Bollywood Matinee Idol Pontifies on Pharma FDI with Razzmatazz: Exploring Facts

Posted on July 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

It has been widely reported by the media that Bollywood matinee idol Aamir Khan was invited by the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on commerce to express his views on Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the pharmaceutical sector of India on June 21, 2012.

The actor reportedly has suggested regulations on FDI in the pharma sector to protect the domestic pharmaceutical companies, as well as, any consequent adverse impact on the patients in terms of availability of cheaper generic medicines.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or surprising in the actor’s deposition to the PSC or for that matter in his expressing views on the subject from any platform of his choice. Every citizen of India has got the full right to express his/her views on any matter to the public in general, law or policy makers or any other august body as the person will deem necessary, for the best interest of the country. It is up to the astute individual members or the institutions to extract the essence of the key issues out of all such deliberations based on hard facts and help the nation to move in the right direction for its economic progress with inclusive growth.

That said, one also expects that just charismatic persona of a matinee idol with well-articulated and perfectly modulated pontification, in an expertly manner, on the “do’s and don’ts” of the FDI in Pharma, should not overwhelm anyone, without appropriate substantiation with intimately related hard facts and examples.

From my own perspective, let me now explore the facts on this highly contentious issue for you to judge.

Pharma industry is going through a consolidation process:

Like in many other countries, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry in India has also started gaining momentum. Post amendment of the Indian Products Patent Act in January 1, 2005, first major M&A activity took place in 2006 with Mylan acquiring Matrix Lab.

2008 witnessed one of the biggest acquisition in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories for USD 4.6 billion.

This M&A activity was widely believed to be a win-win deal, with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative product range of Daiichi Sankyo.

In May 2010, Chicago (USA) based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generic business of Piramal Healthcare with USD 3.72 billion. This particular acquisition reportedly triggered the Government’s thinking in instituting newer restrictions on FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of the country.

However, I reckon, any such move will be a retrograde step in the financial reform process of India and could adversely affect foreign investments not only in the Pharmaceuticals sector, but possibly far beyond it.

Key Acquisitions of Indian companies:

Following are the details of M&As (Mergers & Acquisitions) in India from 2006 to 2011:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type
2006	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
2008	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
2009	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2010	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Business Buyout
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Business Buyout
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benckiser	726	Acquisition
2011	Universal Medicare	Sanofi	110	Acquisition

It is worth mentioning that all these acquisitions were voluntary in nature, which considerably helped shifting the investment focus of the MNCs into India. This is mainly because the country offers a good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage along with a thriving, yet inadequately penetrated, domestic pharmaceutical market.

Key apprehensions on FDI in pharma and the facts:

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies:

I would like to address these key apprehensions as stated below:

Apprehension 1. Oligopolistic Market will be created with adverse impact on ‘Public Health Interest’

The dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic Market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (Source: IMS 2011). Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.2% (Source: AIOCD/AWACS, March 2011). The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM.

Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or a group of companies enjoys any clear cut market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘Oligopolistic Market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.

Apprehension 2. ‘Oligopolistic’ situation will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of Public Health Interest (PHI) by granting CLs:

With a CL, the Indian Government can authorize any pharmaceutical company to make any medicine needed by the country on an emergency basis. With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical manufacturing companies operating in India,[1] there will always be enough skilled and able manufacturers willing to make needed medicines during any type of emergency situations. The country has already witnessed this during the H1N1 influenza pandemic, when several domestic and global pharmaceutical companies stepped forward to supply medicines in adequate quantity to meet the urgent need of the ailing patients.

The very thought of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDI to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a market driven price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of view, as mentioned in the ‘Discussion Paper’ of DIPP, sounds unreasonable, prejudiced and highly protectionist in the globalized economy.

Apprehension 3. Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company has no bearing on the pricing or access to drugs, especially when medicine prices are controlled strictly by the NPPA guidelines and a highly competitive market condition.

That competition within the pharmaceutical market is extremely fierce in India is vindicated by the following facts:

Each branded generic/ generic molecule (constituting over 99% of the IPM) has not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound.
100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, around 20% under cost based price control as per DPCO 95 and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism with a maximum annual price increase cap being effectively in place.

In an environment like this, any apprehension or threat to ‘Public Health Interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, will be highly imaginary in nature, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

As stated above, Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy did remain stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT, June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.

Similar trend has been observed even for other acquisitions, as well.

Investments through ‘Collaborative deals’:

Following are some important collaborative deals in the pharmaceutical sector of India from 2009 to 2011:

Year	Multinational Companies	Indian Companies
2009	GSK	Dr. Reddy’s Lab
	Pfizer	Aurobindo Pharma
2010	AstraZeneca	Torrent
	Abbott	Cadila Healthcare
	Pfizer	Strides Arcolab
	AstraZeneca	Aurobindo Pharma
	Pfizer	Biocon
2011	Bayer	Cadila Healthcare
	MSD	Sun Pharma

Such deals help the domestic pharmaceutical industry to reap a rich harvest in many other ways.

Positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or ‘Brownfield’ investments and collaborative deals contribute significantly not only to create high-value jobs for Indians[2] but also enable access to high-tech equipment and capital goods for the country.

Technology cooperation from the global pharmaceutical industry also stimulates growth in the manufacturing and R&D space of the domestic industry and positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines.

In this process, with adequate stimulus to the pharmaceutical R&D, India too could fast evolve as a country with a strong research-based pharmaceutical industry capable of developing innovative medicines and inventing new drugs for the world at large.

Many countries, including India, have instituted programs and policy reforms to attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector. These programs include substantial efforts to build up the R&D infrastructure and create a pool of qualified and talented work force.

Currently, there is a strong global competition for such investments. Countries recognize that pharmaceutical companies bring high-paying jobs, technology know-how and significant economic spill-over effects. As per reports, in the United States, each job in the research-based pharmaceutical industry supports an additional 3.7 additional jobs in the U.S.[3]

By attracting high quality FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, India can further improve its sectoral capabilities and help honing skills of its talent pool. All these, in turn, will also give rise to increasing global penetration of pharmaceutical exports of the country.[4]

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries:

A new study of the United Nations has recently reported that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the euro zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any retrograde steps by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

Many countries are trying hard to attract FDI:

While our Government has been publicly debating policies to discourage foreign investment, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.[6]

Access to generic medicines cannot be improved by restricting FDI:

The Pharmaceutical sector in India was opened up for 100% FDI through automatic route, only in the year 2002. This reformed FDI policy regime has been helping India as an attractive investment destination for pharmaceuticals.

Access to generic medicines cannot be improved by restricting FDI. Following measures and many more are required to address this critical issue in the country:

The Government has already signaled increasing allocation of resources towards the health sector by doubling the funding available for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).
It is also planning to extend the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) scheme to provide out-patient coverage to low income groups.
Currently the government seems to be quite poised to distribute all essential drugs to the patients free of cost through public hospitals and dispensaries.
Effective implementation of the ‘Universal Healthcare’ project in India will also help improving access to healthcare, including medicines, significantly.
Increase in allocation of expenditure towards health from 1.1% of the GDP in the 11th Five Year Plan Period to proposed 2.5% in the 12th Five Year Plan Period is a step in the right direction.
Healthcare financing will offer an enduring mechanism for reducing the Out-of-Pocket expenses of the poor, versus short term ‘knee jerk’ measures.
Allocating resources from national welfare schemes towards health insurance coverage would be a step in the right direction. For example, a portion of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) funds could be spent on health insurance premium for workers engaged in such work.

“ Protectionism is harmful”:

It is worth mentioning that our Government has been publicly expressing its views against the concept of ‘Protectionism in Business’ over a period of time.

“Protectionism is harmful” was very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the then Finance Minister and now one of the Presidential nominees of India. This comment was in context of “US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.

India now needs to ‘Walk the Talk’.

Unfortunately, even recently, on July 3, 2012 Indian media reports indicate that the Government is still mulling proposals to restrict FDI in India. It stated, “The new rules will require the foreign investor to give an undertaking that if the company is investing in producing an essential drug, as mentioned in the government list of such drugs, then it will continue to produce that medicine”.

99% of the total pharmaceutical market in India constitutes of generic/branded generic medicines with over 23,000 manufacturers and 60,000 brands. In such a scenario, apprehensions that generic medicines, including those featuring in the National List of Essential of Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) will not be produced in India, is indeed intriguing.

Conclusion:

In the light of ‘2010 Economic Survey of India’, the nation acknowledges the need to attract foreign investors in the country. Increasing foreign investments due to liberalization of FDI policies over the past two decades have benefited the Indian companies in terms of technology cooperation (technology transfer), greater resource mobilization and new market access opportunities.

Collaborative deals with the MNCs are enabling the local pharmaceutical companies to gain access to international expertise, increasing resources and world class manufacturing practices.

Any possible adverse impact of M&A on competition can now be effectively taken care of by the ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’. In addition, apprehension for any unreasonable price increases will appropriately be addressed by the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, as is the current practice.

Thus, in my view, limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, at this stage, without any substantive reason and just based on unfounded apprehensions, even when the Government is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investors, will be a retrograde step in the reform process of the country, pontification with razzmatazz of a Bollywood Matinee Idol notwithstanding.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs and ACTA: Should the global menace related to ‘Public Health and Safety’ be mixed-up with Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on July 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Here in this article, I am talking about drugs or medicines, which you may ultimately land up into buying, quite innocently though, against your doctor’s prescriptions, without having an inkling that these drugs can push you into serious health hazards, instead of addressing your ailments, as your doctor would have desired to.

These are ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, in whatever name we may call them. Such substances in the guise of drugs are therapeutically harmful for the patients and are a global menace. This needs to be addressed urgently and with a military precision.

However, public health policy experts have been arguing since long that the issues of such dimension related to critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned with focus, without mixing it up with any other commercial considerations or IP related matter, as is being done by some vested interests across the world. India, in this case as well, is of course no exception.

Some reports:

Following are examples of some reports regarding deliberations on this critical issue:

A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
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% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
Another recent 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% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

However, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry along with the Government has been continuously questioning the original source of fake drugs with prominent ‘made in India labels’ on the outer packaging material. It will not be difficult for many to recall that a couple of years ago consignments of ‘counterfeit or fake drugs’ wearing ‘made in India’ labels were confiscated by the drug regulator of Nigeria (Africa), which after a thorough investigation were found to have originated from China.

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010, which shows that the issue is not as acute as it is shown above:

Year	Drugs samples tested	% of sub-standard drugs	% of spurious drugs	Prosecution for crime	Persons arrested
2006 – 07	34738	5.8	0.22	115	12
2007 – 08	39117	6.2	0.19	120	122
2008 – 09	45145	5.7	0.34	220	133
2009 -10	39248	4.95	0.29	138	147
TOTAL	158248	5.66	0.26	593	414

This ‘Pan-India survey report of CDSCO’ shows that from 2006 to 2010 the percentage of both ‘Substandard’ and ‘Spurious’ drugs were quite low in India.

However, the more worrying fact, as seen in the report is, the arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime are also abysmally low in India.

IP related ‘counterfeit’ drugs are relatively smaller in numbers:

WHO has identified following types of counterfeit medicines:
• Without active ingredients: 32% • Wrong ingredients: 21.4% • Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2% • Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6% • High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5% • “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat poison or road paint”: 2.3%

In addition, 50% of medicines purchased online from illegal internet are ‘counterfeit or fake’

From the above data, it appears that IP related ‘counterfeit or fake’ drugs are relatively small in number.

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

The subject gets more complicated when such critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ related issue is leveraged to further strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and address commercial issues in different ways.

One such initiative was ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’. This was signed mostly by the developed countries of the world in October 2011.

ACTA is a plurilateral international trade agreement aimed at countering more efficiently not only the menace of counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet, but also Intellectual Property (IP) related issues, including stringent enforcement of product patents.

This agreement was primarily designed to form a new forum, outside the existing ones, like for example United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and was signed by Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. However, the agreement has not been formally approved by any of them, as yet.

According to European Commission, “ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale IPR violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe’s raw material – innovations and ideas.”

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

As per ACTA definition, there are two aspects for a medicine being termed as ‘Counterfeit’, which are as follows:

‘Health and safety’ issues, arising out of therapeutically harmful medicines
Violation of IP rights like, patents, trademark and design

It raises more questions than answers:

ACTA definition, as mentioned above, has led to confusion mainly because, if a patent infringing product is termed ‘counterfeit or fake’ in one country, what will then the same product be called in another country where the molecule has gone off-patent?

Moreover, countries which consider such types of drugs ‘fake’ or ‘counterfeit’, will have the full right to destroy even the in-transit consignments containing such products, not only causing economic loss to the exporter, but also jeopardizing public health interest at the destination countries. Just to site an example, in not too distant past, consignments of generic medicines exported from India to Brazil were seized at the European ports

Thus, many experts feel that ACTA poses a potential risk for global access to generic medicines endangering public health interest, as it could restrict free passage of such drugs through many ports of the world on IP grounds, as happened more than once in the past.

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

In this context, Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for ‘Access to Essential Medicines’ wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

Ongoing WHO debate:

‘Intellectual Property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported that:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ there is a ‘hidden agenda’ against generics for countries like Brazil.”

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generic medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

However, as reported by ‘The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)’, after the Government of India had taken it up strongly with the EU, the issue of confiscation of in-transit consignments of generic drugs has since been resolved.

Three emerging views:

Arising out of all these, there are following three different clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:

1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators of the developing countries are not really very keen to effectively address and resolve the global issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’.
2. The generic companies and the drug regulators of the developing countries feel that the problem is not as acute as it is being projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy campaigns are trying to exploit the sentiment against spurious and harmful drugs to fight against generic medicines and cheaper parallel imports.
3. Some other important stakeholders, including a section of NGOs claim that an intense ‘Public Health and Safety’ related sentiment is being leveraged by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend IPR issues to “patients’ safety” related concerns, for vested interest.

The role of WHO:

The leadership role of the WHO is extremely important to effectively eliminate the global menace of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ for ‘Public Health and Safety’. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing threat of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier global organization to address such critical issues effectively, especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a more proactive and stellar role in future.

A Rational Approach:

The groups opposing ACTA recommend the following approaches to address the menace of ‘Counterfeit or Fake or Spurious or Harmful Medicines’:

Address the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ by strengthening regulatory systems, related laws of the country and the stakeholder awareness program. In case of India, recently amended Drugs and Cosmetics Act needs to be properly implemented in letter and spirit.
The issue of violation of IP should be dealt with through effective enforcement of IP laws of the country.
There should not be any mix-up between ‘Public Health and Safety’ and ‘IP related issues’, in any way or form.

Countries already approached WHO:

Earlier, along with countries like Indonesia and Thailand, India could make the WHO realize that mixing up the above two issues could pose serious impediment for the supply of cheaper generic medicines to the marginalized sections of the society, globally.

Weak regulatory enforcement lead to more ‘Counterfeit/Fake’ drugs:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India alone. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus, it is generally believed that the issue of ‘counterfeit drugs’ is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is rather weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, ‘in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits’.

Conclusion:

In the meeting of the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) held in June, 2012, developed countries continued to reiterate that ‘Counterfeiting of Drugs’ being a critical issue should be deliberated upon by the council, expeditiously.

However, emerging countries like, Brazil, India and China strongly opposed this view by reemphasizing that in the name of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ issues of IPR violations should not be clubbed with ‘Public Health and Safety’. They argued that IPR violation should in no way be confused with sub-standard drugs or therapeutically harmful medicines and any attempt to discuss the menace of harmful or substandard medicines at the WTO platform will be improper.

Developing nations, in general, have already alleged in various global forums that being unsuccessful in their efforts to use ACTA in making the IP environment even more stringent, the developed countries are now trying to use the WTO to achieve the same objective.

The debate continues and the moot question still lingers: Why should the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ get mixed-up with ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ related problems?

By: Tapan J Ray

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control Spanning Across the World and Its Relevance to India

Posted on June 25, 2012 by Tapan Ray

How much to charge for a drug?

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of a medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for a drug still remains an important, yet complex and difficult task, both locally and globally.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce, after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals.

The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as the de facto market price. Moreover, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market.

An evolving rational system of drug pricing:

The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomic analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world.

In countries like, Australia and within Europe in general, health outcomes data analysis is almost mandatory to establish effectiveness of a new drug over the existing ones.

Even in the US, where the reimbursement price is usually negotiated with non-government payors, many health insurers have now started recognizing the relevance of such data.

Such price negotiations at times take a long while and may also require other concessions by manufacturers, for example:

In the UK, a specified level of profitability may constrain the manufacturers.
Spain would require a commitment of a sales target from the manufacturers, who are made responsible to compensate for any excess sales by paying directly to the government either the incremental profit or by reducing the product price proportionately.

Pharmacoeconomic Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP):

Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value that the drug/therapy would offer. Pharmacoeconomic principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

PBP/VBP is widely considered to offer the ‘best value for money’ spent to buy a medicine, as it is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative ones’.

A contrarian view:

Let me hasten to add that some shortcomings in PBP/VBP system have already been highlighted by some experts and are being debated threadbare. The key question that is being mooted now is, how to quantify the value of a saved life or relief of intense agony of patients while arriving at a price of a drug based on PBP/VBP model.

PBP/VBP could help ‘freeing-up’ resources to go to front-line healthcare:

As per the Department of Health, UK, ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’ ‘will help creating a world-class NHS that saves thousands more lives every year by freeing up resources to go to the front line, giving professionals power and patients choice, and maintaining the principle that healthcare should be delivered to patients on the basis of need, not their ability to pay’.

Pharmaceutical Price Control has assumed global importance:

Pricing of pharmaceutical products has now become one of the most complex and a very sensitive area of the business, like never before. This is mainly because of the concerns on the impact of medicine prices to access of medicines, especially, in the developing markets, like India and the cost containment pressure of the governments as well as the healthcare providers in the developed markets of the world.

Evolving Pharmaceutical pricing models:

Pharmaceutical pricing mechanism has undergone significant changes across the world. The old concept of pharmaceutical price being treated as almost given and usually determined only by the market forces with very less regulatory scrutiny is gradually but surely giving away to a new regime.

Currently in many cases, the prices of even patented medicines differ significantly from country to country across the globe, reflecting mainly the differences in their healthcare systems and delivery, along with income status and economic conditions.

Global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in the reference countries.

The reference drug may be of different types, for example:

Another drug in the same therapeutic category
A drug having the same clinical indications available in the country of interest e.g, Canada fixes the drug prices with reference to prices charged for the same drug in the US and some European Union countries.

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control across the world:

In most of the countries around the world drug price control in some form or the other has been put in place by the respective governments. Following are just a few examples:

Price Control in Germany:

In not so distant past pharma companies operating in Germany could fix any price for both patented and generic medicines. As a result, the drug prices in Germany have since long been among the highest in Europe.

‘The Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG)’ that came into effect in January 2011 to regulate the price of new prescription drugs in Germany, is expected to assist in the overall effort to curb in exploding costs for the country’s public health insurance system.

Under the new law, as reported by ‘InPharm’ dated November 12, 2010, pharmaceutical manufacturers in Germany, after the launch of a new drug, will have a one-year window to negotiate prices with health insurers. In case there happens to be no positive outcome of such negotiations, German Health Ministry would set a maximum price for the drug, which would then undergo a cost/benefit analysis by Germany’s ‘Health Technology Assessment (HTA)’ body IQWiG. Thereafter, the price will be fixed for the said new drug accordingly.

Price Control in Spain:

In Spain the local law has made HTA mandatory to ascertain the efficacy, cost, efficiency, effectiveness, safety, and therapeutic utility of different alternatives for the treatment of a disease condition.

After marketing approval of a new drug, either by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) or the Spanish Medicine Agency (AEMPS), the Ministry of Health (MSC) invites the manufacturer to provide all relevant information to allow the ‘Inter-Ministerial Pricing Commission (CIPM)’, chaired by the MSC, to decide the right price of the product. After negotiation, if the outcome is positive for inclusion of the product in the national reimbursement list, the decision is implemented across the country.

Effective June 2010, price cuts have been imposed by Spain on reimbursed patented drugs with rebates of 7.5% of sales, under the National Health System (NHS).

Effective July 2010, an average 25% cut has also been implemented for generic medicines in the country.

New Price Control mechanism in the UK:

Quite like US, UK has been one of those western countries, which allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to set their own prices. However, after the expiry of the current ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ in 2013, despite many concerns, as decided by the ‘National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’, ‘Value-based pricing (VBP)’ is expected to be followed for pharmaceutical product pricing in the UK. VBP will be worked out ‘by the maximum affordable cost per ‘Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY)’ generated by the use of new medicines.’

To arrive at VBP for a new product, pharmaceutical manufacturers will require furnishing enough evidence, based on clinical trial, to establish superiority of a new drug over the ones already available in the market.

However, VBP will be followed only for the new prescription drugs and not for the existing ones or generic medicines, with the main regulatory focus being on profit rather than on price control of drugs.

Price Control in France:

As per ISPOR, in France the price control of pharmaceutical products is implemented as follows:

“All registered pharmaceuticals are subjected to Evaluation of Therapeutic Benefit (Amelioration du Service Medical Rendu, or ASMR) by ‘Commission de Transparence (Transparency Commission)’, which is expressed as a classification between 1 & 6, as follows:

Innovative product of significant therapeutic benefit
Product of therapeutic benefit, in terms of efficacy and/or reduction in side effect profile
Already existing product, where equivalent pharmaceuticals exist; moderate improvement in terms of efficacy and/or reduction in side effect profile
Minor improvement in terms of efficacy and/or utility
No improvement but still granted recommendations to be listed
Negative opinion regarding inclusion on the reimbursement list

The ASMR evaluation is based on the expert judgment of the Transparency Commission of the Pharmaceutical Agency ‘(Agence du Medicament)’. Subsequently, a reimbursement price negotiated with ‘Comité Economique du Médicament (CEM)’. The price negotiated with CEM becomes the price at which the drug is sold throughout the country, even for private prescriptions.”

As a part of the 2011 Social Security Budget Bill, France has decided to significantly reduce its healthcare cost by enforcing price cuts including parallel import of drugs.

Price Control in Australia:

Just as many OECD countries, Australia also use drug price control mechanisms to contain its healthcare expenditure. The Australian government manages their healthcare expenditure through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), where the pharma companies are required to prove the cost-effectiveness of their drugs for subsequent pricing negotiations with the government.

Price Control in China:

In China, since 2007, ”The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ controls drug prices in the country. There was, however, a significant re-engineering of the system in November 2010, when NDRC drastically reduced the prices of essential drugs manufactured locally in partnership with global pharma majors like, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. In March 2011 prices were slashed for over 1,000 drugs in China.

Patented and imported products enjoyed relatively free-market pricing in China, for some time. However, recently to increase the coverage of ‘Universal Healthcare’, the Chinese pricing authorities have initiated price control measures for many pharmaceutical products in the country.

Pricing mechanism in Singapore:

Singapore also follows a free-market pricing approach for pharmaceutical products, which is, reportedly, to recognize the value and importance of patented products in the country. Though Singapore Government provides ‘Universal Healthcare’ to its residents, individuals are required to share the costs of healthcare services they consume.

This has made the cost of healthcare in Singapore rather expensive, especially for the retired persons and low-income citizens of the country. As a consequence of which, many individuals who would require regular treatment with medicines, very often go to nearby Malaysia to buy those medicines at much lesser prices, probably causing a revenue loss to the Singapore market.

Price control in Japan:

In Japan, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) follows a system of pricing where the new drugs prices are determined based on those comparable drugs, which are already available in the country. However, in those cases where MHLW cannot find any comparable drug for assessment ‘cost based pricing’ system is followed. The new drugs which are assessed as innovative by the MHLW may attract a premium based on pre-determined criteria.

Price Control in Brazil:

In Brazil, the government controls the drug prices through designated agencies. The ‘Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA)’ is responsible for the marketing approval of new drugs and the ‘Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED)’ is responsible not only for determining the prices of new drugs, but also for any subsequent price changes for all drugs in the market.

Price Control in Russia:

Currently pricing regulations are applicable to only ‘essential drugs’ in Russia. However, ‘thepharmaletter’ in its January 25, 2011 edition reported that ‘Federal Commission on Safety of Medical Business (FCSMB)’ of Russia has proposed a quick introduction of the government control over prices of all drugs in the domestic market costing more than 100 Roubles (US$3.34).

FCSMB believes that the current system of drug pricing in Russia offers a distinct advantage to the global pharmaceutical players. Hence, the agency feels, the state regulation on all drug prices is necessary in the country.

A damning article from “Los Angeles Times”:

Though United States of America (USA) still remains a free-market even for pharmaceutical product pricing, increasing number of voices are now being heard in favor of pharmaceutical price control even in that country.

‘Los Angeles Times’ in its October 10, 2009 edition commented, “Healthcare reform without drug price controls? That’s sick”.

While, acknowledging high cost of pharmaceutical research, the article continued to state, ”In fact, the companies’ actual research costs are one of the industry’s most closely guarded secrets. In the 1970s and 1980s, pharmaceutical companies waged a decade-long legal battle to keep even government auditors from reviewing those costs, leaving it unclear whether they include non- scientific costs such as promotion”.

The article stated that the bigger issue that has largely escaped public scrutiny is that “Over the last 30 years, the industry hasn’t focused its efforts on discovering those truly amazing innovations that can change the practice of medicine. Instead, the companies have taken the easy path, ordering their scientists to turn out mostly rehashes of medicines already being sold. It’s far cheaper to copy a medicine — tweaking a molecule just enough so it gets its own patent — than it is to do the years of work needed to find new and better cures”.

The author further highlighted, “This focus on copycat medicines is apparent in the list of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Of the medicines approved between 1990 and 2004, only 16% were what government reviewers deemed to be actually new and significant. The rest were medicines we were already using in a slightly different form. This explains why our pharmacies are stocked with a multitude of medicines that reduce cholesterol in the same exact way. With no price controls, the industry gets away with charging exorbitant amounts — even for drugs that barely work.”

High out-of-pocket expenses for health makes price control relevant in India:

Medicines are essential for all and constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, globally. However, in India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, including China.

Around 80% of expenses towards healthcare, including medicines, are reimbursed either by the Governments or through Health Insurance or similar other mechanisms in many countries.

However, in India the situation is just the reverse, more than 70% of overall healthcare costs are private or out-of-pocket expenses, incurred by the individuals/families. In addition, out of the total 70% out-of-pocket expenses, medicines contribute around 71%, making the life more difficult for many. (Reference: ‘High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage for India’ Instituted by Planning Commission of India).

Thus the issue of price control of ‘Essential medicines’ is extremely relevant in the country, more so when pharmaceuticals come under its Essential Commodities Act.

Conclusion:

It is now widely believed that pharmaceutical products, which play a pivotal role in keeping the population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should not be exploited by anyone.

Pharmaceutical companies are often criticized in this area by those stakeholders who are genuinely concerned with the well-being of particularly ailing poor and underprivileged population across the world.

While looking through the ‘Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control’ spanning across the world, it appears quite obvious that the raging debate on improving access to modern medicines will continue to revolve round the pharmaceutical pricing mechanism in almost all countries of the world. India is no exception, in any way.

By: Tapan J Ray

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

Posted on June 18, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

As reported earlier, Natco Pharma promised to sell its generic version of Sorafenib in India for US$ 176 for a month’s treatment as compared to Bayer’s US$ 5,600, for the same time period.

Let me now very briefly touch upon some WTO related and other facts on CL, in general.

Compulsory Licensing (CL) – A perspective:

World Trade Organization (WTO) defines CL as follows:

“Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner. It is one of the flexibilities on patent protection included in the WTO’s agreement on intellectual property — the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement”.

These flexibilities for CL are not new and exist in the TRIPS Agreement since its inception in January 1995.

However, November 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration on ‘TRIPS and Public Health’ included two new provisions of CL, one for the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) and the other for countries that do not have production capacity.

The key purpose of CL:

CL is generally considered as an excellent provision in the Patent Law of a country to protect public health interest by the respective governments and also the intelligentsia of the civil society. The key purpose of CL is to:

Rectify any type of market failure
Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

Can CL be granted only in an Emergency situation?

This is a common misunderstanding and the WTO clarifies the situation as follows:

“The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licenses”.

Keeping all these in view, now let me go back to the China CL story.

China was preparing for it since 2008-09:

Aljazeera in its June 9, 2012 edition reported that China was toying with this idea since 2008-2009.

In fact, during this time, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China had invited experts from other countries to train their officials on how to create robust legal grounds for the grant of CL in the country.

Chinese Patent Law amendment for CL has already been made effective:

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reported that a revised version of ‘Measures for the Compulsory Licensing for Patent Implementation’ has already been made operational in China effective May 1, 2012.

Interestingly, for “reasons of public health”, such medicines can also be exported under ‘Compulsory License’ to other countries, including those members of the World Trade Organization, where life-saving treatments are unaffordable.

In tandem, China, reportedly, is in the process of further strengthening its legal framework for local manufacturing of generic equivalents of patented drugs in the country.

Some other countries have already issued CL:

In the emerging markets, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have already granted CLs in their respective countries. It is worth noting that USA and the member countries of the European Union (EU) have also issued CL in more than one occasion.

China also encourages domestic innovation being world’s top patent filer in 2011:

All these happened, when ‘Thomson Reuters’ research report highlighted that ‘China became the world’s top patent filer in 2011, surpassing the United States and Japan as it steps up local innovation to improve its intellectual property rights track record.’

Thus China’s intention in maintaining a right balance between encouraging domestic innovation and protecting public health interest is indeed very clear.

A key Chinese concern:

Reuters also reported that the Chinese government is now concerned with the increasing trend of HIV- AIDS in the country and wants to have ‘Viread (Tenofovir)’ of Gilead Sciences, which according to Reuters, is recommended by WHO as part of a first-line cocktail treatment for this disease condition.

Quoting ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’, Reuters reported that as a result of recent expansion of CL provisions in the Chinese Patent Law, the country compels Gilead Sciences to extend significant concessions on the supply of Viread, which includes a generous donation package for the drug, provided the Chinese government continues to buy the same quantity of the medicine from them.

Many would interpret this development as a clever use of CL by the Chinese government to compel Gilead to extend a better deal for Viread for the country.

Will China use the CL provisions for hard price negotiation for patented drugs?

Like Brazil whether China will also use CL as a potent tool to drive down patented drug prices through hard negotiation or actually make the innovator companies to extend voluntary licenses to Chinese manufactures to produce and sell equivalent generics in the country is something which needs to be very closely watched in due course of time.

Increased patent protection and its impact on drug prices in low-income countries:

On this raging debate, in a July 2011 paper titled, “China and India as Suppliers of Affordable Medicines to Developing Countries”, published by National Bureau of Economic research, USA, the authors articulated as follows:

“As countries reform their patent laws to be in compliance with the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, an important question is how increased patent protection will affect drug prices in low-income countries. Using pharmaceutical trade data from 1996 to 2005, we examine the role of China and India as suppliers of medicines to other middle- and low-income countries and evaluate the competitive effect of medicine imports from these countries on the price of medicines from high- income countries. We find that imports of antibiotics and unspecified medicament from India and China significantly depress the average price of these commodities imported from high-income trading partners, suggesting that India and China are not only important sources of inexpensive medicines but also have an indirect effect by lowering prices through competition. As India is the leading supplier of medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa, this region will likely be affected most adversely”.

Thus, this is also an area worth keeping tab in the years ahead, both in India and China.

A subtle difference:

The difference between the Indian and Chinese move on CL, I reckon, is that the Indian Patent Office limited the CL of Sorafenib for domestic use only and not for export in any way to any other country.

However, it is interesting to note that Chinese amendment of the CL provisions will now enable the CL holders in China to apply for permissions for export of the same drug in other countries, as well. This could probably point to the direction of future ambitions of China to pave the way for rapid growth of their generic drug industry by invoking CL measures not only for use within the country, but way beyond the shores of China.

Conclusion:

It is worth noting that despite clear provisions of CL in TRIPS and especially even after Doha Declaration, the world had not seen many CL being granted by any country, as yet.

In this context, ‘Business Insider’ in its June 11, 2012 edition stated as follows:

“We haven’t seen a deluge of compulsory licenses over the years, and the drug companies (along with the U.S. government) have done what they can to slow down or halt this process. In China, every time a government official opens his mouth and even talks about compulsory licensing, the lobbyists are sent in, the Op/Ed columns are written, and things quiet down for another couple years.”

However, now with such broad provisions for CL in their respective patent laws to protect public health interest effectively, both India and China can, at least theoretically, allow introductions of low priced generic equivalents of patented medicines in their domestic markets, well before those drugs go off-patent. This development will certainly make the innovator companies edgy…very edgy!

It will be interesting to watch, whether global pharma majors consider such broad CL provisions both in India and now in China as serious business impediments or not.

Most probably, the worry will be more intense for much larger and faster growing Chinese Pharmaceutical market, which is now widely being considered as the emerging ‘Eldorado’ of the world.

By: Tapan J Ray

Healthcare Malpractice in India: Even Medical Association distastes the ‘Bitter Pill’

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Tapan Ray

At a peak of repeated overdose of media sensationalism covering various facets of happenings around us, at times almost mimicking ‘self-flagellation’ though, the program ‘Satyamev Jayate (Truth Alone Triumphs) ’ of Bollywood icon Aamir Khan has the potential to be a ‘game changer’ in terms of transformation of mindset of ‘We the People of India’ towards ‘What we can do for the country’ and JUST NOT ‘What the country can do for us’.

My perspective:

As I see it, the show endeavors to instill a sense of introspection in the viewers’ mind providing relevant information and knowledge, especially when for misdeeds of all shades, hues and colors around our lives, we tend to instinctively blame others, positioning ourselves on the illusive high pedestal of probity and considering ourselves ‘Lilly-white’ …and just the victims of circumstances.

What made me aware of it?

Personally, I became aware of the show, when one of my good friends strongly recommended watching its ‘Episode 4′ titled, “Every Life Is Precious: Does Healthcare Need Healing?’ He in fact mailed me even the video link of the same. Thereafter, I collected similar video links for previous other episodes from the internet and was highly impressed with the sense of purpose of the program.

What did it want to achieve?

As far as I am concerned, I am quite convinced that this particular episode highlights that:

“People trust medical practitioners, believing that they are equipped with the knowledge and skills to safeguard their health. But when this knowledge is misused to exploit this trust, medical care becomes a nightmare. The profession is riddled with unscrupulous doctors and hospitals out to make big bucks at the cost of patients, but there are still medical practitioners who stand up for the Hippocratic Oath, and those who want to clean up the profession.”

Dishonest acts in healthcare need to be opposed with courage:

In the program, Aamir Khan started by saying that that the episode was not about mistakes and negligence that a doctor may commit but about dishonest acts of some doctors, which were committed undoubtedly with equally dishonest intentions, amounting to fraud and a breach of trust between doctors and the patients.

The ‘Episode 4′ not only highlighted the deficiencies in the existing system related to medical ethics, but also issues pertaining to pricing of drugs, medical education and the functioning of the Medical Council of India (MCI).

Strong protests do not prove innocence:

Unfortunately, instead of appreciating the social transformation efforts of the program, many doctors reportedly protested against this particular episode.

I shall not be surprised, if some more protests from other quarters reach Aamir Khan in a different guise, even in the guise of seemingly support, especially from those who are perpetually in a denial mode stating: ‘what all were shown in the program are misguiding/misleading’, ‘you don’t know the facts/reality’, ‘what was shown is just half truth’, ‘our way is the right way’ and ‘we were not given a chance to express our views’.

However, as we all know that strong and venomous protests, even protests well concealed in the guise of support, do not prove innocence of the perpetrators, at all, though we all have a right to protest in our country.

In a protest credibility also matters:

A leading magazine of the country, ‘India Today’ in its August 25, 2011 edition titled ‘Address sick state of the health system’, reported in a different context:

“Among the multitude of people who flocked to the Ramlila grounds this week in support of the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare were some surprises. A delegation of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) met Hazare and extended support to his fight against corruption”.

“Subsequently branches of the association all over the country were told to organize candle light vigil and sit-ins against corruption. IMA is the largest professional body of Indian doctors and their support to the anti-graft movement should be taken seriously. After all, doctors are considered strong opinion makers in the society”.

“However, a careful look at the association’s past and its stand on the issue of corruption in medical community makes one wonder if IMA’s views on corruption have any value at all”, the report added.

Reports of protest on “Every Life Is Precious: Does Healthcare Need Healing?’ :

The daily newspaper ‘DNA’ in its June 2, 2012 issue reported, “Indian Medical Association asks Aamir Khan to apologize.”

The report elaborated that the Indian Medical Association demanded an immediate apology from Aamir Khan for having ‘defamed’ the medical profession in his TV show and warned him of legal action if he fails to comply with their demand.

Voices of sanity:

Being in unison with many other voices of sanity, against the demand of apology by the medical association, the lyricist and social activist Javed Akhtar reportedly had commented, “The Indian Medical association wants Aamir to apologize for exposing corruption in their profession. That is really sick.”

The Crusader remains unfazed against threats:

However, as reported by NDTV, Aamir Khan has refused to apologize and said, “I will not apologize to the doctors, I have not insulted the medical profession. Those doctors who indulge in unethical practices have defamed the profession, not me.”

Some other examples of ‘Medical Negligence’:

As reported by ‘Livemint (WSJ)’ in its May 15, 2012 edition, “Dozens of hospitals all over the country are ransacked each year by irate relatives and other ‘socially conscious’ citizens in an attempt to get back at alleged cases of medical malpractice. In many cases patients are crippled for life or even killed, and many of these cases may indeed involve instances of incompetence or malpractice. This does not in any way condone the violence, but then the victims have little recourse to justice or investigation”.

Highlighting similar medical negligence, ‘Times of India’ ‘ on October 22, 2011 reported that ‘The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)’ on October 21, 2012 ordered a compensation amount of Rs 1.73 Crore to be paid to the US-based husband of a child psychologist who died in Mumbai due to medical negligence.

Very few doctors punished for Medical Malpractice:

Effective January 1, 2011, just 17 doctors from all over India were found guilty on account of Medical Negligence/Misconduct and received varying degree of punishment from the MCI.

It is worth noting, unlike other countries and despite all these maladies being faced by a common man reportedly on a daily basis, not a single erring doctor’s name has been removed permanently from the Indian Medical Register/State Medical Register by the MCI or any State Medical Council, since 2008?

Some very recently reported actions by MMC and MCI:

Meanwhile the news daily ‘DNA’ in its June 6, 2012 edition reported that for different errant behavior, so far, the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) has sent show-cause notices to 31 doctors in the state and suspended registrations of five doctors.

Not so long ago to maintain desirable ethical standards within the Medical Profession, the notification of the Medical Council of India (MCI) dated December 10, 2009 amending the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ was also welcomed by concerned right thinking individuals including a large section of the medical profession.

Conclusion:

Medical malpractice, of course, is not just an Indian issue. ‘The Wall Street Journal’ in an article titled, ‘How Other Countries Judge Malpractice’, published on June 30, 2009 reported that in his speech to the ‘American Medical Association’, President Barack Obama held out the tantalizing possibility of reforming medical malpractice law as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. health-care system.

With TV shows like ‘Satyamev Jayate (Truth Alone Triumphs)’, let us collectively move towards the day, transforming ourselves as the change agents, when all of us rich, middle-class or poor will live in a country where things will be quite different from what we are experiencing today.

Many erudite medical practitioners of our country who still stand up for the ‘Hippocratic Oath’, will expectedly take initiative to clean up their profession, being harsh on the ‘Black Sheep’, probably through stringent self-regulations, even if the MCI continues to keep its eyes closed.

Let us all conscientiously try to pave the way for that day, when despite socioeconomic disparity people from all strata of our society will be able to get quality healthcare, driven by competent regulators, socially conscious industry and above all the dedicated medical profession, who under ‘Hippocrates Oath’ will consider each life equally precious, taking their noble profession almost back to the earlier high pedestal of a ‘Human God’!.

Against the mighty power of rejuvenated human will, all concerned in the healthcare space, willy-nilly, hopefully will have to swallow the ‘Bitter Pill’, not just in India, but across the world, for the sake of humanity.

Let ‘Truth Alone Triumph’….‘Satyamev Jayate’.

By: Tapan J Ray

Indian Parliamentary Committee Indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 58th Report on the action taken by the Government on the recommendations / observations contained in the 45th report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

In this report the Committee examined, besides other important subjects, the issues related to making high quality generic/branded generic medicines, patented and imported products available to the public at affordable prices to reduce ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ of the general population of India, significantly.

The Committee also suggested that the Department of Health and Family Welfare, in coordination with the Department of Pharmaceuticals and with the active involvement of Chief Secretaries of the State Governments should formulate an effective ‘Essential Drug Supply’ policy having the following components:

Encouraging prescription of generic drugs
Adoption of essential drugs list
Adherence to Standard Treatment Guidelines
Ensuring drug procurement through open tender system
Distribution of low cost medicines through Government drugs stores like, ‘Jan Aushadhi’
Demand generation for generic drugs through public awareness program

In addition, the report captured the great concern of the committee on rampant prescription of irrational and useless drugs by many doctors with ulterior motives and expressed the need of inclusion of the essential and lifesaving drugs under strict price regulation.

Parliamentary Report indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals:

The committee, besides other issues, observed as follows with a strong indictment to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

The DoP seems be in the grip of policy inertia.
‘Lackadaisical approach’ and ‘lack of sense of urgency’ of the DoP to iron out hindrances in establishing required number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ stores across the country have also resulted in their ‘soft-pedaling’ the issue of intensive promotion of generic drugs through a large number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, as was planned by the government.
DoP should shed its ‘indecisiveness’ and take all possible measures to speed up the revival and modernization of Public Sector Pharma Units, so that the all-important objective of access to affordable and quality medicines by all could be realized.
Currently there is no mechanism to regulate the prices of new patented drugs which are imported into the country and sold at ‘super-normal profits’. Committee recommended that India as a sovereign country has every right to determine, for public health interest, prices of all drugs which are sold in the open market, by putting in place an effective price control mechanism.
The issue of price regulation of all imported molecules including patented ones being sold in the country at high prices should be addressed by the DoP in the New Pharmaceutical Policy which is currently under finalization.
The DoP should take decisive action, without further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs’ and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices.
The country holds a strong position in producing generic drugs. Besides, it has a robust distribution network not only in the domestic market but also in other developing and underdeveloped countries of the world. Thus, the Government should make all-out efforts to arrest the trend of acquisition of domestic pharma companies by the multinationals.
The DoP to move the Cabinet for its approval with a sense of urgency for setting up the Central Procurement Agency as an autonomous society, as it can help control drug prices through effective procurement process.

Looking back:

In mid-2008, Government of India had set up a new department under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (MC&F), named the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP)’. The department was created primarily to have a greater focus on the pharmaceutical sector of India. Historically, issues and policies related to pharmaceutical industry mainly used to be handled by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. A separate Department of Fertilizers still handles all issues related to fertilizers in India. Both the departments were under the MC&F. The then Minister C&F felt that the pharmaceuticals sector has very many critical and complex issues, which are related mainly to pricing, access, availability, R&D, and other international commitments that necessitate integration of work with different ministries. A separate Department for Pharmaceuticals was, therefore, considered necessary to do justice to the pharmaceutical industry of India. The proposal, I reckon, was incubating with the government for quite some time though.

The expectations from DoP:

At that time in 2008, it was widely expected that the DoP will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues, with an integrated approach, to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest:

A modern, both growth and access oriented, drug policy and pricing mechanism.
Continuous improvement of access to high quality and affordable modern medicines for all.
An efficient drug price regulatory system.
An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and foster pharmaceutical innovation.
Addressing the issue of high ‘out of pocket expenses’ of the general population towards medicines in particular and healthcare in general.
Facilitating fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India to further drive its growth.

As stated above, all these will necessitate a close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under different ministries of the government, DoP being the nodal department.

The Objectives of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

Be that as it may, following are the stated objectives of the DoP, as mentioned in the Results-Framework Document (RFD 2011-12) of the DoP:

Ensure availability of drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma policy
Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support
Develop Pharma Infrastructure and Catalyze Drug Discovery and Innovation
Launch and Position Pharma India Brand
Develop Pharma Human Resources through M.Pharma and Ph.D programs in NIPERS
Provide Infrastructure and staff for new NIPERs
Strengthening of NIPER Mohaili
‘Jan Aushadhi Campaign’ and implementation of Business Plan for setting up of 3000 ‘Jan Aushadhi’ Stores (upto Subdivision level in the country)
Incentivizing Private Sector for development of new Drugs for diseases endemic to India

It appears, the current performance of the DoP even against their stated objectives as mentioned in RFD 2011-12, has prompted the Parliamentary Committee to make the above harsh comments.

A look at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ – a scheme conceived with a great purpose:

Before going into the reasons for lackluster performance of this scheme, let us look at the following objectives of scheme as set out by the DoP:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.) 2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives. (I would support this objective may be from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would still argue: why do we reinvent the wheel?) 3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of good intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market of India.) 4. To help patients save significantly towards medicines costs with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets. 5. A national help line to increase awareness level of this initiative. The statement of intent of the DoP also highlights that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops across the country. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

Arguing for the need of a course correction for ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme: It now appears that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and is perhaps destined to go into the history as yet another good intention of the Government, if a course correction is not made forthwith in the right direction. The main issue in improving access to affordable quality medicines for the common man with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme does not lie in the conceptualization of this ‘Public Health’ project, where the Government is pretty good at, armed with the support of a good number of brilliant bureaucrats. The problem in translating this laudable idea into reality, I reckon, lies not only in the understanding of the critical barriers to the project, but also in making out the key drivers of the same.

Key barriers:

In my opinion, following two are the key barriers to the success of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme:

Cost-effective procurement of quality medicines in adequate quantity
An effective delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other related bodies.

Cost effective procurement:

As recommended by the Parliamentary Committee, the DoP should move the Cabinet for its urgent approval to set up a Central Procurement Agency for cost effective procurement of quality medicines and at the same time encourage the state governments to do the same at respective state level.

No need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ – An effective delivery system already exists:

The DoP should explore possibilities of using the existing Government Public Delivery Systems to ensure cost effective easy access and availability of such medicines to the common man after tightening the loose knots wherever exist. There does not seem to be any dire need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this particular case.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘Public Distribution Systems’: The Government of India has following two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to far-flung rural areas: 1. Public Distribution System (PDS) : Called Ration shops and is currently used for public distribution of food grains and other essential commodities.

2. Indian Post Offices (IPO): This establishment is currently adding many other products, besides postal services, for effective distribution to the public

Quite like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why does DoP not collaborate with PDS/Ration Shops and IPOs through appropriate ministries to ensure easy availability and access to essential medicines by the common man?

This assumes even greater significance, when the Postal Department, as mentioned above, has already started collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas through IPO network. In that case, what prevents the DoP to consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend the usage of both PDS and IPOs by the DoP for deeper penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ across the country, especially for those who do not have adequate access to affordable modern essential medicines.

I am aware that the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’. It is about time that the government fixes strict accountability in these areas too.

We have currently many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure proper access and availability of “Jan Ausadhi” drugs to the common man”.

An intriguing observation in the Report:

It is indeed difficult to fathom the robustness of the reasoning of both the Parliamentary Committee and the DoP for the revival of the sick and loss making Public Sector Pharmaceutical Units in the country.

As stated above, the very second objective of the DoP also articulates as follows:

“Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support”.

This is indeed quite baffling.

Everyone knows that all these PSUs created at the expense of tax payers’ money, miserably failed to perform time and again, despite receiving all such incentives from the government umpteen number of times, even when the Indian pharmaceutical industry has been growing at a scorching pace, decade after decade.

Thus I wonder what magic wand the Government will wield now to be able to turn around these loss making and heavily bleeding PSUs from continuous non-performance and utter failure in governance and that too in the prevailing environment of fierce competitive pressure within the industry.

Considering all these, will the decision of pouring in even more money from the national exchequer’s fund into the bottomless pits of these loss making PSUs currently under dangerous tail spins fetch any dividend at all for the common man?

I reckon, if these PSUs still attract interest of some good private buyers/investors with reasonable valuation, the government should unhesitatingly decide to unlock these values, sooner the better.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, in July 25, 2011 a news item reported, “Department of Pharmaceuticals moots National Authority for Drugs & Therapeutics (NADT) with Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under it”.

If I recall, some years ago, another taskforce appointed by the Government suggested integration of the offices of the DCGI, CDSCO and NPPA along with all their powers and functions to ensure adequate availability and access to high quality medicines at affordable prices for the population of the country.

Nothing has fructified, as yet, in this direction. However, it appears from all such recommendations of various task forces that a strong desire to create powerful silos has perhaps assumed higher priority of the relevant players engaged in this ball game. Failure to deliver the deliverables for public health interest almost on a continuous basis by spending national exchequers money has become more a routine than exceptions.

That said, there seems to be a silver lining catching some eyeballs in this whole process. Some brilliant minds that the government now has in the DoP, I hope, will be able to turn around the situation to everybody’s satisfaction, sooner than later.

By: Tapan J Ray

“Indian Drug Regulator Accords Primacy to Pharma Industry Instead of Safegurding Public Health and Safety” – Parliamentary Committee

Posted on May 28, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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.

Regulations and the Regulator for the Pharmaceutical Industry of India – A snapshot:

The pharmaceutical industry in India is regulated, broadly, in the following ways:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 together with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules regulate the Pharmaceutical Industry across the country for all types of drugs, irrespective of the fact whether these are locally produced or imported from other countries of the world.
The office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is primarily responsible for effective enforcement of most of these laws and rules across the country.
All issues related to clinical trials, product approval and standards, import licenses and introduction of new drugs are the direct responsibilities of the DCGI’s office.
Health being a state subject in India, on the ground, Foods and Drugs Administrations (FDA) of the State Governments enforce laws related to approvals for setting up pharmaceutical production facilities and obtaining licenses to stock and sell drugs in their respective states.
A valid license from the Drug Regulator is necessary for location-wise manufacturing of each type of drugs in the country with a mandatory requirement of periodic renewal of such licenses, as specified therein.

A key point to ponder from the Report:

The report begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a 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
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

In this prevailing condition, the committee felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences, is absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Quite in congruence with this critical requirement the Committee examined in detail the functioning of CDSCO, which includes the office of the DCGI, as well, to ascertain whether applicable rules and laws are being implemented efficiently and honestly for the best interest of patients by the Drug Regulator of India.

Why is the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO industry oriented and not patient focused?

Very interestingly, the report highlights with 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:

	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 regulatingMedicines…

Consequently, the Committee took a very strong exception for such utter disregard and continued neglect of patients’ interest by the Drug Regulator of India and 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 that thereafter, it will require stringent conformance with the same with high precision.

Some very critical findings:

The committee in its report made the following critical findings, besides others:

“A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
When it comes to approving new drugs, too much is left to the absolute discretion of the CDSCO officials.
The Central Government can either issue directions under Section 33P to states to withdraw the licenses of FDCs granted without prior DCGI approval or the Central Government can itself ban such FDCs under Section 26A.
Though the Ministry is forming Drug Approval Committees, which are given very important powers, there is no transparent procedure for the selection of experts of such Committees.
Accurate information on drugs for patients is absolutely essential to prevent inappropriate use more particularly in children, elderly, during pregnancy and lactation.
Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of Clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

The Report named some pharmaceutical companies:

While arriving at these points, the report indicted some pharmaceutical companies, both national and international as follows (in alphabetical order):

	Company		Company		Company
1.	Bayer	8.	Lundbeck	15.	Ranbaxy
2.	Cipla	9.	Macleods	16.	Sanofi
3.	Centaur	10.	Mars	17.	Sun Pharmaceuticals
4.	Emcure	11.	Merck	18.	Themis
5.	Eli Lilly	12.	Novartis	19.	Theon
6.	GlaxoSmithKline	13.	Pharmacia (acquired by Pfizer)	20.	UCB
7.	Hetero	14.	Phamasset Inc. (a subsidiary of Gilead)	21.	Venus

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

The 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 needs to be thoroughly probed:

The report also deliberates not only on the utter systemic failure of CDSCO along with the DCGI’s office to enforce law 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.

Parliamentary Committee Report is a ‘considered advice and of persuasive value’:

Though any report of such Parliamentary Committee has been stated to have a persuasive value and be treated as considered advice given by the Committee, which in this case is to CDSCO, DCGI, Ministry of Health and also the industry.

Some probes already initiated:

Reuters in its publication of May 9, 2012 indicated that this Parliamentary Committee Report has prompted greater scrutiny even from the US regulators, which are reportedly investigating a number of drug companies under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Initial reports also indicate that both the Indian Government and some large international pharmaceutical companies have announced detail probe based on this report at their respective ends.

Some remedial measures - Mashelkar Committee Recommendations:

Considering all these, besides taking appropriate remedial measures related to Clinical Trials of drugs in India, it is about time to reconsider the recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in the Act accordingly to facilitate creation of a ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ introducing, along with other measures, a centralized licensing system for the manufacture, sale, export and distribution of drugs.

Why does India need CDA?

I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following significant benefits to the Industry and also to the Government for the best interest of public health and safety:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

Conclusion:

As a consequence of the above report of the Parliamentary Committee identifying gross irregularities in the functioning of the CDSCO, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad has already announced constitution of a three-member committee to probe into the matter in depth.

Following well-known experts have been named as members of this high powered committee, which will submit its report and recommendations in two months’ time:

Dr. V.M. Katoch: Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
Dr. P.N. Tandon: President, National Brain Research Centre
Dr. S.S. Aggarwal: Former Director, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow

The committee has been mandated to:

Examine the validity of the scientific and statutory basis adopted for approval of new drugs without clinical trials
Outline appropriate measures to bring about systemic improvements in the processing and grant of statutory approvals
Suggest steps to institutionalize improvements in other procedural aspects of functioning of the CDSCO

The outcome of the report of this high powered committee, internal probes voluntarily initiated by some pharmaceutical companies and possible implementation of the ‘Mashelkar Committee’ recommendations on the formation of CDA in the country will hopefully bring in some systemic changes in the drug regulatory system of India, for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan Ray

The New Drug Policy of India enters into the final lap of a Marathon Run

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Final working out and thereafter announcement of much awaited and long overdue the new ‘Drug Policy’ of India has now entered into a very interesting stage. This is mainly because of the unique combination of the following three key reasons:

1. 2002 Drug Policy was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued stay on the implementation of the Policy. This order was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 but ordered as follows: “We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated 15.2.2002 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”.

2. A live court case on the new draft ‘Drug Policy’ with the ‘essentiality criteria’ for price control is pending before the Supreme Court of India with its next hearing scheduled in the last week of July 2012. In this court case an independent network of several ‘Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)’ known as ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’ is arguing against the ‘flawed’ draft ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011)’, mainly on the following grounds:

‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ methodology calculated on the ‘Weighted Average Price (WAP)’ of top three brands, as specified in the ‘Draft NPPP 2011’ would not only lead to increase in the prices of medicines, but also legitimize higher drug prices.
To keep the drug prices under check effectively, the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ of Medicines should be based on ‘Cost based Pricing (CBP)’ model rather than MBP.
Adequate control mechanism is lacking in the NPPP 2011 to prevent the manufacturer from avoiding price control by tweaking with the formulations featuring in the National list of Essential Medicine 2011 (NLEM 2011).

3. In this scenario, a Group of Ministers (GoM) of the Union Cabinet has started deliberating on this issue since April 25, 2012 taking all key stakeholders on board to give its recommendations to the Union Cabinet on the scope, form, structure and the basic content of the new Drug Policy.

The bone of contentions:

The methodology and the span of price control of the draft NPPP 2011 have still remained the key bone of contentions for the new ‘Drug Policy’ of India. Suggested three key methodologies: From the responses received on the draft NPPP 2011, it appears that following three are the suggested key methodologies to arrive at the CP of price controlled NLEM 2011 formulations:

Cost Based Pricing
Market based pricing

- WAP of top 3 brands - WAP of bottom 3 brands

The formula suggested by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of lesser of (i) the price paid by the median consumer + 25% and (ii) price paid by the 80^th percentile consumer.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR AND AGAINST OF EACH: A. Cost based Pricing: Besides AIDAN, other reported key supporters of the CBP are the Ministry of Health and All India Chemists Associations. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR: The current drug price control regime (DPCO 1995) is based on cost-plus pricing model, where Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) of price controlled formulations are worked out as per the formula given in ‘para 7’ of DPCO, 1995 as follows: R.P. = [M.C. +C.C. +P.M. +P.C.] x [1+MAPE/100] +E.D. Where,

R.P: Retail price
M.C: Material cost, including process loss
C. C.: Conversion cost
P.M: Packing material
P.C: Packing Charges
MAPE : Maximum Allowable Post manufacturing Expenses of 100 percent
E.D.: Excise duty

The proponents of CBP believe that it is:

Transparent
Most beneficial to the patients
Fair, with a decent profit margin allocation for the manufacturers

ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Many others do not believe in CBP. They argue that price-inflation of non-price controlled drugs is much less than the price-controlled ones, which clearly vindicates that market competition works better than price control of drugs and thus is more beneficial to the patients. The following table shows the trend of general inflation against the drug price inflation from 1992 to 2011 period, as follows:

	Type of Inflation	Inflation (in Index)
1.	General Inflation	403
2.	Price-controlled molecules	151
3.	Non Price-Controlled Molecules	112

(Source: IMS data, RBI CPI average yearly inflation) This school of thought quotes the example of discontinuation of manufacturing in India 29 out of 74 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) under DPCO 1995 due to financial non-viability on account of CBP. Moreover, CBP is considered by them as a process, which is:

Intrusive
Lacking in transparency
Discretionary
Discouraging for innovation, high quality & efficiency
Not followed by any major country in the world
Not supported by even WHO. It says other countries are moving away from Indian type of CBP

B. Market Based Pricing (MBP): MBP in general is considered by its proponents as a system which is:

Transparent
Non-Discretionary
Encourages growth & investment
Rewards innovation
Promotes efficiency

The two variants of MBP under discussion are:

- WAP of top 3 brands

- WAP of bottom 3 brands

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR:

1. WAP of top 3 brands:

It is a transparent system and will reduce the prices of medicines

With adequate checks and balances in place the method will not lead to increase in prices because of the following reasons:

- All price increases are subject to WPI – Market competition will not permit any price increases – Companies in low-price segments will create pressure to reduce prices further

2. WAP of bottom 3 brands: This group argues that instead of WAP of top 3 brands, if the same for the bottom three brands is considered, ceiling prices will come down very significantly, benefiting patients much more than what WAP of top three brands will do.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

1. WAP of top three brands:

Would lead to overall increase in the prices of many medicines
Below ceiling price brands would raise their price upto the ceiling price level immediately
Would legitimize high drug prices

2. WAP of bottom 3 brands:

Not representative of the market, as only the brands with a low market presence will be considered for WAP calculations
The Bottom 3 priced brands factor in only ~17% of the market
Likely to have an adverse overall impact on patients as many small brands with lowest acceptable quality standards will be considered for WAP calculations, which may ultimately push high quality formulations out of the market.

C. Formula suggested by EAC of the Prime Minister: ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR:

Will ensures affordable drug prices for the patients by:

Encouraging and rewarding high market competition
Discouraging monopolistic or oligopolistic market situation

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

EAC criteria for insufficient competition are based on the 1994 Policy
The situation is different today as the market has grown 9 times since then
The number of brands tends to be low in lower volume turnover molecule segments mainly due to low disease prevalence. Thus bringing these molecules under CBP will be irrational
Instead of implementing CBP where lesser number of brands exists in many generic segments, EAC formula should encourage competition even in these lower value turnover molecule segments to bring the prices further down

That said, ‘Drug Price’ has always remained one of the critical factors to ensure greater access to medicines, especially in the developing economies like India, where predominantly individuals are the payors. This point has also been widely accepted by the international community, except perhaps by the diehard ‘self-serving’ vested interests. Important Points to Ponder:

A. ‘Drug Price’ control alone can not improve access to medicines significantly:

To improve access to medicines, even the Governments in countries like Germany, Spain, UK, Korea and China have recently mulled strict price control measures in their respective countries. However, it is important to note and as we have seen above, though the drug prices are indeed one of the critical factors to improve access to modern medicines, there is a need to augment other healthcare access related initiatives in tandem for a holistic approach.

In India, we have witnessed through almost the past four decades that drug price control alone could not improve access to modern medicines for the common man very significantly, especially in the current socioeconomic and healthcare environment of the country.

B. Taming drug price inflation only has not helped improving access to medicines:

It is quite clear from the following table that food prices impact health more than medicine costs :

Year	Pharma Price Increases	Food Inflation
2008	1.1%	5.6%
2009	1.3%	8.0%
2010	0.5%	14.4%

Source: CMIE Exploring a practical approach: Considering pros and cons of the key methodologies of price control of formulations featuring in NLEM 2011, as I had written in this blog in April 2, 2012, I would like to reemphasize that a middle path with a win-win strategy to resolve this deadlock effectively would be in the best interest of both patients and the industry alike, in the current situation. The middle path, I reckon, may be explored as follows:

Calculate ‘Weighted Average Price’ for each formulation based on prices of all brands – high, medium and low, applying some realistic exclusion criteria.
When inclusion criteria for price control in the draft NPPP 2011 is ‘essentiality’ of drugs, it sounds quite logical that price control should be restricted to NLEM 2011 only.
Enough non-price control checks and balances to be put in place to ensure proper availability of NLEM 2011 drugs for the common man and avoidance of any possible situation of shortages for such drugs.

Conclusion:

Conforming to the directive of the honorable Supreme Court of India on price control of essential medicines in the country, the GoM should now help resolving the issue of putting in place a robust new National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy, without further delay, taking the key stakeholders on board.

In any case, it has to be a win-win solution both for the patients and the industry alike, paving the way for improving access to modern medicines for the entire population of India, together with other strategic initiatives in this direction. This is absolutely essential, especially when medicines contribute around 72 percent of the total ‘Out of Pocket Expenses’ of the common man of the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Bollywood Matinee Idol Pontifies on Pharma FDI with Razzmatazz: Exploring Facts

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control Spanning Across the World and Its Relevance to India

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

Healthcare Malpractice in India: Even Medical Association distastes the ‘Bitter Pill’

Indian Parliamentary Committee Indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals

“Indian Drug Regulator Accords Primacy to Pharma Industry Instead of Safegurding Public Health and Safety” – Parliamentary Committee

The New Drug Policy of India enters into the final lap of a Marathon Run