‘Fake Drugs Kill More People Each Year Than Terrorism In The Last 40 years’

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Tapan Ray

In this article, I shall deliberate on ‘fake medicines’ that we may at times land up into buying, without any inkling that instead of curing or managing the ailments, these products can push us into serious health hazards, quite contrary to what we and our doctors hope for.

One may term these substances as ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, or in whatever other names one may wish to. The bottom-line is that such products in the guise of drugs could precipitate very serious and life-threatening health crisis for patients. This mindless game has already become both a global and local health menace, though in varying degrees and parameters in different countries.

According to INTERPOL, large sums of money are involved with these transnational criminal enterprises. Fake drug makers, who run this deadly trade undercover, use sophisticated tools and technologies and are well equipped to operate stealthily.

Deploying requisite wherewithal, this growing threat to public health and safety needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned and in tandem. Curbing this menace would call for great concerted focus in approach and execution of a fool-proof strategy with military precision.

At this stage, I reckon, we should not clutter the subject by mixing it up with other commercial considerations, such as Intellectual Property (IP) related matter, for which appropriate laws and mechanisms are already in place.

CBI underscores veracity of the problem:

Under the above backdrop, a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Press Release dated June 24, 2015 announced that the First Indo-French Workshop on “Combating Counterfeit Medicine” for Police Officers, Investigators and other officers was held on 23 and 24 June 2015 in New Delhi.

The event was organized in collaboration with the French Embassy; Institute of Research Against Counterfeit Medicines, France; Central Office Against Environmental & Public Health Violations, France and Central Fight Against Harm to the Environment And Public Health (OCLAESP) and was hosted by the CBI. Mr. Anil Sinha, Director, CBI inaugurated the workshop.

‘Fake Drugs Kill More People Each Year than Terrorism’:

In his inaugural address, Mr. Sinha made a startling revelation, when he said, according to an estimate of INTERPOL; fake medicines kill more people in a year than those who have died in the past 40 years as a result of terrorism.

Just a few years ago, INTERPOL reportedly estimated that while more than 65,000 people were killed in over 40 years in transnational terrorist incidents, the estimates of deaths caused by fake medicines range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands annually.

Quoting Ronald Noble, the erstwhile Secretary General of INTERPOL another report says, “40 years of terrorism has killed about 65,000 people, while 200,000 people died from the use of counterfeit drugs last year alone, and that’s just in China.”

Both crime and big money are involved in this life-threatening menace. Citing an example the CBI Director said, ‘One illicit online pharmacy network, which was dismantled by US authorities in 2011, managed to earn USD 55 million during two years of operations’.

In India, we have already read about the raids conducted by Mumbai FDA in April 2015 on similar unauthorized online pharmacies in the country. Following this development, the Drug Controller General of India has announced his yet another good intent to look into this issue with the help of a trade organization.

I shall also discuss, very briefly though, about problems associated with online pharmacies related to fake drugs, the world over.

More problems in the developing nations:

The CBI Director also articulated in his address, “Though the ramification of this menace is worldwide, it is more pronounced in developing and under developed nations.”

Sometime back in 2006, a study published by the then International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) indicated that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1 percent. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30 percent of the medicines are counterfeits.

The above ‘Task Force’ also reported as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4 percent and 5 percent annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total market.”

‘Fake Drugs’ are more in countries with weak regulatory enforcement:

It has been observed that the issue of fake drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak. India, I reckon, is one such country.

Interestingly, the Ministry of Health in India does not even recognize that fake Drugs are a growing menace in the country. This is vindicated by its latest report of 2009 on this subject.

The above report titled, “Report on Countrywide Survey for Spurious Drugs”, published by CDSCO on behalf of Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India in 2009, concluded as follows:

“In view of above observations and data obtained from the manufacturers, after physical verification of all the drug samples and subsequent chemical analysis report on the representative of samples taken at random, it may be concluded that:

(i) The extent of spurious drug in retail pharmacy is much below the projections made by various media, WHO, SEARO, and other studies i.e. only 0.046 % (11 samples out of 24,136 samples).

(ii) Extents of substandard drugs among the branded items are only 0.1 % {Out of two thousand nine hundred seventy six (2976) unsuspected samples, 03 samples do not conform to claim with respect to Assay on chemical analysis}”

It is an irony that the drug regulators in India mostly keep demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’ – refusing to acknowledge this menace that is blatantly obvious. They apparently believe that no health hazards due to prevalence of fake drugs exist in the country.

On the other side – many worrying reports:

Though the Government of India tends to wash its hands off on the very existence of this menace with the survey reports as above, following are just a few examples from other reports raising concerns on this critical issue in India:

A July 2014 ASSOCHAM report titled, “Fake and Counterfeit Drugs In India –Booming Biz” states that fake drugs constitute US$ 4.25 billion of the total US$ 14-17 billion of domestic pharmaceutical market. If the fake drugs market grows at the current rate of 25 percent, it will cross US$ 10 billion mark by 2017.

A May 2012 study published in ‘The Lancet’ reported that over one in three anti-malarial drugs sold in southeast Asia are fake while a third of samples in sub-Saharan Africa failed chemical testing for containing too much or too little of the active ingredient, potentially encouraging drug resistance. Around 7 percent of the drugs tested in India was found to be of poor quality with many being fake. India reportedly records 1.5 million cases of malaria every year.

A February 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15- 20 percent of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.

A 2011/12 report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted: “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86 percent of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85 percent of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

DCGI intends to justify his moot point yet again:

In view of all these worrying reports and amid concerns around the quality of medicines being manufactured in India, in January 2015, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) proposed carrying out a nation-wide survey using methodology prepared by the Indian Statistical Institute, Hyderabad to assess the prevalence of fake and substandard drugs.

In the 2015 survey, around 42,000 locally made drug samples would be drawn from across the country throughout the rest of this year, which would include 15 therapeutic categories of drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), 2011.

As I mentioned before, according to the DCGI this survey would “tell the world that our drugs are of quality”.

I discussed a similar issue titled, ‘Are We Taking Safe And Effective Medicines‘ in this Blog on November 13, 2013.

‘Fake Drugs’ and Online drug sales:

Before I touch upon this point and at the very outset, let me submit that in this article I shall not discuss on the merits or demerits of online pharmacies and the need of such e-outlets in India.

That said, it is now widely believed, backed by hard data that the Internet is increasingly assuming an attractive niche in the global diffusion of ‘fake drugs’.

Unlike India, some countries already support the business of legal online pharmacies by charting a transparent regulatory mechanism in place. For example in the United States all Internet pharmacies have to be licensed in the country. All their States require this. The general rule is, if an Internet pharmacy is offering to ship drugs into a particular state, they have to be licensed (but not necessarily located) there.

However, if an Internet pharmacy is shipping prescription drugs to individuals in the US from outside the US, that is absolutely illegal.

Some institutions in the US developed an accreditation system for Internet pharmacies. The official seals of these institutions, require to be posted on pharmacies’ website as a warrantee.

It is important to note that these institutions operate only at the national level and due to differences in domestic laws in different countries, it is difficult for any of them to provide customers with reliable information concerning the quality of pharmaceuticals, in general, available online.

Status of online pharmacies in India:

Although online sales of pharmaceuticals are totally illegal in India till date, there seems to be several such pharmacies still operating in the country.

It is generally believed that the impact of the Internet on ‘fake drugs’ business models is real. Thus, enforcement strategies need to be very stringent.

It is precisely for this reason, on April 17, 2015, Maharashtra’s Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) reportedly raided the premises of e-commerce major Snapdeal.com for allegedly selling medicines, including prescription drugs.

Immediately thereafter, the company announced that it has delisted the drugs on its portal and is assisting the FDA in the investigation.

Taking note of the prevailing scenario of illegal online sales of prescription drugs through e-commerce sites in India, DCGI office has reportedly started studying the existing regulations internationally to come out with a set of rules for online pharmacies. Meanwhile, DCGI has reportedly appointed the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) as the nodal agency for consolidating the guidelines.

Be that as it may, experts believe that online sale of drugs should be permitted in India only with strict and well thought out norms, which are enforceable hundred percent, anywhere within the country. Stringent guidance should be formulated in the amendment bill, 2015 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules, accordingly.

Conclusion:

Keeping this emerging scary scenario in perspective on the menace of fake drugs, the message of the CBI Director in this regard must be noted by the Government with all seriousness…continuing ‘all is well’ signals from the DCGI, not withstanding.

All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by fake medicines in India.

As the penetration of Internet keeps increasing at a galloping speed in the country, unregulated online sales of ‘fake drugs’ in the guise of ‘licensed medicines’, pose a very real threat to public health and safety. If and when online sales of medicines are legalized, enforcement of all rules and laws in this regards need to be very stringent with exemplary punitive actions prescribed, for even slightest violations.

In tandem, the DCGI and other regulatory and enforcement agencies in the states, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should join hands to play a proactive role in curbing the menace of ‘fake medicines’ that victimize the innocent patients.

No Wolf in sheep’s clothing must be allowed coming anywhere in the near vicinity…at all.

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.

Does The Attempt To ‘Debunk Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’ Not Reconfirm The Truth?

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Late last week while returning to India, to my pleasant surprise, I bumped into a longtime overseas friend and his wife working in the pharma industry. Incidentally, they were also traveling in the same flight with a plan to spend their vacation in India.

We both were immensely delighted spotting each other, and were trying to catch up with plethora of subjects at a break-neck speed and mostly with child-like zest. As a result, we were jumping from one topic to another, keeping many loops of discussion unknowingly incomplete.

One such rapid-fire colloquy got almost permanently interrupted with the final boarding announcement. It happened, just when he was referring to busting of some “myths about Big Pharma” by the global CEO of one of the Big Pharma constituents, recently. The article, he said before we got up, was published in the May edition of Forbes Magazine.

As I had missed this curious narrative during my recent relatively long overseas travel commitments, yesterday in Mumbai I did trace that out with the help of our “Google Guru” and went through the content of the article with interest.

‘Debunking Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’:

In the May 19, 2015 issue of Forbes Magazine, I came across an Op-Ed, titled “Debunking the Five Big Myths About Big Pharma”, written by Mr. John Lechleiter, President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company, whom I immensely respect as an icon of the global pharma industry.

The author in his article identified the ‘Five Myths’ as follows:

Myth1: Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.

Myth 2: Industry does not develop most new medicines; they come from government and university laboratories.

Myth 3: Prescription medicines are the main driver of health-care cost increases.

Myth 4: Public and private health-care payers must accept and pay whatever prices drug companies charge for medicines.

Myth 5: Government-controlled pricing of medicines in other countries explains their lower health-care costs.

The article is indeed interesting, as it raises more questions than answers. This is mainly because, ‘the debunking of the Five Myths’ was done using the same old fragile arguments much often repeated by the international ‘Big Pharma Trade Associations’ and by some others as well, whom many call privately as their ‘poodles’, although I am not very sure about that.

The reason and time for ‘debunking’:

In the above Op-Ed John Lechleiter forcefully asserts:

“The Big Five Myths’ about this industry routinely poison debates, obscure genuine problems, and distort policy recommendations on healthcare. These myths have been all over the public arena again recently, and it’s time to confront them systematically.”

“The First Big Myth”:

As stated above, the Eli Lilly Chief described the first ‘Big Myth’ of ‘Big Pharma’ as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.”

Arguments behind debunking the ‘Big Myth 1’:

The Chief debunked the first ‘Big Myth’ with the following argument:

“In fact: The research and development (R&D) expenditures of this industry are staggering – and since they are matters of public record there is no way and no need to exaggerate them.”

Raises more questions than answers:

Just to illustrate my point, that this article raises more questions than answers, I shall, try to explain the so called ‘debunking’ of this first of the ‘Five Big Myths’ of ‘Big Pharma’, as penned by Lechleiter.

The author seems to have missed the core narrative behind the so-called ‘Myth’ – lock stock and barrel. Whether deliberately or not, I can’t really figure that out.

The reason behind high costs of patented drug:

Even if for the arguments sake, what the author has said is accepted as a gospel truth while ‘debunking Myth 1’, experts’ discourses on the facts behind high costs of patented drugs do not just focus just on the ‘R&D Costs’, it also seriously points towards abnormally high ‘Marketing Costs’, which in many instances several times more than the ‘R&D Costs’.

Some hard facts:

An article of 6 November 2014 of BBC News, titled “Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits” written by Richard Anderson, Business reporter, BBC News highlights:

Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their Research and Development (R&D) costs are huge. On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with US$1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.

But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them… and besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

World’s largest pharmaceutical firms
Company	Total revenue ($bn)	R&D spend ($bn)	Sales and marketing spend($bn)	Profit ($bn)	Profit margin (%)
Johnson & Johnson (US)	71.3	8.2	17.5	13.8	19
Novartis (Swiss)	58.8	9.9	14.6	9.2	16
Pfizer (US)	51.6	6.6	11.4	22.0	43
Hoffmann-La Roche (Swiss)	50.3	9.3	9.0	12.0	24
Sanofi (France)	44.4	6.3	9.1	8.5	11
Merck (US)	44.0	7.5	9.5	4.4	10
GSK (UK)	41.4	5.3	9.9	8.5	21
AstraZeneca (UK)	25.7	4.3	7.3	2.6	10
Eli Lilly (US)	23.1	5.5	5.7	4.7	20
AbbVie (US)	18.8	2.9	4.3	4.1	22
Source:GlobalData

The article states that in 2013, US giant Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42 percent profit margin. The same year, five other major pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20 percent or more – Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.

Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Thus, one most persistent question that is being raised by the stakeholders is: Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Quoting these facts, a November 6, 2014 article of ‘FiercePharma’, titled “New numbers back old meme: Pharma does spend more on marketing than R&D”, also pointed out that even John Lechleiter headed Eli Lilly’s marketing spending clocked US$5.7 billion, compared with US$5.5 billion for R&D. That’s a difference of 7 percent.

High marketing expenditure and increasing marketing malpractices:

Interestingly there appears to be a curious coincidences between fines paid by ‘Big Pharma’ related to alleged marketing malpractices and spiraling marketing expenditure.

As I indicated earlier in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, the following are a few recent examples of just the last three years to help fathom the enormity of the problem on this issue and also to vindicate the point made above:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Where does most of the marketing expenditure go?

On February 11, 2015, an article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ titled, “Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research”, stated:

“Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers.”

The HBO video that had gone viral:

The HBO Video with a dash of characteristic British humor of “John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors (HBO)” captures the essence of the issue. Many readers much have watched this video earlier. Nevertheless it helps understanding the point.

Some people associated with the industry did attempt nitpicking on this video and quite understandably; they did not find many takers.

Conclusion:

As deliberated above, I submit with humility that there are ample hard facts, which would debunk even more forcefully, the ‘debunking of the remaining so called four myths’ as was elucidated in the Forbes Magazine article authored by well-respected John Lechleiter, the President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company.

This seemingly well-timed article from the global pharma icon, though with disappointedly fragile content, I reckon, would not be able to evoke the desired response from its target audience. On the contrary, it carries the risk of being construed as no more than a half-hearted attempt of defending the indefensible and in that process reconfirming the truth, camouflaged in the paper as ‘myths’.

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.

Corporate Branding In Pharma: An Evolving Strategy In The Emerging Scenario

Posted on June 15, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Pharma advertisements in the mass media do not appear too frequently in India, for various reasons. Though few and far between, whenever these appear are mostly blunt and boring.

In that context, an interesting advertisement of a global pharma major featured in the May 25, 2015 Mumbai edition of the ‘Times of India’ arrested my curious attention.

The Ad does not talk about any medicine, nor does it caution us about or prevention of any disease. It does not even present the laundry lists of symptoms, urging us to rush to a doctor, whenever we experience any of those.

Though I was rushing thorough the pages of a bunch of newspapers at that time, under constraint of meeting an important deadline, the advertisement did prompt me to go into it. My eyes unknowingly followed the creative delivery of an intangible, yet unique ‘life style’ value proposition: “Life. To the fullest.” This was packaged with an innovative mix of intelligent copy writing and selection of emotive visuals with soft play of colors.

With a crisp copy, the Ad fondly takes one to the days of childhood, as it whispers…

“Remember when you were a child? The world was there just for you, to explore with bold and unbridled curiosity. A feeling of invincibility. Health fuels this state of mind, no matter your age.”

It then guides one’s attention to the corporate brand that commits to fulfill this promise and again with a cool swish tone:

“Abbott is about the power of health. We create new solutions – across the spectrum of health, for all stages of life. So every day can be just another play day.”

An innovative global ‘Corporate Branding’ strategy:

‘Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ reported in December 2014 that in Rio de Janeiro, the same company created a WiFi channel for subway riders to listen to TED talks on their cellphones.

In Mumbai too, the Company has reportedly helped sponsor the TEDx Gateway convention, where there was an “Abbott Hive” room for participants to see new health technologies and meet speakers.

The WSJ article also underscored, “emerging markets accounted for about 40 percent of Abbott’s US$21.8 billion total sales n 2013. The sector will rise to about half of Abbott’s revenue after Mylan Inc. completes the acquisition of Abbott’s business that sells generic drugs in developed markets.”

Abbott reportedly planned to sell its generics business in the developed markets outside the United States to Mylan, retaining its generic brands in the fast-growing emerging markets.

Besides the above print Ad, I also noticed Abbott’s outdoor ‘Corporate Branding’ campaign in a couple of hoardings on Marine Drive and the Western Express Highway of Mumbai.

Just an example:

Before proceeding further, let me hasten to add that I have no intention, reason or motive to highlight any particular company’s marketing campaign, directly or indirectly, other than using it just as an example.

I reckon, this might leave a catalytic impact on an evolving frontier with a newer approach to ‘Corporate Branding’ within the global pharma industry in general and India in particular.

Such pragmatic and innovative strategic approach to create a novel corporate pharma marketing platform is indeed interesting. The domain experts in this area would be keenly watching its progress and would try to assess the net outcome of this seemingly cutting edge value creation process, on the pharma business as a whole.

It assumes greater significance as the process eventually aims at connecting with the consumers directly, creating an intangible value based robust cerebral link to overall brand portfolio offerings.

‘Corporate Branding’ versus ‘Product Branding’:

Corporate branding is broadly defined and explained as, “The practice of promoting the brand name of a corporate entity, as opposed to specific products or services. The activities and thinking that go into corporate branding are different from product and service branding because the scope of a corporate brand is typically much broader.”

Product branding, on the other hand, is “a marketing strategy wherein a business promotes and markets an individual product without the company name being at the center in the advertising or promotional campaigns.”

The success parameters:

Corporate branding is considered successful, “when consumers hear or see the name of the company they will associate, with a unique value and positive experiences. No matter what product or service the corporation offers, the corporate name is always an influence.”

If I am required to cite just one example out of many, and outside the pharma industry, I would say, ‘Apple’ has been established as a powerful corporate brand that focuses on the strength of its name as much as the features of any ‘Apple’ products.

The products usually attract a premium:

For a successful corporate brand, the name would immediately evoke a positive reaction in the consumers’ mind, without any detailed list of product features, and for which many consumers would be willing to pay a premium price, without any grumble.

Would it move the needle?

That’s really something to watch for. However, it holds that promise, undoubtedly.

The above types of corporate branding could help the concerned companies to significantly dilute the negative perception on a section of ‘Big Pharma’ constituents, acquired over a long period of time, though some of these players keep creating it even today, brazenly. This is happening as some of them continue faltering to even ‘talk the walk’ and most others do not probably want to ‘walk the talk’ either.

That said, the strength of the corporate brand image and the trust thus created on it would help building a strong positive image for the entire brand portfolio that the company offers, especially on brand promises, including efficacy, safety and overall high quality standards.

Broader impact of creation of a strong positive corporate public image with direct connects with consumers could be profound from sustainable business growth perspective, especially in a country like India.

Thus, innovative corporate branding strategies with direct connects to the consumers, like what we are discussing now, may help repositioning the pharma players as trusted healthcare partners.

‘Corporate branding’ initiatives of global pharma companies:

As reported by the ‘Wall Street Journal’, examples of initiatives taken towards this direction by some global pharma majors, besides Abbott, are as follows:

Pfizer’s “Get Old” campaign, though predominantly Internet and social media based, is aimed partly to strengthen its corporate reputation. With this campaign the company intends giving a new push to get people talking about their fear of aging, “Face your fears” being the company’s motto with its “Get Old” campaign.

Pfizer is reportedly also planning to showcase itself as “partners in health over a lifetime,” through corporate branding campaigns.

Johnson & Johnson launched a corporate advertising campaign, under the slogan “For All You Love,” focused on consumers, reportedly after the company faced recalls of children’s Tylenol and other over-the-counter medicines.

Eli Lilly & Co also has reportedly been planning to revamp its corporate brand.

Recently Biogen Idec changed back from the decade-old merger name to its original name, as the company would now be called just “Biogen”. The company used this name change to signal a new direction for the company.

The announcement of the change in name and the new logo was creatively used by Biogen to communicate the company’s broader focus beyond the multiple sclerosis treatments, which it is best known for, with the inclusion of Alzheimer’s and ALS treatments in its research and marketing portfolios.

Conclusion:

All these boil down to the important point, that the pharma marketers would ultimately be prompted to ponder, as the industry moves on.

Keeping that in mind, they may now consider brain storming with an open mind to crystallize their thought on: Whether for sustainable excellence in pharma business, the respective companies should focus on corporate branding campaigns, separately altogether, with strong and direct consumer emotional connects.

Thereafter, strengthening association between the ‘Corporate’ and ‘Product’ brands at appropriate times, directly or indirectly, could well be a strategic call.

It has been amply proved that a robust corporate brand, created painstakingly over time, would evoke stronger respect, trust and loyalty of the consumers.

While navigating through unpredictable business environment facing tough headwinds, or during product mishaps, if any, such favorable disposition of the consumers to the company as such, would prove to be an invaluable asset, in the long run. Nestle could well be an example after its Maggi saga in India.

For this reason, I reckon; it may be prudent keeping product brands at arm’s-length from the corporate brand. This could, of course, be leveraged as a dependable cushion, if situation so warrants. Otherwise ‘Corporate Branding’ campaigns should fly solo, as these keep reaping tangible and intangible sustainable significant returns for the company, over a long period of time.

To sum up, ‘Corporate Branding’, though currently is an evolving strategy in the emerging pharma scenario, shows immense potential to spread its wings to fly. Some global pharma players have already started initiating it in different parts of the world. Pharma industry in India too is expected to catch up with this new strategic ball game… sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

Posted on June 8, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The revised draft of India’s IPR Policy penned by the Government constituted ‘Think-Tank’ in 2014, suggests enactment of new laws, such as for ‘Utility Models’ and Trade Secrets, to fill some gaps in the country’s IPR ecosystem .

However, media reports of May 21, 2015 indicate, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is not in favor of changing the country’s ‘Patents Law’ framework to allow grant of utility patents, as suggested by the ‘Think-Tank’.

Though comments from the other Ministries and Departments on the revised draft IPR Policy is still awaited, DIPP reportedly feels, ‘Utility Models’ being less-stringent form of intellectual Property (IP) protection, could ultimately lead to ‘ever-greening’ of patents.

A volte-face?

This development is indeed interesting because on May 13, 2011 the same DIPP uploaded in its website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models”. Many believed at that time, it as a precursor of a new policy initiative of DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the prevailing strict criteria for patentability. The above Discussion Paper highlighted, among others:

“…minor technical inventions which frugally use local resources in a sustainable manner need to be encouraged by providing a legal framework for their protection and commercial exploitation. Such useful, low cost and relatively simple innovations which create new mechanical devices or contribute to the optimal functioning of existing ones may have commercial value only for a limited time period, before they are replaced by other products or rendered redundant by change of technology.”

In that paper DIPP also highlighted that many countries of the world, for example; Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea and Netherlands still find the ‘Utility Model’ as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

We shall also touch upon this point below.

The Discussion Paper did trigger a healthy national debate on this subject at that time, though Government did not make known to the public the outcome of this public discourse.

The definition:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines ‘Utility Model’ as follows:

“Utility Model is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which allows the right holder to prevent others from commercially using the protected invention, without his authorization, for a limited period of time. In its basic definition, which may vary from one country (where such protection is available) to another, a utility model is similar to a patent. In fact, utility models are sometimes referred to as petty patents or innovation patents.”

Or in other words “A utility model is similar to a patent in that it provides a monopoly right for an invention.”

However, utility models are much cheaper to obtain, the requirements for grant of a ‘Utility Model’ are usually less stringent and the term is shorter – mostly between 7 and 10 years, as against up to 20 years term of protection for a patent.

Major differences between Utility Models and Patents:

According to WIPO, the main differences between ‘Utility Models’ and patents can be summarized as follows:

The requirements for acquiring a ‘Utility Model’ are less stringent than for patents. While the requirement of “novelty” is always to be met, that of “inventive step” or “non-obviousness” may be much lower or absent altogether. In practice, protection for ‘Utility Models’ is often sought for innovations of rather incremental in character, which may not meet the patentability criteria.

The term of protection for ‘Utility Models’ is shorter than for patents and varies from country to country (usually between 7 and 10 years without the possibility of extension or renewal).

In most countries where ‘Utility Model’ protection is available, patent offices do not examine applications as to substance prior to registration. This means that the registration process is often significantly simpler and faster, taking on an average about six months.

‘Utility Models’ are much cheaper to obtain and to maintain.

In some countries, ‘Utility Model’ protection can only be obtained for certain fields of technology and only for products but not for processes.

Countries providing ‘Utility Model’ protection:

Many countries do not grant ‘Utility Models’. However, the major countries granting ‘Utility Models’, as stated above, include: Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

According to WIPO, currently the countries and regions that provide ‘Utility Models’ are as follows:

Albania, Angola, Argentina, ARIPO, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, OAPI, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.

Interestingly, ‘Utility Models are not available in the United Kingdom or the United States.

A recent allegation of ‘Utility Model’ infringement against a global pharma:

Quite recently, in November 2014, Copenhagen headquartered Forward Pharma A/S reportedly filed a lawsuit against Biogen Idec GmbH, Biogen Idec Internaional GmbH and Biogen Idec Ltd. in the Regional Court in Dusseldorf, alleging infringement of its German ‘Utility Model’ DE 20 2005 022 112 due to Biogen Idec’s marketing of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Tecfidera® – a product containing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) as the active ingredient, is used for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis (MS).

Forward Pharma asserted that its above ‘Utility Model’ precludes anyone from selling in Germany, without the Company’s consent, drugs with DMF as the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient for the treatment of MS at a daily dose of 480 mg.

With this lawsuit Forward Pharma did not seek to stop sales of Tecfidera® to MS patients, but rather sought damages for what the Company believes are Biogen Idec’s unlawful sales of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Although ‘Utility Models’ are registered without substantive examination, the Company reiterated its belief in the validity and enforceability of the said ‘Utility Model.’

Subsequently, on April 14, 2015 Forward Pharma A/S announced that an interference was declared by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on April 13, 2015 between the Company’s patent application 11/576,871 (the “’871 patent application”) and Biogen’s issued patent 8,399,514 (the “’514 patent”).

The PTAB reportedly designated Forward Pharma A/S as the “Senior Party” in the interference based on the Company’s earlier patent application filing date.

Would ‘Utility Model’ be useful in pharma?

Utility Models (UM) are considered particularly suited for SMEs that make “minor” improvements to, and adaptations of, existing products. It is worth noting that UMs are primarily used for mechanical innovations.

However, in India, the ‘Utility Model’ concept in pharma would be directly conflicting with the intent and spirit of the section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 of the country, which clearly stipulates that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known ‘clinical’ efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant, is not patentable.

Therefore, section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, is considered as one of the most important safeguards against “evergreening” of patents, usually done through alleged “molecular manipulation or tweaking”, that delays entry of affordable generic equivalents, adversely impacting the public health interest.

In that sense, enactment of a new law granting protection to pharma ‘Utility Models’ in India could seriously jeopardize both short and long term health interests of the patients, in general.

This is primarily because, being denied of a 20 year product patent under section 3(d), the same company would then be eligible to apply and may also probably get a monopoly status for that molecule, though for a shorter term with ‘Utility Models’.It would obviously happen at the cost of quicker entry of equivalent affordable generics.

Conclusion:

Considering all these, and having witnessed a serious allegation of a ‘Utility Model’ (which goes through no more than a liberal regulatory scrutiny) infringement, against a major patented pharma product that passed through the acid test of stringent and cost intensive regulatory requirements, it appears that ‘Utility Models’ need to be excluded, especially for pharmaceuticals in India.

This is purely for the sake of patients’ interest, at least on the following two counts:

All new/novel drugs, without any compromise whatsoever, should pass through the stringent acid test of the drug regulatory requirements for requisite efficacy, safety and quality standards.

‘Evergreening’ of patents, under any garb, delaying entry of affordable equivalent cheaper generics, should not be encouraged in the country.

Thus, in my view, Indian Government should continue to remain firm with its bold stance on the relevance of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Any possibility of its dilution by a grant of market monopoly, though for a much shorter period, covering incremental innovations that do not conform to the country’s IP laws, must be openly discouraged with robust reasons.

In that sense, the flag raised by the DIPP on the intriguing recommendation of the IPR Policy ‘Think Tank’ for enacting new laws in India for ‘Utility Model’, appears to be pragmatic and far sighted, specifically in the context of pharmaceuticals.

By: Tapan J. Ray

China Relaxes Drug Price Control: Is Pharma Euphoria In India Misplaced?

Posted on June 1, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On May 5, 2015, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China announced that price controls on most drugs sold there would be lifted from June 1, 2015. This move was believed to tackle issues of drug quality and to encourage innovation among domestic companies. Only narcotics and some listed psychotropic drugs would continue to be controlled by the government.

Quite like in India, Chinese price controls for most drugs were blamed by the industry for low quality and even adulterated medicines that seem to threaten public health.

Apprehension expressed:

Almost immediately after the announcement for ending price control on most drugs, many started expressing serious apprehensions that this decision of the Chinese Government would lead to higher drug prices for the consumers at the retail level.

Without taking any chances, the Chinese Government immediately switched to a high decibel communication process to allay such fear.

Chinese Government quickly acted on allaying the fear:

Xinhua reported, China’s top economic planner, almost simultaneously, asked the country’s price watchdogs to organize a six-month check on the movement of medicine prices, following the above decision.

The NDRC said the move is intended to detect any illegal practices disrupting market order, such as price fixing and artificial inflation of prices.

The agency also urged local authorities to create an online platform for better price monitoring. The NDRC also said the key intent is to curb illegal practices, such as price fixing and manipulative changes to increase drug costs.

Gigantic role of Chinese ‘Universal Health Care’ system highlighted:

The following explanations also came from the Chinese Government to highlight that this decision is not likely to have adverse impact on its citizens:

China has a function Universal Health Care (UHC) system in place

According to NDRC, 80 percent of drugs are sold through hospitals in China and not through retail channels. Thus, public hospitals are the places where most transactions take place and drugs are procured through a process that involves tough price negotiations with the pharma companies.

In addition to control of prices at the local procurement level, most of the freed drugs would still be controlled somewhat by various medical insurance plans even before they reach the Chinese hospitals, where 80 percent of drugs are dispensed.

With this announcement, the Chinese Government would lift controls on the price of about 2,700 medicines from June 1, 2015 that accounts for just about 23 percent of medications available in the country.

Experts also said they expected medicine prices to remain unchanged.

Has the pricing pressure in China increased, on the Contrary?

On May 26, 2015 in an article titled, “Foreign Drug makers Face Pressure to Lower Prices in China”, Bloomberg reported:

“Starting June 1, 2015 most drugs in China will be liberated from government-set price caps. For foreign drug makers, though pressure to cut prices is rising. Since late last year, many provincial governments have introduced new bidding systems to bring down the cost of medicines they procure, and they’re pushing multinationals to compete more directly with cheap local generics on price.”

Chinese healthcare scenario is different from India:

From the above scenario, it is abundantly clear that Chinese drug procurement, distribution and consumption scenario is quite different from India.

China’s UHC is well in place and over 80 percent of its population gets medicines from public hospitals. Whereas, UHC seems to have been virtually jettisoned in India by the incumbent Government, at least for now, and around 75 percent of the populations purchase medicines from the retail market, out of pocket.

Whereas, the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) of China announced in May 2015 that it would increase healthcare subsidies this year by 19 percent, i.e. just over US$ 60 per person, India decided not to make any increase even on its abysmal low expenditure on health, in its Union Budget 2015.

According to the National Health Policy 2015 (Draft) of India, total per capita health expenditure of the country was at US$ 62 in 2011, against China’s US$ 274 for the same year. This gap is likely to increase significantly with China adding to it another US$ 60 per capita through increase in healthcare subsidies in 2015.

Chinese Government believes that this step would help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, whereas Indian Government obviously thinks differently.

‘Why not in India’ type of reaction is misplaced:

There are many other critical differentiating factors in the comparative healthcare scenario between India and China.

Be that as it may, keeping only the above differences in mind, when one comes across some weird reasoning in a section of the Indian media stating, no wonder that raises many other eyebrows simultaneously. More so, as pharma related Indian media is not just vibrant, a large section of it is mostly on the ball, with up to date domain knowledge, and presenting incisive analysis.

A bizarre report: “Comparing apples to oranges”?

That said, I recently noted, while flipping through some pharma related business reports, a bizarre and seemingly uninformed comment on this subject. The article recently published in a leading business daily questioned, why the drug pricing policies of India and China are different? Obviously the author does not seem to be aware of the differences in the overall healthcare scenario between India and China, as deliberated above.

If the above question is taken as benign and laced with a dash of ignorance, it certainly raises the good old and much often repeated question, “Are we comparing apples to oranges”?

This is because we are comparing medicine procurement, distribution, usages and consumption scenarios of those two different countries that cannot be practically compared at all, especially in this regard.

An equally bizarre comment?

To make such ‘off the cuff’ reports spicy, some news-unworthy masala is also usually sprinkled on it. If I remember correctly, I read somewhere in one such typical report, probably a head honcho of the Indian unit of a pharma MNCs making blissfully ignorant, equally bizarre, attention hungry, ‘shooting from the hip’ type of remarks. The person most probably commented something like; the decade long ‘draconian price control in China’ failed to improve access to medicines. Thus, Indian Government, he imagines, should strongly introspect on its drug price control and allow free pricing for all drugs. I am not very sure, whether this is the representative view of the pharma industry in India or probably not.

Domain experts’ eyes on the ball:

Fortunately and most likely in the same piece, the real domain experts made very pertinent and sensible comments on India China comparison on this critical issue.

I hasten to add, this is my personal view, and may be the author concerned meant something different, which I would accept with due respect and humility.

Conclusion:

Just because China has relaxed drug price control in the context of its own environment of a reasonably well-functioning ‘Universal Health Care’ system, India should not toe the line with its abysmally poor public healthcare products and services offerings. As a result of this, the country records one of the highest, if not the highest, out of pocket expenditure towards medicine in the world.

The bizarre reports and comments in this regard, as above, probably need to be taken, not with a pinch but loads of salt, and trashed for abject ignorance in the specific area.

Moreover, the Indian Government too does not seem to be in any mood just yet, to pay attention in the area of ‘Universal Health Care’ to ensure health for all in the country. The situation is not expected to improve in this year either, as the Government has not made requisite budgetary allocations for health, to play the ball as the time demands.

Does all these not mean that, going by the Chinese example, the ill-informed euphoria of a section of the Indian pharma industry is unrealistic, if not absolutely misplaced?

By: Tapan J. Ray

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

Posted on May 25, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On May 19, 2015, Bloomberg reported that a sizable number of President Barack Obama’s own party colleagues, besides teachers, seniors, Internet freedom groups and nuns, have joined the push to defeat the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

Before I delve into the TPP, solely from the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, it is worth acknowledging upfront India’s firm assertion, repeatedly, to continue with its well-thought out and robust Patents Act 2005.

Even the final draft of the National IPR policy, which is now being circulated for inter-ministerial consultations and will soon be taken up by the Cabinet, reasserted that the country’s IPR policy is fully compliant with the Trade Related aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In this process, global demonstration of India’s firm resolve against dilution of the country’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime, coming under any form of intense external pressure, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general.

This trend now gets reflected from some constituents even within the United States, besides several members of the 12-nation TPP, which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty, aimed at strengthening relationship on economic policies and regulatory issues between the member nations.

Publicly articulated key objectives of the pact are to significantly reduce tariffs between the member nations and open up trade, boosting investment flows between its signatories, to accelerate economic growth.

The member countries of TPP have also agreed to work together on issues such as customs procedures, labor practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

Through its comprehensive coverage of issues and binding regulations, TPP is expected to set new benchmark for international trade. It is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Uneasy secrecy:

However, the uneasy secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the agreement makes its critics seriously apprehensive about its impact on the developing nations of the world. This is because; the concerned delegates of the negotiating team always remain tight lipped about the progress made in coming to an agreement on the scope of the pact. This information is critical for assessment of direct and indirect global impact of TPP on the trade, economy and society, in general.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Besides the above countries, other members of TPP are United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

Large Asian economies are not a part:

Interestingly, large Asian economies, especially, four important members of the G20, namely, China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are not a part of the TPP, just yet.

It is worth noting, TPP is being led by the world’s largest economy and the biggest trading nation – the United States, the country that sees Asia-Pacific as key to its future growth.

Noting all these, many experts in this field, across the world, have already raised a flag saying that the US may be trying to use TPP as a means to undermine China’s growing economic might in the region.

Many gaps still to bridge:

The real negotiations for this treaty started only in 2010 and are still continuing. However, the details of negotiations is so much shrouded under water tight secrecy, even to the lawmakers of the United States, it is indeed challenging for anyone to predict the timeframe of its coming to fruition.

Reuters reported on May 21, 2015, “Chief negotiators from the 12 TPP countries are trying to bridge gaps for a deal at a meeting in Guam that will run through to May 28, 2015. But ministers would need to meet to clinch an accord,”

In this article, I shall only focus on the possible impact of this pact on the access to medicines, especially in the developing world.

Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations:

As the progress of negotiations of this pact continue to remain under uneasy secrecy, on November 13, 2013, WikiLeaks released the secretly negotiated draft text for the entire IPR Chapter of the TPP.

30,000-word IP chapter of the leaked documents, besides others, reportedly contains proposals to increase the term of drug patents beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

TPP and patents:

When it comes to the issue of access to affordable medicines for a vast majority of the global population, the overall patent ecosystem of a nation and how evergreening of patents with monopolistic high pricing are addressed, automatically enter into the broader framework of intense public and stakeholders’ discourse.

Article 8.1 of the draft agreement sets-forth the availability of patents, and provides that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and these may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.”

Interestingly, TRIPS agreement, on the other hand, specifies that patents are available “provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.”

In that sense, the above provision in the Article. 8.1 is quite inconsistent with the patent laws of many TPP member countries, and especially India.

Consequently, experts have raised serious concerns about the impact of TPP on the IP laws of a country, in general, as it may extend the scope of drug patents, preventing free distribution of cheaper generic drugs to the needy patients.

Impact on access to medicines:

As stated earlier, there have been serious apprehensions that TPP would adversely impact the access to medicines.

According to widely reported leaked drafts of TPP negotiations, the US is demanding aggressive IP provisions in the agreement. It is believed, if accepted, these would directly undermine public health safeguards available in international law, making it harder for TPP member countries to gain access to cheaper generic drugs.

Many experts in this field reportedly construe, these stringent IP provisions that the US is demanding may be categorized as ‘TRIPS-plus’ and have the following serious impact adversely impacting access to medicines :

Make it impossible to challenge the validity of a patent before it is granted

Lower the requirements for patentability, so that minor alterations of existing medicines can be  given additional protected monopoly status, even if the alteration offers no therapeutic benefit

Require the patenting of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods

Lengthen patent monopolies for pharmaceutical firms so that they keep generics out and inflate drug prices for longer periods of time

Make it harder for generic manufacturers to obtain regulatory approval for their drugs

Create additional monopolies based on clinical data

Impose new forms of IP enforcement that give customs officials excessive powers to impound legitimate generic medicines

Impose higher prices on national pharmaceutical reimbursement programs

Allow pharmaceutical companies to sue governments and limit governments’ abilities to effectively set prices for medicines and legislate in the interest of public health.

Discord within key TPP member countries:

Though Australia is one of the key signatories of TPP, in February 2015, the Medical Journal of Australia also commented that the leaked draft of the agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs.

Quoting the Medical Journal of Australia, ‘The Guardian’ too reiterated: “The most recently leaked draft of the international trade deal includes provisions proposed by the US that would further protect the monopoly pharmaceutical companies hold over drugs, and delay cheaper versions from entering the market. The draft agreement sets in stone low patenting standards, which allow drug companies to practice ‘evergreening’ – when a pharmaceutical company tries to maintain its market monopoly on a drug for longer by applying for extra patents. This prevents other companies entering the market with cheaper versions of the same medicine and imposes large and unnecessary costs on the health system and consumers.”

Similarly, across Canada, people are speaking out about the TPP. They are rallying against the secrecy of the 12-country negotiations and the corporate agenda behind the deal.

On February 12, 2015 legislators in seven of the 12 TPP countries issued the following joint statement about the negotiations:

“We, the undersigned legislators from countries involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, call on the Parties to the negotiation to publish the draft text of the Agreement before any final agreement is signed with sufficient time to enable effective legislative scrutiny and public debate.”

In Canada, the federal NDP and the Green Party of Canada endorsed the above statement. It is the simplest of demands for democracy on a “trade” deal that threatens to undermine the very notion of the public good, by giving corporations more power to undermine public policy.

As stated above, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are also negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Though not in the areas of access to medicines, Japan too expressed its concerns on TPP impacting its agriculture sector. Protests are forthcoming in the copyrights area, as well.

Apprehensions catching-up in the US too:

May 19, 2015 Bloomberg report also indicates, specifically from the pharmaceutical industry perspective, some key stakeholders are worried about the effects of more open markets on drug pricing that could increase their costs and “Foreign corporations or subsidiaries will be able to challenge a number of public health programs.”

In a letter of May 12, 2015 to the House and Senate, the Alliance for Retired Americans has reportedly underscored the possibility of this grave danger to them, if TPP comes into effect.

On May 21, 2015, Reuters reported, just 13 out of 44 Democrats (of President Obama’s own Party) backed the legislation in the Senate’s second procedural vote on last Thursday.

Earlier, a group of over 30 legal academics reportedly sent a letter to the US Trade Representative, expressing “profound concern and disappointment at the lack of public participation, transparency and open government processes in the negotiation of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP”.

Other important areas of criticism:

Other key areas of criticism of TPP are as follows:

Excessive emphasis on trade issues that have remained unresolved or unaddressed at the WTO due to differences between developed and emerging markets.

Adopting a negotiating style reflecting the US regulatory approach to international trade

Allowing companies to sue foreign governments, which would allow them to dodge health and environmental standards.

Giving shape to a geo-political road map of the US that supports its strategic rebalancing towards Asia.

A strange mélange:

An article published in the April 9, 2015 edition of Forbes, titled “TPP Is A Mistake”, very appropriately describes TPP as a strange mélange of 12 members countries that includes five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

In terms of populations, the total American contingent which stands at 535 million, more than half the total population of the Americas (947 million), is significantly larger than the Asian population figures which amount to no more than 256.6 million (285 if one adds Australia and New Zealand), compared to Asia’s total population of 4.3 billion: almost half of the Asian contingent is accounted for by one member – Japan, the articles states.

In this article, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the architect of Malaysia’s impressive economic growth and development during his tenure from 1981 to 2003, was quoted saying:

“The strongest campaigner of TPP is America … which seeks … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests by exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”.

He further adds, “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”.

Is TPP more than just a trade agreement?

Many experts feel, that TPP is basically a geopolitical tool to contain China with ‘trade’ as its façade.

The votaries of TPP argue that it aims to achieve a very high standard trade agreement and thus the reason of keeping China out of it is not geopolitical. Other Asian nations, including China, can apply and qualify for membership once they commit to meeting these high standards, they reiterate.

The above argument does not seem to be a robust one, as that would mean, a sizable proportion of its smaller current members, such as, Vietnam, already conform to so called ‘high standards’, as required for the TPP agreement.

Besides geopolitical issue, many are also questioning whether TPP is what the developing countries need, especially, at this stage of their development.

Conclusion:

One may quite pertinently ask, in what way TPP is relevant to India?

TPP is relevant to India in the sense that it is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Be that as it may, if I restrict myself only to the drug patent related area of the proposed pact, it appears, unless the damaging provisions in the concerned chapters are removed through negotiations before the agreement is finalized, the TPP would possibly turn out to be the most harmful trade pact ever, especially from the perspective of access to medicines in the developing countries of the worlds.

May 2015 issue of ‘amfAR’ – The Foundation for AIDS Research based in Washington DC of the United States captured the essence of possible healthcare related issues with TPP – the pact of a strange mélange of 12 member countries, with the following words:

“By providing avenues for pharmaceutical companies to extend IP protection beyond what is required by current international standards, the TPP could greatly delay the entrance of generic competition for much-needed medicines and keep prices high. Doing so would continue an unacceptable and dangerous trend of irrevocable expansion of IP protections at the expense of access to medicines and would serve as a justification for even more aggressive measures in future FTAs.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need “Safe In India” Campaign For Medicines?

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” - Abraham Lincoln

Not just the Federal Drug Administration of the United States (USFDA), global concerns are being expressed regularly about the laxity of drug regulatory and clinical trial standards in India, exposing patients to health safety related risks.

The problem is significantly more with the Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) Drugs for various reasons. This is worrisome because; the domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. For example, in 2011-12 FDCs accounted for more than half of all NSAID and oral anti-diabetic drug sales, and one-third and one-fifth of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant/benzodiazepine sales, respectively, according to a recent study. Both the domestic and multi-national pharma players market FDCs in India

Alarmingly, a plethora of FDCs unapproved by the drug regulators of India on their rationality, efficacy and safety, have flooded the domestic pharma market, in large quantities.

All such drugs are being actively promoted by the respective pharma players, widely prescribed by the doctors, openly sold by the chemists and freely consumed by the patients without any apprehension or having no inkling of the magnitude of the possible health hazards that such drugs might cause, both in short and long term.

Public health safety hazard arising out of this scenario does not seem to have ever been estimated by the Indian drug regulators, despite indictments even by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, nor is there any properly functional system in place to capture such data for meaningful analysis.

As the saying goes ‘better late than never’, a credible report on this menace has just been published on May 12, 2015 by independent experts, which I shall discuss in this article.

Is the situation out of control?

On the ground, the situation seems to be out of control of even the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

This is vindicated by a March 2013, written reply of the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, where the Government reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

The latest investigative report on the criticality of the situation:

The May 12, 2015 issue of “PLOS Medicine” – a Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal, published the results of an investigation on CDSCO approval for and availability of oral FDC drugs in India from four therapeutic areas – analgesia (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), diabetes (metformin), depression/anxiety (anti-depressants/benzodiazepines), and psychosis (anti-psychotics).

This study was done based on the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare’s 2012 Report, stating that manufacturing licenses for large numbers of FDCs had been issued by state authorities without prior approval of the CDSCO in violation of rules, and considered that some ambiguity until 1 May 2002 about states’ powers might have contributed to this worrying consequences.

I shall also discuss the above Parliamentary Committee report in this article.

Booming sales of unapproved drugs:

‘PLOS Medicine’ report highlighted the following:

A. They obtained information on FDC formulations approved between1961 and 2013 in each therapeutic area from the CDSCO.

B. FDC sales details were obtained for the period 2007 to 2012 from PharmaTrac database of drug sales in India. Over the five years included in the time-trend analysis, FDCs accounted for an increasing proportion of total sales volumes. By 2011–2012, FDCs accounted for more than half of all NSAID and oral anti-diabetic drug sales, and one-third and one-fifth of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant/benzodiazepine sales, respectively.

C. Of the 175 FDC formulations marketed in India in the therapeutic areas studied, only 60 (34 percent) were approved.

Out of these, percentages of approved formulations are as follows:

- 80 percent of 25 marketed metformin FDC formulations

- 27 percent of 124 NSAID FDC formulations

- 19 percent of 16 anti-depressant/benzodiazepine FDC formulations

- 30 percent of 10 anti-psychotic FDC formulations

D. In 2011–2012, percentages of FDC sales volumes arising from unapproved formulations was:

- 43 percent for anti-psychotics

- 69 percent for anti-depressants/benzodiazepines

- 28 percent for NSAIDs

- 0.4 percent for metformin

E. Formulations including drugs of which use is banned or restricted internationally accounted for 13.6 percent and 53 percent of NSAID and anti-psychotic FDC sales, respectively.

F. While “ambiguity” in the rules prior to 2002 was advanced as a reason for some FDCs having been marketed without a record of central approval, the researchers identified no ambiguity, and in fact, following an amendment to the rules in May 2002 that extended the requirements on approval applicants, new FDCs continued to be marketed without a record of central approval.

The suggestions:

The ‘PLOS Medicine’ report concluded with the following suggestions:

Unapproved formulations should be banned immediately, prioritizing those withdrawn or banned internationally, and undertaking a review of benefits and risks for patients.

To ensure long-term safety and effectiveness of new medicines marketed in India, as well as transparency of the approval process, amendments in India’s regulatory processes and drug laws are called for. A review should be undertaken of the safety and effectiveness of FDCs currently available in India.

Indian lawmakers too pointed out this embarrassing regulatory laxity:

This saga of drug regulatory laxity in general and for the FDCs in particular, is continuing since quite a while. This is despite the fact that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59^th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The report begins with a profound observation:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. Prescription drugs are the only commodities for which the consumers have no role to play. Nor are they able to make any informed choices, except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, because of the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharma companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests

The ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is ‘Industry Oriented’ and not ‘Patient Focused:

Very interestingly, the lawmakers’ report highlights, citing the following examples, how out of line the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is, as compared to the same of other countries, by being blatantly industry oriented instead of safeguarding Public Health and Safety interests :

	Drug Regulator	The ‘Mission Statement’
1.	CDSCO, India	Meeting the aspirations…. demands and requirements of the pharmaceutical industry.
2.	USFDA, USA	Protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs.
3.	MHRA, UK	To enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe.
4.	TGA, Australia	Safeguarding public health & safety in Australia by regulating Medicines…

Consequently, the Parliamentary Committee took a strong exception for such utter disregard and continued neglect of patients’ interest by the Drug Regulator of India. It recommended immediate amendment of the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO incorporating in very clear terms that the existence of the organization is solely for the purpose of protecting the best interest of patients and their safety. It is needless to say, thereafter it would call for its stringent conformance with high precision.

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

The parliamentary Committee report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO in its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Allegation of possible collusion:

The report also deliberates not only on the utter systemic failure of CDSCO along with the DCGI’s office to enforce the drug regulations effectively, but also towards a possible collusion between CDSCO and the pharmaceutical industry to implement a self-serving agenda by hoodwinking the system. This is a very serious allegation, which needs to be thoroughly probed and the findings of which should be made public for everybody’s satisfaction.

The committee, therefore, felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences and callous enforcement of rules and laws, are absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Do we need “Safe in India” campaign for drugs?

Do we need a well-hyped “Safe in India” campaign for drugs? Looking around, at least conceptually, the answer is probably ‘yes’…Seriously…I am not joking!

The reason being, despite scathing remarks of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2012, apparently no systematic enquiry has been undertaken by the CDSCO to ascertain the reason for continuation and the veracity of this menace, just yet.

A very significant number of unapproved medications still remain undetected by the drug regulators and continue to be abundantly available, frequently prescribed, openly sold and freely consumed by the patients without even an iota of doubt regarding possible health safety hazards that these prescription drugs might cause.

May 2015 ‘PLOS Medicine’ Report helps unraveling the underbelly of the drug regulatory scenario in India, along with its systemic decay, which fails to halt the possible serious health safety hazards that Indian patients are exposed to.

India’s image as an emerging ‘pharmacy of the world’ for cheaper generic drugs has already been dented with a number of ‘import bans’ from the US and UK for flouting the specified drug manufacturing quality standards.

The saga of ‘import bans’ for Indian drugs, together with this critical health safety related menace, probably necessitates an effective launch of a “Safe in India” campaign for medicines, in general, by the Government.

This initiative gains additional importance, as painstakingly developed reputation of the Indian drug exporters, including the largest domestic players, has now been dented. It needs to be revamped, sooner.

I addressed a related issue in my blog post of February 3, 2014, titled “FDA ‘Import Bans: Valuing Drug Supply Chain Security For Patients’ Safety.”

Conclusion:

Effective resolution of this critical issue demands high priority at the highest level of the decision making process of the Government, with commensurate sense of urgency.

Keeping that in mind, would it be a bad idea, if just like “Make in India” campaign of the Prime Minister; “Safe in India” campaign for medicines is also undertaken with equal gusto and monitored by the top echelon of the country’s rejuvenated governance machinery?

This initiative would probably help sending the very contextual ‘shape up or ship out’ signal to the drug regulators, both at the Center and also in the States to erase the prevailing menace for good.

In that process, it would eventually allay the public health safety concern with the ‘Made in India’ drugs, coming out of ‘Make in India’ campaign, not just in the country, but also beyond its shores.

The speed of action in this situation is the essence. Otherwise, the following golden words of wisdom as enunciated by Abraham Lincoln would keep haunting us, till the remedial measures taken by the Government become palpable on the ground:

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men”

By: Tapan J. Ray

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18^th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

New therapeutic options
Changing therapeutic needs
The need to ensure drug quality
The need for continued development of better medicines
Medicines for emerging diseases
Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

1 percent of drugs for anemia
5 percent of respiratory drugs
7 percent of antidepressants
15 percent of drugs for diabetes
18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
23 percent of cardiac drugs
35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011

Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered

Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered

Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011

Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011

Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin

Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011

When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list

Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011

While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines

A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out

Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM

Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940

Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane:

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.” This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

‘Fake Drugs Kill More People Each Year Than Terrorism In The Last 40 years’

Does The Attempt To ‘Debunk Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’ Not Reconfirm The Truth?

Corporate Branding In Pharma: An Evolving Strategy In The Emerging Scenario

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

China Relaxes Drug Price Control: Is Pharma Euphoria In India Misplaced?

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need “Safe In India” Campaign For Medicines?