Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Would “Digital Health Equity” Augment Healthcare For All in India?

Posted on by
Reply

A June 2014 report titled “Digital Health Equity: Humanizing e-Health” published by ‘ZeroDivide’, which helps transform communities through technology in the United States, highlighted that the digital revolution of daily life has significantly impacted healthcare in many parts of the world.

As a result, the relationship between the consumers and healthcare providers has just begun to change significantly, though in bits and pieces at present. Wherever it is happening, the consumers expect to get highly engaged in managing their own health, primarily using online and mobile tools and other devices.

“Digital Health”/ “e-Health” to ensure equity in healthcare:

Advancement in e-Health is currently restricted mainly to economically and socially privileged populations. Those with the access, resources and basic digital skills are reaping disproportionate benefits from the technology and other associated infrastructure available for this purpose.

Unfortunately, underserved population, mostly in rural hinterland and some in urban areas still do not have much access to this technical advancement in the healthcare space.

Ensuring “Digital Health” in the new age digital India, would help augmenting quality healthcare support with equity to all in the country.

A beginning has been made:

It is good to note that key stakeholders in health related areas both in public and private sectors are now exploring the ways in which the Internet, digital devices and other related applications can improve patient care, reduce the cost of care and improve overall population health.

Central and State Governments, policymakers, technologists and health insurance providers are eager to connect underserved consumers to online health services and other e-Health applications. Regrettably, few digital tools have been designed with these consumer populations in mind, to date. The nascent field of e-Health research has thus far poorly characterized the impact of race, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status on e-Health adoption and use.

General barriers to e-Health:

The previous policy paper of ‘ZeroDivide’ titled, “e-Health and Underserved Populations,” identified 8 barriers, though in the US perspective, that underserved communities face in accessing and utilizing e-Health tools. These are as follows:

• Lack of health literacy

• Lack of linguistic and cultural competency in e-Health

• Access limitations for people with disabilities

• Privacy concerns and distrust in the health system

• Lack of digital literacy

• Limited or no access to broadband and mobile data

• Limited or no access to technology platforms and interoperability

• Lack of awareness of e-Health

Very surprisingly even today all these 8 barriers are very relevant to India, as well.

A key concern:

‘ZeroDivide’ report also highlighted a key area of concern in e-health initiatives. This is ‘Interpersonal relationships’ between the healthcare consumers and the healthcare providers. Consumers’ perception in the study was that technology interfered with the patient-provider relationship.

In their view, technology can alienate providers from their patients, impeding the relationships that are important to providing quality care.

In India, it appears, this perception is equally valid and needs to be addressed effectively, in the process of implementation of e-healthcare in the country.

e-Health in India:

In August 2014, the Director General Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reportedly announced that his Ministry “has already prepared the white paper of the e-Healthcare service, which will be a boost to raise awareness among the people in the country, who remain completely deprived of the health services initiated by the government,”

He also said, e-Healthcare system basically being a web portal, would help the government connecting with the people on every health-related program and various schemes that would enable them getting free medical treatment.

Accenture – a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, in one of its reports of 2014 titled, “Delivering e-health in India – Analysis and Recommendations” also echoed that a ‘Citizen Portal’ is expected to serve as a single point of access for consolidated health information and services.

It also recommended that keeping population diversity in mind, the web portal should have multi lingual support and be available both on web and mobile (also through an SMS/IVR gateway). People in rural areas would, therefore, be able to access citizen portal more easily through mobile applications as mobile penetration is quite significant in India.

Accenture also acknowledged that a small fraction of population now uses a web portal to interact and share information with providers. With the introduction of state health portals for the citizens, the use of health portals is likely to skyrocket in the coming years. If that happens, its impact on healthcare would indeed be phenomenal.

Moving towards this direction, some experts have also suggested the Government to set up ‘National e-Health Authority of India (NeHAI)’ immediately to formulate the National e-Health Strategy (NeHS) and chart an innovative actionable pathway in this area.

It is interesting to note that according to the Ministry of Health, over 39 million people in India still remain deprived of basic healthcare services, which in most cases lead to death.

Types of e-Health program in India and challenges:

According to a 2014 paper titled, “In e-Health in India today, the nature of work, the challenges and the finances: an interview-based study”, published in ‘BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2014: 14:1’, a range of e-Health programs is currently being run in India, including point-of-care in rural and urban areas, treatment compliance, data collection and disease surveillance, and distant medical education. Most programs provide point-of-care to patients or other beneficiaries in rural areas.

The article states that technology is not a limiting factor, but the unavailability of suitable health personnel is a major challenge, especially in rural areas. Financial sustainability is also a concern for most programs, which have rarely been scaled up. Government facilities have not been very effective in e-Health on their own, just yet, but collaborations between the government and non-profit (in particular) and for-profit organizations have led to impactful programs.

Though increasing number of various e-Health service providers is coming up in India, lack of general awareness and also acceptance of e-Health among potential healthcare consumers continue to remain a critical challenge.

I deliberated on different issues with e-Health in my blog post of May 9, 2011 titled, “e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India”

Conclusion:

India is a nation with vast unmet medical needs. At least now, every citizen of the country should be provided with the facilities to meet most of those unmet medical needs.

e-Health through “Digital Health Equity”, has the potential to improve the quality of healthcare in India and ensure its adequate access, especially, to the underserved population of the country.

It is imperative, therefore, to scale up design and development of innovative and cost-effective e-health related digital tools to ensure equity in healthcare and, at the same time, augment quality healthcare services for all in India.

This endeavor would entail much stronger efforts towards health literacy programs and translating existing digital tools into multi-lingual versions to reach the underserved health consumer, especially in rural India.

As e-Health continues to evolve in India in an organized manner, many critical challenges currently faced in the health systems of the nation, would potentially be mitigated through wide deployment of Information and Communications Technology (ICT).

Some of these key challenges are:

  • Shortages of health workers, especially in rural India
  • Variable quality of cares; between urban and rural, as well as, public and private healthcare providers
  • Uncertainty in patient compliance
  • Fraud in healthcare delivery system

Propelled by the Government initiative all stakeholders; such as technology designers/engineers, healthcare providers, policymakers, payers and especially the consumers; should work in unison to achieve the long cherished health outcomes in India: “Health For All”.

In the next five years, would the ‘Digital India’ spearheaded by the “Smart Cities” be able to ensure “Digital Health Equity” to augment healthcare services for all in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Union Budget Proposal 2015-16 of India : Is Pharma Industry Now Out of Focus?

Posted on by
Reply

Budget Expectations:

Overall expectations of the Pharma Industry in India from the Union Budget perspective was very modest this year. The key areas were as follows:

- To encourage  innovation, in-house R&D exemption limit was expected to be raised from 200 percent to 250 percent

- Excise duty rationalization was expected on:

Formulations (5 percent)
API (10 percent)

- A reduction of MAT (20 percent) was expected on SEZ

Union Budget Proposals:

Status quo

Impact:

In view of this scenario, there has been virtually no sector-specific direct impact of the Union Budget 2015-16 on the Pharma Industry. This critical sector seems to be out of focus of the Government from the budget perspective, at least for now.

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.

‘Data Protection’: Needs A Clear Direction…But Is It An IPR Issue?

Posted on by
Reply

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having critical impact on public health interest of a nation.

In several media reports as well, one can notice the interchangeable use of these two terms. It is especially happening when the reports are speculating whether or not the Government of India is considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’/ ‘Data Protection’ along with ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

Tracking this development, the last week, I wrote about ‘Patent Linkage’. In this article, I shall dwell on the same area, but from ‘Data Exclusivity’/ ‘Data Protection’ perspective.

A brief overview:

Close to a decade ago, Government of India constituted ‘Satwant Reddy Committee’ to recommend a direction that India should follow on ‘Data Protection’ in the country involving pharmaceutical and agricultural products.

In 2007 the Committee submitted its report recommending ‘Data Protection’ in the country to be introduced for pharma products in a calibrated manner. However, the report did not specify a timeline for its implementation.

Interestingly, even this committee did not differentiate between the terminologies ‘Data Protection’ and ‘Data Exclusivity, as we now see in the first draft of the ‘National IPR Policy.’

According to available reports, after due deliberation, the erstwhile Government decided not to take any action on the committee’s recommendations for ‘Data Protection’ in India.

Difference between ‘Data Protection’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’:

In an article published in ipHandbook, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift with a great deal of experience in the U.K. Department of International Development (DFID) and a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

Arguments in favor of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Geneva, in its website argues in favor of ‘Data Exclusivity’ as follows:

- Health authorities require, as part of a submission for a marketing authorization, that proprietary information be disclosed in order to ensure public health and patient safety.

- The innovator assumes the entire risk for the generation of the data, what requires expensive and lengthy clinical trials.

- ‘Data Exclusivity’ is necessary to provide a measure of certainty to the innovator that they will be provided with a period of protection for their efforts of testing a drug.

- Patents and ‘Data Exclusivity’ are different concepts, protect different subject matter, arise from different efforts, and have different legal effects over different time periods

Arguments suspecting the intent of ‘Data Exclusivity’:

The above paper of Charles Clift highlights the following on DE:

- The effect of DE is to prevent entry of generic competitors, independent of the patent status of the product in question.

- DE law, wherever applicable, prevents generic manufacturers from using innovators’ test data, though it would allow the drug regulator to analyze this data prior to market approval.

- Even if the patent period has expired or there is no patent on a product, DE will act independently to delay the generic entry until the period of DE is over.

- In that way DE compensates innovators for delayed market entry and concomitant loss of potential profits.

- DE is a much stronger right than a patent, mainly because, unlike patent law, there is no exceptions or flexibilities that allow the governments to provide the equivalent of Compulsory License (CL).

- DE acts as a barrier to CL of a patent on the same product by preventing marketing approval for a CL.

TRIPS Agreement talks about DP, but not DE:

Article 39 of TRIPS Agreement on “Protection of Undisclosed Information” contains a general clause on the obligations of the members of the WTO, where Article 39.3 specifies three obligations for its member countries as follows:

- To protect data on New Chemical Entities (NCE), the collection of which involves considerable effort, against unfair commercial use.

- To protect these data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public

- To protect such data against disclosure, unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights per se for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS Plus’.

What is ‘TRIPS Plus’?

The ‘TRIPS-Plus’ concept would usually encompass all those activities, which are aimed at increasing the level of IP protection for the right holders, much beyond what is required for conformance of TRIPS Agreement by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Some section of the civil society nurtures a view that ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could significantly jeopardize the ability, especially, of developing countries to protect the public health interest adequately.

Some common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions:

Common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could include:

- Extension of the patent term beyond usual twenty-year period

- Introduction of provisions, which could restrict the use of CL

- Delaying the entry of generics

Is ‘Data Protection’ an IPR issue?

In my view, the issue of ‘Data Protection’ is more a drug regulatory than an IPR related subject and should be treated as such. This is because ‘Data Protection’ is more related to the ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’ of India rather than the ‘Patents Act 2005′.

Thus, it is quite intriguing to make out why ‘Data Protection’, which will be governed by ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’, is featuring in the IPR Policy of the country.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

After jettisoning the ‘Satwant Committee Report’ on ‘Data Protection’, the Government was in no mood, until recently, to discuss anything about DP and DE, despite intense pressure from the pharma MNC lobby in India. However, the issue first resurfaced during EU-FTA negotiation, when India rejected these provisions outright and unambiguously.

However, the ghost started haunting India, yet again, when the US Government started flexing its muscle on this issue, at the behest of the American pharma companies.

Although DP is a drug regulatory issue, curiously, it features in the draft National IPR Policy. Even there, the subject has taken an interesting turn, when in the first draft of ‘National IPR Policy’ of India, the six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan clearly recommended “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

In my opinion this is indeed a very pragmatic recommendation. It deserves support from all concerned so that the profound intent continues to feature in the final IPR Policy of India, to protect public health interest of the nation.

Just like ‘Patent Linkage’, as I discussed in my last week’s article, finding a middle ground to put ‘Data Protection’ in place through administrative measures, without making any amendments either in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act or in the Patents Act of the country, seems to be desirable and very much possible, as well.

However, the very thought of considering ‘Data Exclusivity’ in India, in my view, should prompt a clear ‘No…No’ response from the present Government of India.

This is mainly because, besides all other reasons as mentioned above, even if the patent period for a molecule has expired or there is no patent on a product, DE will act independently to delay the generic entry until the period of ‘Data Exclusivity’ gets over.

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.

 

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

  • During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion: 

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in the country.

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.

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on by
Reply

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

  • A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.
  • India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.
  • The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.
  • Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.
  • In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.
  • In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.” 

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.”  It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

Be that as it may, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

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.

A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

In his State of the Union address, just before the recent visit to India in January 2015, President Barack Obama articulated the need to develop “Precision Medicine” in his country – a bold, giant and perhaps unprecedented State initiative to remarkably improve effectiveness of disease treatment.

To set the ball rolling, in his budget proposal for the year 2016, President Obama earmarked an amount of US$ 215 million for this purpose. This includes an allocation of US$130 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a national research database of about a million American volunteers by studying their genetics together with other relevant factors, such as the environments they live in and the microbes that live in their bodies.

‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is similar to path breaking 13-year and US$3 billion Human Genome Project, that has formed the bedrock of modern genomics, President Obama said. He also expressed hope that the private healthcare sector too, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for this new initiative of the Government for the interest of patients.

Why is this approach so relevant in today’s healthcare?

In an article published in the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ) in October 2012, Richard Smith - an editor of BMJ until 2004 and a Director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative wrote:

“Doctors know that many of the patients they treat with drugs will not benefit. Many patients know that too.”

Dr. Smith also emphasized, for centuries medicine classified diseases by what could be seen, felt, and smelt. Thereafter, medical scientists in this area started defining diseases anatomically, physiologically, and biochemically. Even today, this is by and large the paradigm where most medicines fall.

Smith underscored, because of imprecise diagnosis the treatment also becomes haphazard. There is big variation in how individuals respond to drugs and yet that variation is not usually recorded. The regulators approve drugs based on their average performance even today.

The White House release also reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” This “one-size-fits-all-approach,” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others.

This calls for broadening the scope of disease treatment – from the conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented’ approach, to relatively more unconventional and better targeted with greater value – ‘Patient-Centric’ ones, wherever needed.

Two current trends:

To address this key deficiency in the effective treatment of several dreaded diseases for many patients, following two are the current trends, as stated by William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., who led Roche’s Oncology Discovery & Translational Area research unit since May 2014:

  • We now know that on a molecular level every cancer is different – not only between different tumors, but even between different areas within a single tumor! This means that we need to match the right drug to the patient who we know will respond best to the drug, at the right time during the course of treatment.
  • Patients will have their tumors profiled not only for genetic drivers, but also for predictive immunotherapy markers at different time points in their course of treatment.

Personalized and Precision Medicine:

The above trends in the endeavor of making treatments more patient specific – thus more effective, have thrown open scientific discourse and intense research on ‘Personalized’ and ‘Precision’ medicines.

As Pfizer has described in its website:

Personalized Medicine is a unique approach to medical practice in which the individual aspects of a patient are directly considered to guide treatment planning, including his or her genetic make-up, key biomarkers, prior treatment history, environmental factors and behavioral preferences. This approach can be used to optimize pharmaceutical treatments and overall care.

Whereas, Precision Medicine is an approach to discovering and developing medicines and vaccines that deliver superior outcomes for patients, by integrating clinical and molecular information to understand the biological basis of disease. Precision medicine is the biopharmaceutical research and development paradigm that will help enable more patient-centered clinical practice, including treatment decision-making based on genetic information – an emerging standard now often described as “personalized medicine”.

As President Obama said while announcing the proposal on January 30, 2015, ‘Precision Medicine’ promises delivery of the right treatment at the right time, every time, to the right person.

He also said that the new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes…and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

‘Precision Medicines’ Dominate Oncology segment: 

In the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2014 Congress, pharma majors reported their latest advances on precision medicines in the cancer care. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Merck & Co. were among the companies presented updates of their most promising cancer drugs closer to this area.

According to a large pharma lobby group in the United States – The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA):

“Recent advances in diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis are delivering on the promise of targeted treatments, and between 12 and 50 percent of all compounds currently being researched by the industry are potential personalized medicines. These advances hold great promise in improving patient outcomes and controlling costs by targeting the right medicines to the right patients.”

‘DCAT Connect’ Report of September 2014 also indicates significant increase in ‘Precision Medicines’ in the pipelines of the leading global pharma companies, which is a key change over the past decade.

In 2013, targeted therapies increased their share of the global oncology market, accounting for 46 percent of total sales, up from 11 percent a decade ago. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the global oncology drug market reached US$ 91 billion in 2013 with CAGR of 5.4 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Taking note of this trend, it appears that in the near future ‘Precision Medicines’ would possibly be the most promising class in the treatment of cancer, particularly in breast cancer, lung cancer and certain types of leukemia. This is mainly because medical scientists are already quite acquainted with the molecular signatures of different types of cancer related tumors.

Medical scientists and researchers are also working on ‘Precision Medicines’ to more effectively address many other diseases, such as, diabetes, cardiovascular and ailments related to several types of infections.

Increasing potential:

Realization of the potential of ‘Precision Medicines’ to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has just only begun to be tapped.

In recent times, scientists and researchers have accelerated efforts to understand more about biomarkers for this purpose. A study conducted by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa) indicates that more than 20 percent of clinical trials carried out since 2005 focused not just on agents, but also on biomarkers. Before 1990, only one in twenty clinical trials addressed biomarkers.

According to another report, last year, 20 percent of all new drug approvals in the United States were for “Precision Medicine” treatments. This vindicates, yet again, the immense potential to turn genetic discoveries into innovative disease treatments for patients.

A bold state sponsored research initiative:

State funded, ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is a bold new step of the American Government to revolutionize improvement in healthcare and treating disease. It is expected to pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.

As the White House release reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” As a result of this, “one-size-fits-all-approach” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of ‘Precision Medicine’, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

In this process, ‘Precision Medicine’ gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient’s health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective.

Opposite view:

In an op-ed titled, ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down, published recently in The New York Times, the author argued with his differing viewpoints.

I am quoting below three of those arguments:

  • “For most common diseases, hundreds of genetic risk variants with small effects have been identified, and it is hard to develop a clear picture of who is really at risk for what. This was actually one of the major and unexpected findings of the Human Genome Project. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was thought that a few genetic variants would be found to account for a lot of disease risk. But for widespread diseases like diabetes, heart disease and most cancers, no clear genetic story has emerged for a vast majority of cases.”
  • “Another unexpected finding of the Human Genome Project was the problem of ‘missing heritability.’ While the statistics suggest that there is a genetic explanation for common conditions and diseases running in families or populations, it turns out that the information on genetic variants doesn’t explain that increased risk.”
  • “The idea behind the “war on cancer” was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

I am sure, you will analyze the above points with the facts that you have at your disposal on this subject to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Current Applications:

Though these are still early days, initial benefits of ‘Precision Medicines’ have been reported in many areas, such as:

  • Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.
  • Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.
  • Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.
  • Cystic fibrosis: In America, patients with a rare form of cystic fibrosis now can choose a drug designed specifically to target the genetic defect causing their illness. Specialized medical centers, such as “individualized medicine centers” at the Mayo Clinic, are also available to the patients for effective treatment.

Ethical issues:

While following this pursuit of excellence of the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly raised flags of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK is an organization that investigates how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Precision Medicine’ primarily in the area of genetic testing need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Conclusion:

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional and value added individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition.

Advances in ‘Precision Medicine’ have already led to powerful new discoveries and several new treatments that are tailored to specific characteristics of individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.  This is leading to a transformation in the way the world can treat diseases such as cancer.

Patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanomas and leukemia, for instance, should be provided with facilities in specialist hospitals to undergo molecular testing as a part of patient care, enabling physicians to select treatments that improve chances of survival and reduce exposure to adverse effects.

Although, the potential for precision medicine to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has only just begun to be tapped, some skeptics do say that tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive.

Be that as it may, in the balance of probability the benefits of prudent use of ‘Precision Medicine’ far outweigh the concerns expressed. This evolving new paradigm would help saving not just significant expenses, but also precious time that is usually spent on ‘trial-and-error treatments’, by enabling clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

Though lot many grounds would still need to be covered in this area, the State sponsored ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative of America to revolutionize disease treatment, in my view, is indeed a laudable one, every way.

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.

What President Obama And Prime Minister Modi Discussed On IPR And Healthcare In India

Posted on by
Reply

During the recent visit of the US President Barack Obama to India from January 25-27, 2015, both the domestic and international media was abuzz with the speculation, whether or not India would concede some ground to America on the prevailing, generally considered, well balanced patent regime in India.

Many expected that the American delegation would succeed in getting some specific assurances from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to follow the line of the US style Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India, which would help the American pharma companies to maximize their financial returns in the country.

The assurances from India were expected mainly in areas involving grant of patents even to those pharma products, that do not quality for the same under section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, dilution of provisions for Compulsory License (CL) and creation of a new provision for Data Exclusivity in the country, besides a few others.

As everyone noticed, just before the US President’s visit, interested groups both in India and also from abroad intensified lobbying and released op-eds to create pressure on the Indian negotiators, in general, and the Prime Minister Modi in particular.

Terming the Indian Patents Act weak, the lobby groups turned the Indian IPR regime on its head. Playing the role of India’s benefactor, they re-packaged their shrill collective voice into pontificating words while giving interviews to the Indian media by saying: “A strong IPR regime could allow the country (India) to make a major contribution to tackling health challenges, both domestically and around the world.”

Additional US interest in Indian IP regime from TPP perspective:

Exemplary demonstration of India’s resistance to intense external pressure, time and again, for dilution of the IP regime in the country, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general. This trend now gets reflected even among some of the members of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty.

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 America, other members of the TPP are Australia, Japan and New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

TPP negotiations are generally expected to follow the overall framework of American laws. However, according to media reports, based on the leaked draft of the TPP, the data exclusivity period for biologic medicines has already been negotiated down to 7 years, from 12 years under the US Affordable Care Act.

However, on January 27, 2015, US Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee reportedly said that he would oppose Senate approval of the TPP, if it does not provide 12 years of patent protection for biologics.

The same day, at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, US Trade Representative Mike Froman reportedly reiterated, “The US is insisting on 12 years of IP protections, even though the Obama administration’s budget calls for 7-year exclusivity on biologic meds.”

It is also worth noting that Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz in an op-ed titled, “Don’t Trade Away Our Health”, published in The New York Times of January 30, 2015 commented as follows:

“TPP could block cheaper generic drugs from the market. Big Pharma’s profits would rise, at the expense of the health of patients and the budgets of consumers and governments.”

Clicking on this short video clip you will be able watch another similar viewpoint on TPP, its general perspective and what it encompasses.

Thus, the closely guarded ‘turf war’ on TPP is now heating up, making negotiations increasingly tougher to arrive at a consensus on the IP rules that would be applicable to pharmaceutical products in this trade initiative. Consequently, the evolving scenario has prompted the interested groups to keenly follow, with hopes, the outcome of Presidents Obama’s recent visit to India, especially in the pharma IP areas. This is because, many emerging economies of the world are now appreciative of the prevailing well-balanced patent regime in India.

After the 12-nation TPP agreement comes into force, probably following the lines of the US IP laws, it is quite possible that India may sometime in future would prefer to be a part of this agreement for greater trade facilitation, as the country comes closer to America…Who knows?

However, in that case the bottomline is, India would have to amend relevant provisions of its Patents Act in conformance with the requirements of mainly the US pharmaceutical companies and the IP laws prevailing in America, as this will be necessary to become a new member of this treaty.

Discussion in the summit meeting:

According to the Joint Statement on the summit meeting released by the White House, President Obama and Prime Minister Modi discussed the following subjects related to IPR and Healthcare in India, as detailed below:

  • Reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation.  Both countries reiterated their interest in sharing information and best practices on IPR issues, and reaffirmed their commitment to stakeholders’ consultations on policy matters concerning intellectual property protection.
  • Reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and announced specific actions at home and abroad to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including a CDC-Ministry of Health Ebola and GHSA preparedness training, expansion of the India Epidemic Intelligence Service, and development of a roadmap to achieve the objectives of the GHSA within three years.
  • Committed to multi-sectoral actions countering the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and cooperation in training of health workers in preparedness for infectious disease threats. The Leaders agreed to focus science and technology partnerships on countering antibiotic resistant bacteria and promoting the availability, efficacy and quality of therapeutics.
  • Welcomed further progress in promoting bilateral cooperation on cancer research, prevention, control, and management and agreed to continue to strengthen the engagement between the CDC and India’s National Centre for Disease Control.
  • Welcomed the upcoming completion of an Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Injury Prevention and Control MoU between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Indian Council for Medical Research to further collaborative efforts to improve the health and welfare of both countries’ citizens.
  • Agreed to expand the India-U.S. Health Initiative into a Healthcare Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in health sectors including through capacity building initiatives and by exploring new areas, including affordable healthcare, cost saving mechanisms, distribution barriers, patent quality, health services information technology, and complementary and traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to encourage dialogue between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Indian counterparts on traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to strengthen collaboration, dialogue, and cooperation between the regulatory authorities of the two countries to ensure safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceuticals, including generic medicines.
  • Agreed to accelerate joint leadership of the global Call to Action to end preventable deaths among mothers and children through a third meeting of the 24 participating countries in India in June 2015.  As host, India will showcase the power of new partnerships, innovations and systems to more effectively deliver life-saving interventions.
  • Also lauded the highly successful collaboration on a locally produced vaccine against rotavirus, which will save the lives of an estimated 80,000 children each year in India alone, and pledged to strengthen the cooperation in health research and capacity building through a new phase of the India-U.S. Vaccine Action Program.

As stated earlier, during this summit meeting, US lobbyists were reportedly nurturing a hope that Prime Minister Modi would eventually agree, at least in principle, to jettison section 3(d) on the patentability criteria enshrined in the Indian Patents Act 2005 and significantly water down the country’s Compulsory License (CL) provisions. This expectation increased, when the US President made the investment promise of U$4 billion in India.

That said, from the above points of discussion in the joint statement, it appears that no breakthrough on the part of the US was achieved especially in the IPR space, during the summit.

However, in other areas of bilateral healthcare co-operation, such as, science and technology partnerships in countering antibiotic resistant bacteria; cancer research and traditional medicines; the reaffirmations made by the two leaders are encouraging.

US pressure on IP to continue:

Going by India’s reaffirmation during the summit meeting of its commitment to consultations with America on policy matters related to IPR protection and US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015, it is construed by the IP activists that the kettle has possibly started boiling:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns,”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents,”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area,”

Media reports also indicate that US pressure on IPR would continue, as they highlight:

“Threatened by free trade of high-quality and affordable medicines, US-based pharmaceutical companies and politicians friendly with the industry are using prominently placed op-eds, large advertisements on Washington, D.C. buses, and letters to President Obama to spread false information -claiming India’s rules are not legal or discourage innovation. The companies have been threatening to withhold investment if India does not adopt weaker patent laws that would extend pharmaceutical monopolies and stymie the country’s generic industry.”

I discussed some of these issues in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New National IPR Policy of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

Irrespective of whatever the US-India Joint Statement says on IPR, some experts do apprehend that Indian Government may now wilt under continuous intense pressure from the American Government. This is mainly because, India’s Commerce and Industry’s Minister has reportedly sought America’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

On this score, let me hasten to add that it may not be prudent to read too much into it, as seeking stakeholders’ comments on such matter is a practice that India has been following since long on various issues and policies.

However, at the same time, other groups of experts nurture a quite different viewpoint. They are confident that the nationalist Modi Government, under no circumstances would concede its long nurtured strategic ground on IPR to the US power play.

Emerging countries across the globe are keenly watching this intense game of  ‘Power Chess’, as they plan to emulate India in many of the pharmaceutical IP areas to uphold the public health interest, providing affordable healthcare to all.

These are still early days. Thus, in my view, on January 25, 2015, what President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed on the IPR regime in India may not be as important as what they would eventually decide to agree, disagree or agree to disagree in this area, moving on from here.

Only time would prove…not just who is right, that is pretty obvious to many, but who wilts at the end of the day…and more importantly, why?

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.

With Highest Billionaire Wealth Concentration, India Tops Malnutrition Chart in South Asia: “What Future Do You Want?”

Posted on by
Reply

Two recent global research reports, though on different spheres, place India at the top of the respective blocks. However, the take away messages that the studies offer are indeed poles apart in qualitative terms and worth pondering over collectively.

On January 20, 2014, just before the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos in Switzerland, Oxfam International released a report warning that by 2016, the world’s wealthiest 1 percent will control almost half of the global assets. Since 2009, the world’s billionaires have seen their share of the asset pie grow from 44 percent to 48 percent.

Before that, a World Bank Report of October 2014 titled, “Addressing Inequality in South Asia”, highlighted that India has the highest billionaire wealth concentration in South Asia.

Billionaire wealth to gross domestic product ratio in India was 12 percent in 2012. This was was higher than other economies with similar development level, namely, Vietnam with its ratio at less than two percent, and China with less than five percent.

This report also clarifies that inequality in South Asia appears to be moderate when looking at standard indicators such as the Gini index, which are based on consumption expenditures per capita. But other pieces of evidence reveal enormous gaps, from extravagant wealth at one end to lack of access to the most basic services at the other.

Stark realities: 

Wealth creation by no means is bad and in fact, is essential for economic growth of any nation, if read in isolation. This is mainly because, as the Oxfam report says, some economic inequality is essential to drive growth and progress, rewarding those with talent, hard earned skills, and the ambition to innovate and take entrepreneurial risks.

Unfortunately, at the same time, as the same World Bank report highlights, the stunted growth of children under fiver years of age, due to malnutrition, has been 60 percent of the total number of children born in the poorest households of India, as compared to 50 per cent in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Moreover, According to UNICEF, every year 1 million children again below the age of five years die due to malnutrition related causes in India. This number is worrisome as it is far higher than the emergency threshold, according to W.H.O classification of the severity of malnutrition.

Highlighting stark inequality in India, the report says, “The net worth of a household that is among the top 10 per cent can support its consumption for more than 23 years, while the net worth of a household in the bottom 10 per cent can support its consumption for less than three months.”

Some poor moved above the poverty line, though grossly inadequate:

According to the same report, from 2004-05 to 2009-10 when India’s GDP registered the highest ever average growth, about 40 percent of poor households moved above the poverty line and around 11 percent of poor population even moved into the middle class. Unfortunately, during the same period around 14 percent of the non-poor population also slipped below the poverty line.

Thus, what needs to be addressed soonest is the issue of vast difference in income between the richest and the poorest leading to an equally huge difference in the access to basic human developmental needs such as, education, healthcare and nutrition.

Adverse impact on expected ‘demographic dividend’ of India:

As legendary Bill Gates said in a recent media interview, “India has got far more kids that are malnourished and whose brains are not developed, way more than any other country. That’s really the crisis.”

If this trend of inequality continues, the ‘demographic dividend’ of India that the country has factored in so intimately in its future GDP growth narrative, could well be no more than a myth.

As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once famously said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.”

The Oxfam report also emphasizes, the extreme levels of wealth concentration occurring today threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.

Social inequality and healthcare challenges:

Health of an individual is as much an integral contituent of the socio-economic factors as it is influenced by a person’s life style and genomic configurations. Important research studies indicate that socio-economic disparities, including the educational status, lead to huge disparity in the space of healthcare.

As stated in another report, ‘About 38 million people in India (which is more than Canada’s population) fall below the poverty line every year due to healthcare expenses, of which 70 percent is on purchase of drugs’.

Thus, reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important healthcare issues. Otherwise, mostly the minority population with adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power will continue to have necessary resources available to address their healthcare needs, appropriately.

Regular flow of newer and path breaking medicines to cure and effectively treat many diseases has not been able to eliminate either trivial or dreaded diseases alike. Otherwise, despite having effective curative therapy for malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhea/dysentery and venereal diseases, why will people still suffer from such illnesses? Similarly, despite having adequate preventive therapy, like vaccines for diphtheria, tuberculosis, hepatitis and measles, our children still suffer from such diseases. All these continue to happen mainly because of socio-economic inequalities related considerations, including poor level of awareness.

A paper titled, “Healthcare and equity in India”, published in The Lancet (February, 2011) identifies key challenges to equity in service delivery, healthcare financing and financial risk protection in India.

These include: 

- Imbalanced resource allocation

- Limited physical access to quality health services and inadequate human resources for health

- High out-of-pocket health expenditures

- High health spending inflation

- Behavioral factors that affect the demand for appropriate healthcare

Research studies vindicate the point:

Following are some research studies, which I am using just as examples to vindicate the above argument on inequality adversely impacting healthcare:

• HIV/AIDs initially struck people across the socio-economic divide. However, people from higher socio-economic strata responded more positively to the disease awareness campaign and at the same time more effective and expensive drugs started becoming available to treat the disease, which everybody cannot afford. As a result, HIV/AIDS are now more prevalent within the lower socio-economic strata of the society.

• Not very long ago, people across the socio-economic strata used to consume tobacco in many form. However, when tobacco smoking and chewing were medically established as causative factors for lung and oral cancers, those coming predominantly from higher/middle echelon of the society started giving up smoking and chewing of tobacco, as they accepted the medical rationale with their power of knowledge. Unfortunately the same has not happened with the poor people of lower socio-economic status. As a consequence of which, ‘Bidi’ smoking and ‘Gutka’/tobacco chewing have not come down significantly among the population belonging to such class, with more number of them falling victim of lung and oral cancers.

Thus, in future, to meet the unmet needs when more and more sophisticated and high cost disease treatment options will be available, mostly people with higher socio-economic background will be benefitted more due to their education, knowledge, social and monetary power. This widening socio-economic inequality will consequently widen the disparity in the healthcare scenario of the country.

Phelan and Link in their research study on this subject had articulated as under:

“Breakthroughs in medical science can do a lot to improve public health, but history has shown that, more often than not, information about and access to important new interventions are enjoyed primarily by people at the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder. As a result, the wealthy and powerful get healthier, and the gap widens between them and people who are poor and less powerful.”

Recent deliberations at Davos:

In the last two decades, socio-economic inequality in India has been fuelled by rapid, but unequal economic growth of the nation. Though the overall standard of living has been rising, there still remain a large number of populations living in pockets of intense deprivation and abject poverty.

One of the Davos sessions of this year deliberated on “What Future Do You Want?” The session, among others, reportedly felt the important need to ensure people’s well being and put in place effective measures such as a social safety net and universal healthcare.

At the same WEF annual meet at Davos, United Nation’s Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also reiterated, “All policies must be people centric. We should make a world where nobody is left behind.”

Conclusion:

Assuming the above approach as a sincere realization of the current policy makers and more importantly the powerful influencers of those policies, the key question that comes up is: In which direction would India now chart its course to address this critical issue?

One may possibly hazard a guess on the shape of the future policies to come in India from the BJP party President Amit Shah’s recent address to crème de la crème of Mumbai businessmen in a function organized by a business news channel. In this event Mr. Shah reportedly said to them that the BJP does not agree with their definition of “reforms” and will strive to build a welfare state.

Will this approach of the new political dispensation get reflected in the forthcoming union budget as well, to effectively translate the new National Health Policy of India into reality, at least this time?

I deliberated on the National Health Policy of India in my Blog Post of January 12, 2015, titled “India’s National Health Policy 2015 Needs Wings To Fly”

That said, if it really so happens, a strong signal would go to all stakeholders that India is now well poised to chart on an uncharted frontier to significantly reduce the impact of inequality, particularly in the space of healthcare.

In that process, despite the highest billionaire wealth concentration, India would set a pragmatic course to place itself at the top of the healthcare chart, not just in South Asia, but probably also within the BRIC countries, to expect the least.

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.