascertain the magnitude of this problem. The top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States (US) are leading the way with such analysis. However, I haven’t come across similar India-specific analytical reports, just yet, probably due to lack of enough credible data sources.

Four recent studies:

Several interesting studies supported by a robust database have been carried out in the US during 2016 and 2017 to ascertain whether any direct relationship exists between payments in various forms made to the doctors by the pharmaceutical companies and physicians’ prescribing various drugs in brand names. For better understanding of this issue, I am quoting below, as examples, the gist of just four of such studies:

One of these studies conducted by ProPublica was published in March 2016. It found that physicians in five common medical specialties who accepted, at least one industry payment were more likely to prescribe higher rates of brand-name drugs than physicians who did not receive any payments. More interestingly, the doctors receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate, on an average. Additionally, the type of payment also made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians receiving no payments, and those who accepted speaking payments had a higher rate of the same than those drawing other types of payments.

The details of the second study published in PLOS on May 16, 2016 states, “While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.”

The third example of such investigative study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 2016. This cross-sectional analysis, which included 279,669 physicians found that “physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest, with a mean value of less than $20, had significantly higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin as compared with other statins; nebivolol as compared with other β-blockers; olmesartan as compared with other angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers; and desvenlafaxine as compared with other selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.”

This study also concluded that “Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

And the fourth analysis on the same subject featuring in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) of 18 August 2016 concluded that “Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials.”

Exceptional steps by a few global CEOs – would the rest follow through?

As this juggernaut continues to move unrelenting, a few global CEOs have been taking some exceptional steps in this regard, e.g.:

- In December 2013, Sir Andrew Witty – erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline tossed out the ‘Big Pharma marketing playbook’. He announced, no longer will his company pay doctors to promote its drugs or shell out bonuses to sales reps based on their ability to boost prescription numbers.

- Around September 2015, Brent Saunders – the Global CEO of Allergan was the first major drug company chief to explicitly renounce egregious price increases. Outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” he vowed that Allergan would:

Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts
Limit price increases to once per year
Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

- In October 2016, Joseph Jimenez – the current global CEO of Novartis said, “We tell people, we don’t want you to deliver at any cost. We want you to deliver, but we want you to deliver in the right way,”

It’s probably a different matter, though, that one of these CEOs has already stepped down, another will do so early 2018, and third iconoclast is still in the saddle. They all are still relatively young, as compared to several of their counterparts.

These are some of the laudable steps taken by a few CEOs for their respective global operations. However, the moot question remains: would rest of the Big Pharma constituents come on board, and successfully follow these initiatives through?

That said, the overall scenario in this area, both in India and abroad, continues to remain mostly unchanged.

Why pharma does what is does?

This may not be akin to a million-dollar question, as its right answer is no-brainer – to generate more, and even more prescription demand for the respective focused brands of the concerned pharma companies. In a scenario, as we have seen above, when money can buy prescriptions with relative ease, and more money buys more prescriptions, how do the prescribers differentiate between different brands of the same molecules or combination of molecules, for greater support?

As evident from various available reports, this kind of intangible product differentiation of dubious nature, doesn’t necessarily have a linear relationship with the quantum of money spent for this purpose. Many believe, it is also intimately related to the nature or kind of various ‘gratis’ extended, some of which are highly contentious. Illustratively, how exotic is the venue of so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ event, whether located in India or beyond its shores, bundled with the quality of comfort provided by the event managers, or even whether the spouses can also join the doctors for a few days of a relaxed trip with fabulous sight-seeing arrangements.

Regardless of many pharma players’ terming these events as purely educational in nature, lots of questions in this regard – accompanied by proof, have reportedly been raised on the floor of the Indian Parliament, as well, cutting across virtually all political party lines.

Conclusion:

Should anyone tag the term ‘marketing’ against any such pharma business practices, or even remotely accept these as integral parts of any ‘branding exercise’? For better understanding of my readers, I had explained what this buzzword – ‘branding’ really means in the marketing vocabulary.

Be that as it may, where from the pharma companies recover the huge cost of such vexed business practices? Who ultimately pays for these – and, of course, why? So far, in India, the basic reasoning for the same used to be – branded generics provide significantly better and more predictable drug quality and efficacy than non-branded generics, for patients’ safety.

This logic is anchored mainly on the argument that bioequivalence (BE) and bioavailability (BA) studies are mandatory for all generic drug approvals in India. Interestingly, that loose knot has been tightened in the draft pharma policy proposals 2017. Hope, this commendable policy intent will ultimately see the light of the day, unless another innovative new reason pops-up.

Against this backdrop, many ponder: Are the current pharma ‘marketing’ practices, especially in India, akin to riding a tiger? If the answer is affirmative, the aftermath of the new pharma policy’s coming into force – broadly in its current form and with strict enforcement measures, could well be too tough to handle for those drug players without a Plan B ready.

That said, pharma ‘marketing’ ballgame is getting increasingly more complex, with the involvement of several third-parties, as is often reported. Alongside, it’s equally challenging to fathom ‘why pharma does what it does’ to generate more prescription demand at an incremental cost, which far exceeds commensurate incremental value that branded generics provide to patients in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 Ticks The Right Boxes: A Challenge Still Remains

Posted on September 4, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Pharma policy is not a panacea to address all related issues, neither for the patients nor the industry, in general. As I see it, it’s no more than a critical cog in the wheel of the overall macro and the micro health care environment in India. Regardless of this fact, and notwithstanding virtually inept handling of previous pharma policies in many critical areas, each time a new policy surfaces, it generates enough heat for discussion.

Interestingly, that happens even without taking stock in detail of the success or failure of the previous one. A similar raging debate maintaining the same old tradition, has begun yet again with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017. This debate predominantly revolves around the direct or indirect interests of the industry, and its host of other associates of various hues and scale.

Having said that, the broad outline of the 18-page draft policy 2017 appears bolder than previous ones in several areas, and has ticked mostly the right boxes, deserving immediate attention of the Government. One such aspect I discussed in my previous article, titled “Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics,” published in this blog on August 28, 2017.

There are obviously some loose knots in this draft policy, a few are contentious too, such as the changing role of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), which apparently is doing a reasonably good job. I also find its link with several important national initiatives, especially ‘Make in India’, ‘Digital India’ and ‘Skill development’. Above all, the draft policy reflects an unambiguous intent to stop several widely-alleged business malpractices – deeply ingrained in various common, but important industry processes and practices that include, pharma sales and marketing, serious quality concern with many loan licensing manufacturers, and even in the issues related to ‘Product to Product (P2P) manufacturing.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) reportedly commenced the preliminary rounds of discussion on August 30, 2017, where the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Commerce also participated in the deliberation. In this article, I shall not go into the speculative areas of what ought to or ought not to come finally, instead focus on the key challenges in making the pharma policy meaningful, especially for the patients, besides the industry.

Policy implementation capability:

Whatever may be the net outcome of these discussions, and the final contours of the National Pharma Policy 2017, the implementation capability of the DoP calls for a thorough overhaul, being the primary challenge in its effective implementation. Since 2008, several illustrious bureaucrats have been at the helm of this important department, but nothing substantial seems to have changed in the comprehensive implementation of pharma policies, just yet. Concerned stakeholders continue to wait for a robust patented drug pricing policy, or for that matter even making the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory, which, going by what the DoP officials had reportedly hinted at many times, should have been in place by now.

The core reason for the same could well be due to a structural flaw in the constitution of DoP under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, instead of making it a part of the Ministry of Health. The reason being to create a greater synergy in the implementation of both the Pharma and Health Policies, in a more meaningful way. But, that could be a topic of a separate discussion, altogether.

Initial adverse impact on the pharma industry:

Some of the following proposals, as articulated in the draft pharma policy 2017, are likely to cause initial adverse impact on the performance of the industry, especially considering the way the industry, in general, has been operating over a long time:

No brand names for single molecule drugs
Mandatory UCPMP with heavy penal provisions
e-prescriptions facilitating greater usage of less expensive high quality drugs with only generic names
Mandatory BE/BA studies for all generic drug approvals
GMP and GLP requirements in all manufacturing facilities
Restrictions on loan-licensing and P2P manufacturing.

Initial retarding impact, out of the above measures, may be felt on pharma revenue and profit growth, increase in overall manufacturing cost, and more importantly on the long term strategic game plans of most pharma players, in one way or the other.

The Government is aware of it:

Nevertheless, to make a significant course correction through policy interventions, in curbing widely reported alleged marketing and other malpractices, dubious quality standards of many drugs, and sufferings of many patients with high out of pocket drug expenditure, the Government apparently firmly believes that such an outcome is unavoidable, although need to be minimized. The following paragraph detailed in the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, vindicates the point:

“The domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable. The impact of this can be seen in the industry’s financials as well. The drugs & pharmaceuticals industry reported poor sales performance for two consecutive quarters ended September 2016. Sales grew by a mere 2.9 per cent in the September 2016 quarter, after a sluggish 2.5 per cent growth registered in the June 2016 quarter. The industry’s operating expenses rose by 5.4 per cent during the September 2016 quarter, much faster than the growth in sales. As a result, the industry’s operating profit declined by 5.4 per cent. Operating margin contracted by 185 basis points to 21.1 per cent. A 3.4 per cent decline in the industry’s post-operating expenses restricted the decline in its net profit to 0.8 percent. The industry’s net profit margin contracted by 160 basis points to 13.7 per cent during the quarter.”

Just the pharma policy won’t increase access to health care or drugs:

Just a pharma policy, irrespective of its robustness, is unlikely to increase access to health care or even medicines, significantly, despite one of the key objectives of the draft pharma policy 2017 being: “Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses.” This articulation is nothing new, either. It has been there in all pharma policies, since the last four decades, but has not been able to give the desired relief to patients, till date.

Pharma and Health Policies need to work in tandem:

To be successful in this direction, both the Pharma and the Health Policies should be made to work in unison – for a synergistic outcome. This is like an individual musician creating his or her own soothing music, following the exact notations as scripted by the conductor of a grand symphony orchestra. The orchestrated music, thus created is something that is much more than what a solo musical player will be able to create.

This is exactly what is not happening in the health care ecosystem of India, over decades, and continues even today. Each of the Pharma and Health policies are implemented, if at all, separately, apparently in isolation to each other, while the holistic picture of health care remains scary, still progressing at a snail’s speed in the country!

The predicament of the same gets well reflected in a World Bank article that states:

“In India, where most people have dug deep into their pockets to pay doctors, pharmacies and diagnostic centers (or ‘out-of-pocket spending’) as the norm for a long time, vulnerability to impoverishment caused by medical expenses remains high. Though government health spending is estimated to have steadily risen to 30% of the country’s total health expenditure – up from about 20% in 2005 – and out-of-pocket payments have fallen to about 58%, dropping from 69% a decade ago, these levels are still high and not commensurate with India’s level of socioeconomic development. In fact, the average for public spending on health in other lower middle-income countries is more than 38%, while in China, government spending accounts for 56% of total health expenditure.”

Affordable drug – just one parameter to improve its access :

While ‘making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses’ is one of the top objectives of the draft pharma policy. The degree of its success is intimately linked with what the National Health Policy 2017 wants to achieve. It promises ‘improved access and affordability, of quality secondary and tertiary care services through a combination of public hospitals and well measured strategic purchasing of services in health care deficit areas, from private care providers, especially the not-for profit providers.’

The Health Policy 2017 also states: ‘Achieving a significant reduction in out of pocket expenditure due to health care costs and achieving reduction in proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures and consequent impoverishment.’ It is no-brainer to make out that reducing out of expenses on drugs is just one element of reducing overall out of pocket expenditure on overall health care. When there is no, or very poor access to health care for many people in India, improving access to affordable drugs may mean little to them.

A major reason of the ongoing ‘Gorakhpur Hospital’ tragedy, is not related to access to affordable drugs, but access to affordable and a functioning public health care system nearby. In the absence of any adjacent and functioning Government health facilities, the villagers had to commute even 150 to 200 kilometers, carrying their sick children in critical conditions to Gorakhpur. The question of access to affordable drugs could have arisen, at least, for them, if the country would not have lost those innocent children due to gross negligence of all those who are responsible for such frequent tragedies.

Thus, improving access to affordable essential drugs, as enunciated in the pharma policy, depends largely on improving access to affordable and quality public health care services. Both are intertwined, and require to be implemented in unison. Without the availability of affordable health care services, the question of affordable essential drugs would possibly be akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Conclusion:

The degree of resistance, presumably from the industry and its associates, to have a new and robust National Pharma Policy that meets the related needs and aspirations of the nation, in an inclusive manner, is generally much more than any National Health Policy, for obvious reasons.

As several proposed changes in the draft pharma policy 2017 appear radical in nature, its grand finale, I reckon, will be more interesting. At the same time, navigating through the waves of tough resistance, coming both from within and outside, will possibly not be a piece of cake, either, for the policy makers achieve the stated goals. Nevertheless, in that process, one will get to watch where the final decision makers give-in or dilute the proposals, and where they hold the ground, supported by a solid rationale for each.

Thus, the bottom line is: Where exactly does the challenge lie? In my view, both the National Health Policy 2017, and the Draft Pharma Policy 2017 mostly tick all the right boxes, especially in ‘making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses’.

However, the fundamental challenge that still lies ahead, is to effectively translate this noble intent into reality. It would call for making both these policies work in tandem, creating a synergy in pursuit of meeting the nation’s health and socioeconomic needs on access to affordable health care for all, including medicines.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on August 28, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding. Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’. Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) - have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

A Sine Qua Non to Pharma Success in Digitized World

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 Ticks The Right Boxes: A Challenge Still Remains

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics