Increasing Healthcare Consumption in India with equity

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Along with the economic progress of India, healthcare consumption of the population of the country is also increasing at a reasonably faster pace. According to McKinsey India Report, 2007, the share of average household healthcare consumption has increased from 4 per cent in 1995 to 7 per cent in 2005 and is expected to increase to 13 per cent in 2025 with a CAGR of 9 per cent, as follows:

Share of Average Household Consumption (AHC) (%)


	Household Consumption	1995	2005 E	2015 F	2025 F	CAGR %
1.	Healthcare	4	7	9	13	9
2.	Education & Recreation	3	5	6	9	9
3.	Communication	1	2	3	6	12
4.	Transportation	11	17	19	20	7
5.	Personal Products and Services	4	8	9	11	8
6.	Household Products	2	3	3	3	5
7.	Housing & Utilities	14	12	12	10	5
8.	Apparel	5	6	5	5	5
9.	Food, Beverages & Tobacco	56	42	34	25	3

(Source; McKinsey India Report 2007)

From this study, it appears that among all common household consumption, the CAGR of ‘healthcare’ at 9 percent will be the second highest along with ‘education’ and ‘communication’ topping the growth chart at 12 percent.

As per this McKinsey study, in 2025, in terms of AHC for ‘healthcare’ (13 percent) is expected to rank third after ‘Food & Beverages’ (25 percent) and ‘transportation’ (20 percent).

Thus, over a period of time AHC for ‘healthcare’ shows a very significant growth potential in India. Hence, this important area needs much greater attention of the policymakers to help translate the potential into actual performance with requisite policy and fiscal support/incentives.

Sectoral break-up of the Healthcare Industry:

According to IDFC Securities 2010, the sectoral break-up of the US$ 40 billion healthcare industry is as follows:

Industry	%
Hospitals	50
Pharma	25
Diagnostics	10
Insurance & Medical Equipment	15

(Source: IDFC Securities Hospital Sector, November 2010)

Therefore, as per this above report, the top two sectors of the healthcare industry are hospitals with 50 percent share and pharmaceuticals at 25 percent.

Public sector drives the healthcare expenditure in the developed countries:

Almost all OECD countries now provide universal or near-universal health coverage for a core set of health services, which are primarily funded by the public sector.

The report titled, ‘Health at a Glance 2011’ indicates that adjusted for purchasing power parity United States of America (USA) at US$ 7290 per capita expenditure on health in 2007, which is almost two and a half times more than the OECD average of US$ 2984, towers above other OECD countries. However, the same for Turkey and Mexico was less than one-third of the OECD average.

India and South East Asia are different:

Unlike OECD countries, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), in South East Asia, except Thailand and Indonesia, healthcare is primarily driven by private expenditure, as seen in the following table:

Public and Private Expenditure on Health as % of Total

Country	Public %	Private %
Laos	17.60	82.40
Cambodia	23.80	76.20
India	32.40	67.60
Philippines	34.70	65.30
Vietnam	38.50	61.50
Malaysia	44.10	55.90
Indonesia	54.40	45.60
Thailand	74.30	25.70

Source: World Health Statistics 2011, World Health Organization (WHO)

In India, the critical healthcare industry is heavily dependent on private sector investments, where the total public expenditure on health is just around one third of the country’s total expenditure for the same, though in the 12th Five Year Plan period the the government is likely to increase its health expenditure as a percentage to GDP to 2.5 percent.

Healthcare – a more sensitive sector in India:

According to an article titled, ‘Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities’, published in ‘The Lancet’ dated February 19, 2011 ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health in India (78 per cent) is one of the highest as compared to its neighboring, except Pakistan (82.5 percent). The details are as follows:

	Country	‘Out of Pocket’ expenses (%)
1.	Pakistan	82.5
2.	India	78
3.	China	61
4.	Sri Lanka	53
5.	Thailand	31
6.	Bhutan	29
7.	Maldives	14

Such a high out of pocket expenditure for health in India, makes ‘affordability’ of healthcare products and services so sensitive to all concerned.

Just Hospital oriented health insurance plans are not adequate enough:

The above article from ‘The Lancet ‘also indicates that 74 per cent of the total healthcare expenditure goes for only outpatient or in-clinic treatment of the patients. Only 26 per cent of healthcare expenditure goes for inpatient treatment in the hospitals.

Thus coverage of only expenditure towards hospitalization by the health insurance companies will not be able to provide significant benefits to most of the citizens of India.

Further, the article says that from 1986 to 2004, there has been three times increase in the average real expenditure per hospital admission, both in the government and private hospitals.

Threefold increase in the drug prices from 1993-94 to 2006-07 was mentioned as the key factor for cost escalation in the medical care in India.

Private healthcare sector needs more fiscal incentives and lesser cost of capital:

As indicated above, private healthcare players will increasingly play a very significant role to increase healthcare consumption with equitable span across the population of India. To encourage them to spread their wings in the semi-urban and rural areas of the country effectively, lucrative fiscal/ financial incentives along with the availability of low cost capital, are absolutely necessary.

It is worth mentioning that the growth of rural middle class population is now faster than ever before and much more than their urban counterpart.

Exploitation of the patients must stop:

Unfortunate and deplorable incidences of exploitation of patients, mainly by the private players, are critical impediments to foster growth in quality healthcare consumption within the country.

In this context, ‘The Lancet’, January 11, 2011 highlighted as follows:

“Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.” Prevailing situation like this calls for urgent national regulations for provider-standards and treatment-protocols, at least for the common diseases in India and more importantly their stricter implementation across the country.

UHC will significantly improve healthcare consumption:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

UHC will guarantee access to essential free health services to all. However, because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt not only from within India, but also from other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC is expected to ensure guaranteed access to essential health services to every Indian, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that the people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes, as per their individual requirements.

Conclusion:

India has already been globally recognized as one of the fastest growing healthcare markets of the world. All components in the healthcare space of the country including hospital and allied services are registering sustainable decent growth, riding mainly on private investments and now fueled by various government projects, such as:

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
National Urban Health Mission
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
Universal Health Coverage (UHC)
Free Medicine from the Government hospitals
Centralized procurement by both the Central and the State Governments

Supported by newer, both public and private initiatives, like:

Increase in public spending on healthcare from 1.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan period
Increasing participation of the private players in smaller towns and hinterland of the country
Wider coverage of health insurance
Micro-financing
Greater spread of telemedicine
More number of mobile diagnosis and surgical centers

All these interesting developments adequately fueled by rising income levels and improving access to healthcare though albeit slowly at present, equitable consumption of healthcare in India, I reckon, is expected to improve by manifold in the years ahead, despite shrill voices of naysayers of vested interests, orchestrated many a times from beyond the shores of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Reaping rich harvest with less moaning and bagful of creative ideas from emerging Rural Markets of India

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Tapan Ray

About 72 percent of the population and 135 million households of India live in the rural areas of the country. Many of them are poor.

Definition of ‘Rural’:

Agencies of the Government of India like, National Council of Applied Economic (NCAER) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency (IRDA) have defined the terminology ‘rural’ as “villages with a population of less than 5000 with 75 percent population engaged in agriculture…”

Rural India is no longer an agrarian economy:

A recent study by ‘Credit Suisse’ indicates that rural India is no longer a pure agrarian economy, depending mostly on the quality of rain falls during monsoon season. This has been corroborated by the fact that the contribution of agriculture to the total GDP of rural India has come down from 50 percent, as registered during the turn of this century, to its current level of about 25 percent.

This transition of rural India from agriculture to industry and services, is now taking place at a much faster pace than ever before, as the rural economy is getting increasingly attuned to the national economic cycle, creating more and more non-agrarian jobs in those areas. Most of the incremental job creation is taking place in manufacturing, construction, retail and wholesale trade and also in the community services.

Currently, 55% of India’s GDP from manufacturing comes from rural India as the ‘Credit Suisse’ report highlights. As a result, since April 2000, per capita GDP in rural India has grown at a much faster pace than in urban India.

This welcoming change, in turn, is expected to play a key role in significantly improving the consumption of reasonably affordable healthcare, besides many other products and services, in the rural India.

Rural share of GDP growing faster:

Since last several years with various rural reform initiatives of the Government, the hinterlands of India have started growing faster than ever before.

A National Council of Applied Economic (NCAER) Research survey, indicating rural share of India’s GDP improved from 40 percent in 1980 to 54 percent in 2010, vindicates this point. At the same time, aggregate rural consumption (US$ Bn) increased from 94 in 1985 to 203 in 2005 and is expected to reach 350 in 2015. (Source: National Statistical Offices, UN, Euro Monitor International, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India).

A new growth opportunity:

According to McKinsey Report, rural India currently accounts for 21 percent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM). It is interesting to note from the NCAER report that both urban and rural India spend 5% of their total income on health.

Rural growth drivers:

McKinsey estimates that by 2015, upcoming smaller towns and the rural markets will contribute as much to the growth of IPM as the metros and top tier towns.

The following factors are expected to drive the growth of the pharmaceutical industry in the rural India:

Large patient base
Increasing overall income (over 1 percent of the total population coming above the poverty line every year)
Increasing number of middle class in rural areas
Disease pattern gradually shifting to chronic ailments
Improving healthcare infrastructure with increasing Government spend on the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), which is the National Health Insurance Scheme for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families, will provide health cover to increasing number of BPL households
New initiatives of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) like, “Janaushadhi” scheme will provide low cost quality medicines to boost the uptake

Rural market size:

The rural markets contribute about 21 percent of U.S$ 12.5 billion pharmaceutical market in India (AIOCD-AWACS, February, 2012). As reported in ‘India Pharma 2015’ of McKinsey, by 2015 rural pharma market size is expected to reach U.S$ 4.8 billion from U.S$1.2 billion in 2005.

Currently, rural markets are dominated by ailments related to various types of infections. As stated above, this disease pattern is expected to change by the next decade to non-infectious chronic illnesses, like diabetes, cardiac, cancer, hypertension etc.

Increasing Pharmaceutical growth trend in the rural markets:

In 2011 the rural markets of India registered a growth of around 23 percent over the previous year. This decent pace of growth is expected to continue in the next decades.

	MAT Dec 2011 (INR M)	MAT Dec 2011 (Saliency)	Growth %
Indian Pharma Market	538,028	100.00	14.92
CLASS I TOWNS	168,339	31.29	12.12
METROS	164,625	30.60	16.33
CLASS II TO VI	102,536	19.06	9.93
RURAL	102,528	19.06	23.19

(Source: IMS Town Class Data – Dec MAT 2011)

Moreover, McKinsey Report forecasts that rural markets will contribute around 27 percent of the total consumption of India by 2020 and by 2015, rural India will account for over 24 percent of the domestic pharmaceutical market from its current level of 21 percent.

Charting the uncharted frontier:

It has been reported that growth rate of the rural markets of many companies have more than doubled due to their rural marketing focus. Possibly as a testimony to this new business opportunity, one can now see:

1. Novartis with its “Arygoya Parivar” initiative is rolling out a tailor-made program for rural areas of seven states of India, to start with. They have developed special packs of essential medicines with special prices to reach out to the rural population. To create disease awareness within the target population and also for disease prevention and treatment, Novartis has deployed health educators for this project.

2. Sanofi has initiated a dedicated rural marketing initiative called ‘Prayas’. The initiative is aimed at ‘bridging the diagnosis‐treatment gap through a structured continuing education program for rural doctors across India’.

The Company says, “through ‘Prayas’, specialists from semi‐urban areas will share latest medical knowledge and clinical experience with general practitioners based in smaller towns and villages in the interiors of India”. Their second strategy, reportedly, is for improving healthcare access by making quality medicines available at affordable prices for the rural patients.

3. Novo Nordisk is currently engaged in screening patients for diabetes in the rural areas of Goa with mobile clinics. This initiative is expected to create widespread awareness about diabetes and early detection of the disease, so as to prevent early onset of the disease related complications.

4. Eli Lilly developed a program along with the Self-Employed Women’s Association in Ahmedabad to educate and encourage rural patients suffering from tuberculosis to go for treatment.

5. Elder pharmaceuticals created a dedicated 750 strong rural marketing sales force called Elvista.

6. Cadila Pharma has set up a dedicated rural marketing arm called ‘Explora’.

7. Alembic Chemicals created a rural business unit called ‘Maxis’.

These are just a few illustrations and not an exhaustive list. However, the issue is whether the rural marketing initiative will continue to remain an experimental one to the pharmaceutical companies in India or will get translated into a decent long term strategic business move.

“The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”:

The iconic management guru C K Prahalad in his well-known book titled, “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” wrote:

“If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up.” I am not sure whether the above profound observation is encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to explore the rural India with the wings of courage, where majority of the Indian populations live and most of them are poor.

A ‘Pot of Gold’ in the rural markets?

Currently around 20 million middle class households live in over 6,00,000 villages of India. This is almost the same as the number of middle class households residing in urban India and holds the key to significant increase of healthcare spending in rural India.

Rural market-entry strategy:

Instead of transplanting the urban marketing strategy into rural India, some companies, as mentioned above, have taken the community-welfare route to make the rural population aware of particular disease segments like, tuberculosis, diabetes, cardiovascular, waterborne diseases etc. together with the treatments available for such ailments.

These value added marketing strategies offer benefits to both the patients and the company concerned. The local medical practitioners, in turn, are also benefited as they get increasing number of patients in their clinics through such disease awareness community program by the pharmaceutical companies.

Key challenges:

There are some key challenges for effective rural penetration by the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as follows:

• Inadequate basic healthcare infrastructure. Only 20 percent of total healthcare infrastructure of the country is in rural areas where over 72 percent population of the country lives. • Density of doctors per 10,000 populations in India is just 6. A large number of villages in India do not have any doctor. As per AC Nielson study, an average rural Indian has to travel about 6 km to visit a doctor. A Medical Representative will require traveling about 250 to 300 km every day just to meet about 10 doctors and 4 dealers. • Many villages are not well connected by proper all season roads. • Lack of appropriate supply chain network and logistics support.

Conclusion:

With increasing infrastructural support and tailor made innovative marketing strategies for rural India, simultaneously delivering both preventive and curative therapies under one umbrella, it may not be difficult for the Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ – a win-win situation indeed for both the ‘haves’ and a vast majority of ‘have-nots’ living in an amazing country called India.

The name of the game is less moaning and a bagful of implementable creative ideas.

By: Tapan J Ray

India – Young Today, Old Tomorrow: Emerging Issues of Aging, Health and Socioeconomic Profile of the Country

Posted on April 29, 2012 by Tapan Ray

‘World Health Day’ is celebrated every year on April 7, the day ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’ was founded in 1948.

Each year, on this day, people from all walks of life across the globe are invited by WHO to focus on a particular emerging health challenge of global relevance, which becomes the theme of the ‘World Health Day’ for the year.

In 2012, the theme for this day was, “Aging and health: Good health adds life to years”. It focuses on how good health throughout the life span can help the senior citizens to lead a full and productive life and in turn makes them valuable and experienced resources not just to their respective families, but also to the societies and communities they belong to.

Aging affects all:

The process of aging, without any exception, affects the entire population, young or old, male or female, rich or poor, alike, across the world and is considered as one of the key factors of social transformations through the passage of time.

With the advancement in medical science coupled with increasing social awareness for living a healthy life, the average life expectancy of the population in the 20th century reportedly increased by around 30 years in the developed world and is expected to maintain similar growth trend in the 21st century, as well.

Now, with an increasing life expectancy even in the developing world, the issue is assuming greater magnitude and at a much faster pace.

In the language of Steve Jobs:

Steve Jobs, the global icon and the former CEO of Apple Inc., during his commencement speech to Stanford in 2005, very aptly articulated as follows:

“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is, as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.”

In a normal situation old age precedes death and just like the inevitability of death, everybody, even a baby born today will need to embrace the old age before being cleared away by death. Thus, as the population will age as a natural process, there will be growing need to make even the old age more meaningful. Sounds like a tall call, but quite pertinent indeed.

Although, an average elderly person of today is much healthier than of the past generations, they will still need appropriate health management and social security plans, especially for an emerging economy, like India.

World population aging faster:

Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations in its publication titled, “World Population Aging: 1950-2050”, described the trend of ageing of the global population and highlighted the following:

Population aging is unprecedented : This is unparallel in human history and the current century will witness even more rapid aging than the previous one.
Population aging is pervasive: It is affecting every man, woman and child across the world, though currently it is at different stages of progress in different countries.
Population aging is enduring: The world will not return to the young populations of our ancestors.
Population aging has profound implications: It affects many facets of lives of human beings.

Increasing burden of disease:

The burden of some serious age related diseases increases by manifold as the life progresses towards its ‘twilight zone’. Even now, the treatment costs and overall burden of age related diseases, both in the developed and the developing countries, are escalating in an alarming proportion.

Age related diseases:

According WHO, in the industrialized countries over 75 percent of deaths in people of over 65 years of age are due to cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, in addition to disabilities like, loss of bone density leading to osteoporosis.

As per published reports, the incidence of age related Alzheimer’s disease, which is now incurable, will almost double every 20 years to reach around 66 million in 2030 and over 115 million in 2050.

Research for delaying the onset:

Reuters in an article titled, “Is aging a disease?” published in May 20, 2010 reported that many scientists from various parts of the world are now studying the genetic mechanisms of the old persons to help delay, if not overcome, the onset of diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular ailments and many other age-related illnesses to help leading a better quality of life during old age of the human population.

Elderly population and the impact:

As per an estimate of the United Nations (UN), there will be around 1200 million people over 65 years of age by 2025. Currently, from across the world millions of aging people are denied of proper health care for various reasons. The situation in India is much worse.

It is envisaged by many that failure, either on the part of the Government or society at large, to address this critical issue today, could have a snowballing effect tomorrow.

In Japan, currently half of the national health budget is spent on the elderly individuals, which constitute around a whopping 23 percent of the country’s population. According to another estimate of the Japanese Government, by 2055 half of their total population will constitute of retired senior citizens.

India:

With over 65 percent of the population of India being now below 30 years of age, the country is well poised to have one of the largest numbers of young and productive population in the world, though 7 percent of country’s 1.13 billion people are now over 60 years of age and the number is growing.

The Median Age of the population will keep on increasing over a period of time as follows:

Aging Profile: India and other countries

Year	2000	2015	2025	2030	2035	2040	2050
Median Age–India	23.4	27.2	30.3	31.4	33.5	35.0	37.9
Median Age–World	26.4	29.5	31.9	33.0	34.0	34.9	36.8
Median Age–More Developed Regions	37.3	41.2	43.3	44.2	45.0	45.4	45.2
Median Age–Less Developed Regions	24.1	27.5	30.0	31.2	32.4	33.5	35.7
Median Age–Least Developed Regions	18.1	19.6	21.2	22.2	23.3	24.5	27.1

(Source: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United

Nations Secretariat)

Growth of elderly population is much faster than the population:

As as per the paper titled, “Implications of an Aging Population in India: Challenges and Opportunities” presented at ‘The Living to 100 and Beyond Symposium’ of the Society of Actuaries in Orlando on January 12–14, 2005, the Indian population has approximately tripled during the last 50 years, but the number of elderly Indians has increased more than fourfold.

Assuming continuation of this trend, the United Nations have predicted that the Indian population will again grow by 50 percent in the next 50 years, with the elderly population recording another fourfold growth.

Changing demographic profile:

The situation in India, therefore, by no means is a trivial one and needs to be addressed with a right earnest and sooner, mainly because of the changes in the demographic profile of the country, as follows:

Projected Changes in Indian Demography (in Million)

Age Group	2000	2015	2025	2030	2035	2040	2050
0-14 Years	347	345	337	327	313	300	285
15-59 Years	593	782	865	895	919	937	938
>60 Years	77	119	167	195	223	248	308
Total	1,017	1,246	1,369	1,417	1,455	1,485	1,531

(Source: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat)

Thus, over a period of time in India, increasing number of less productive elderly people and the declining trend of the younger population, could adversely impact the overall socioeconomic profile and and the disease burden of the nation.

Conclusion:

In India, there has been hardly any support in terms of social security, especially for a vast majority of people, who are unable to work after becoming senior citizens of the country.

In a situation like this, the Government of India, civil society and the private sector enterprises of the country should work in tandem to give shape to appropriate policy measures to effectively address the issues of the increasing number aging population of the country, over a period of time.

This is necessary not just for the socioeconomic reasons, but also to arrest any significant increase in the overall disease burden of the nation with its possible adverse impact on the growing economy of the country.

Continuing lack of interest to work out a long term social and policy measures to address the important issues related to population aging in India, in a holistic way, could significantly impede the pace of economic growth of the country, celebration of the ‘World Health Day’ on April 7, 2012 notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J Ray

Chasing the “Holy Grail”: Reasonably affordable healthcare for all

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The Healthcare industry of the world as a whole with a size of several trillion US$ is growing at a fast pace in many countries for various reasons. The industry can be broadly divided into six categories as follows:

Managed Health Care, like the US and many other OECD countries providing ‘Universal Health Coverage’
Medical Equipment and Devices
Pharmaceuticals
Bio-pharmaceuticals
Health Insurance
Health Support Services

Though BRIC countries and other emerging markets are showing promising growth potential, United States of America (USA) still remains the largest entity within the global healthcare industry, followed by European Union (EU) and Japan.

Success requirements:

The most important success requirements for the Global healthcare industry may be listed as follows:

Proficiency in early capturing of the key market trends
Leveraging technology in all areas of business
Continuous product and service innovation
Meeting customer needs even before they feel for the same
Cutting-edge, well-differentiated and well-executed market and marketing strategies
Always in touch with customers with win-win business objectives
Outpacing competition with continuous proactive moves

India:

The success factors for excellence in the healthcare sector of India are no different from other emerging markets. However, some key components of this sectoral space, like optimal infrastructure and efficient delivery mechanisms, especially in the hinterland and rural areas of the country, are still in ‘Work In Progress (WIP)’ stages of development.

Healthcare growth drivers in India:

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

In addition, from the allocation made for health (2.5 percent of the GDP) in the 12^th Five Year Plan Document of India, it appears that the country will clock a mid to high-teen growth in its healthcare spending during this period, mainly due to the following reasons:

Economy to turn stronger
Massive public healthcare expansion through projects like Universal Health Coverage (UHC), expanded National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), new National Urban Health Mission (NUHM)
Expanded Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojojana (RSBY) for Below Poverty Line (BPL) population
Growing middle income households both in the urban and rural areas
Increasing life-style related health issues
Improving penetration of Health Insurance

Key Challenges:

The path ahead will not really be strewn with the beds of roses. The rural healthcare infrastructure will continue to pose a key challenge, at least in the near term, some of the facts being as follows:

A. Status of Rural Healthcare Infrastructure in India:

Infrastructure and Services	Villages [%]
Connected with Roads	73.9
Having any Health Provider	95.3
Having trained birth attendant	37.5
Having ‘Anganwadi’ Worker (Child Care Center in rural areas)	74.5
Having a doctor	43.5

(Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)

B. Hospital Beds per 1000 of population:

Country	Hospital Beds Per 1000 Population
India	> 0.7 [Urban: 2.2 and Rural 0.1]
Russia	9.7
Brazil	2.6
China	2.2
World Average	3.96

(Source: Kshema)

Needs more innovative business models:

Being supported by the monetary and other fiscal incentives of the Government, Tier II and III cities of India will continue to attract more investors for their future growth potential. At the same time, anticipated lower profit margins from these areas, predominantly due to relatively lower affordability threshold of the local population and inadequate health insurance penetration in these areas, is expected to make these healthcare providers to plan for no-frill innovative business models, like much talked about ‘the hub-and-spoke model’, as practiced in many other industries.

Some of the key players of the healthcare industry of India like, Apollo and Fortis have already started expanding into tier-II and tier-III cities of the country, prompted by increasing demand for high-quality specialty healthcare services at reasonably affordable prices in the smaller towns of the country.

Meanwhile, Frontier Lifeline Hospital is reportedly in the process of setting up India’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for healthcare, ‘Frontier Mediville’ at Elavoor, near Chennai.

Areas of caution:

While looking at the big picture, the following factors should also be taken note of:

At least in the short to medium term, it will be unrealistic to expect that India will be a high margin / high volume market for the healthcare sector in general.
The market will continue to remain within the modest-margin range with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
The government focus on reasonably affordable drug prices may get extended to medical devices / equipment and other related areas, as well.

India is taking strides:

I. According to the Rural Health Survey Report 2009 of the Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, in rural India during the last five years:

The number of primary health centers has increased by 84 per cent to 20,107.
Around 15,000 health sub-centers and 28,000 nurses and midwives have been added.

II According to RNCOS December, 2010 report:

Indian health insurance market is currently not only the fastest growing, but also second largest non-life insurance segment in the country.
The health insurance premium in India is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 25 per cent from 2009-10 to 2013-14.
By end 2013 India is expected to curve out a share over 3 per cent in the global medical tourism industry with a CAGR in the number of medical tourists to over 19 per cent, during 2011-2013 period.

III. According to PwC, the medical technology industry of India is expected to grow from US$

2.7 billion in 2008 to US$ 14 billion by 2020.

IV. Leveraging cutting edge technology, digital bio-surveillance projects are being initiated to

generate data on the prevalence of various diseases and to create actionable databases on healthcare needs in rural India by several private players like, Narayana Hrudayalaya and the Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Centre.

V. Major healthcare players of India like, Manipal Group, Max Healthcare and Apollo are now

reportedly venturing into new segments such as primary care and medical diagnostics.

Job creation  in healthcare sector:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following details:

The Healthcare sectors in India recorded a maximum post recession recruitment to a total employee base of 33,66,000 with a new job creation of 2,95,000, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2010’.
Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.
With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sector of India in the years ahead.

Pharmaceutical Industry:

McKinsey & Company in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance realizing true potential” estimated that the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will grow to US$ 55 billion by 2020 and the market has the potential to record a turnover of US$ 70 billion with a CAGR of 17 per cent.

Currently India:

Ranks 4th in the world in terms of pharmaceutical sales volume.
Caters to around a quarter of the global requirements for generic drugs.
Meets around 70 per cent of the domestic demand for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API).
Has the largest number of US FDA approved plant outside USA
Files highest number of ANDAs and DMFs
One of most preferred global destinations for contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS)

Conclusion:

Despite all these, the healthcare Industry of India is still confronted with many challenges while striking a right balance between public health interest and expectations for a high margin ‘free market’ business policies by a large section of players in the healthcare sector of India, across its sub-sectors, both global and local, quite unlike many other emerging sectors, like telecom and IT.

Moreover, pharmaceuticals come under the ‘Essential Commodities Act’ of the country, where government administered pricing is common.

That said, without further delay, all stakeholders, along with the Government, should now join hands, to collectively resolve the critical issues of the healthcare sector of the nation, like:

Creation and modernization of healthcare infrastructure leveraging IT
Universal Health Coverage
Win-win regulatory policies
Creation of employable skilled manpower
Innovation friendly ecosystem
Reasonably affordable healthcare services and medicines for the common man through a robust government procurement and delivery system
Right attitude of all stakeholders to find a win-win solution for all issues, instead of adhering to the age-old blame game in perpetuity, as it were, without conceding each other’s ground even by an inch.

Now is the high time for India, I reckon, to reap a rich harvest from the emerging lucrative opportunities, coming both from India and across the world in its healthcare space. This, in turn, will help the country to effectively align itself with the key global healthcare need of providing reasonably affordable healthcare to all.

In pursuit of this ‘Holy Grail’, the nation has all the success ingredients in its armory, as mentioned above, to play a key role in the global healthcare space, not just as a facilitator to help achieving reasonable corporate business objectives of the healthcare players, but more importantly to alleviate sufferings of a vast majority of the ailing population, living even beyond the shores of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical innovation has always been considered the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical industry and very rightly so. However, many studies do point out that such innovation has benefited the developed world more than the developing world.

Product Price and Access:

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “the attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socio-economic and political requirements.

The Doha Declaration:

Many independent experts in this field consider the Doha Declaration as an important landmark for recognizing the primacy to public health interest over private intellectual property and the rights of the members of WTO to use safeguards as enumerated in TRIPS, effectively.

To protect public health interest and extend access to innovative medicines to majority of their population whenever required, even many developed/OECD countries do not allow a total freehand for the patented products pricing in their respective countries.

Early signals of global empathy:

While expressing similar sentiment ‘The Guardian’ reported that Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, has decided to slash prices on all medicines in the poorest countries, give back profits to be spent on hospitals and clinics and more importantly share knowledge about potential drugs that are currently protected by patents.

Witty further commented that he believes, drug companies have an obligation to help the poor patients getting appropriate treatment and reportedly challenged other pharmaceutical giants to follow his lead.

An interesting study:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

The most plausible explanation for the lack of a relationship between the burden of disease in the developing countries and pharmaceutical innovation, as pointed out by the study, is weak incentives for firms to develop medicines for the diseases of the poor.

Point – Counterpoint:

A contrarian view to this study argues that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

The counterpoint to the above argument articulates that health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

A solution emerging:

Responding to the need of encouraging pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health interest, in 2006 the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)‘ created the ‘Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)‘. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

Declining R&D productivity:

Declining R&D productivity adds another dimension to this raging debate with a snowballing effect, as it were.

Over a period of decades, the business models for small-molecule based blockbuster drugs have successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of very many ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

The impact of the above scenario also gets reflected in the status of International patent filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the ‘World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’ as follows:

A. Last five years, PCT filings:

The last five years’ PCT filing status does not seem to be encouraging either.

Year	PCT Filings	Change %
2007	159,926
2008	163,240	2.1
2009	154,406	(5.4)
2010	164,316	6.4
2011	181,900	10.7 *(E)

* Estimate

B. Country-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

While having a closer look at the data, it becomes quite evident that in terms of percentage increase in the PCT filings two Asian countries, China and Japan, have registered their overall dominance. However, in terms of absolute number USA still ranks first.

County	No. Of PCT Filings	% Increase
USA	48,596	8
China	16,401	33.4
Japan	38,888	21
Germany	18,568	5.7
South Korea	10,447	8

C. Technical-field-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

In terms of the technical fields, pharmaceuticals ranked fifth in 2011.

Rank	Industry	No. Of PCT Filings
1.	Electrical Machinery, Apparatus, Energy	11,296
2.	Digital Communication	11,574
3.	Medical technology	10,753
4.	Computer technology	10,455
5.	Pharmaceuticals	7,683
6.	Organic fine chemistry	5,283
7.	Biotechnology	5,232

D. Biotech/Pharma companies featuring in WIPO’s Top 100 filers list:

Very few biotech and pharmaceutical companies featured in the Top 100 PCT filers’ list of WIPO as follows:

	Company
1.	Procter & Gamble
2.	Sumitomo Chemical
3.	DuPont
4.	Dow Global
5.	Novartis AG
6.	Roche
7.	Merck GmbH
8.	Sanofi-Aventis GmbH
9.	Bayer CropScience AG

E. The top five university PCT filers in 2011:

Universities of the US dominated among the PCT filings by the Academic institutions as follows:

University	No. Of PCT Filings
University of California, US	277
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US	179
University of Texas System, US	127
Johns Hopkins University, US	111
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea	103

Need to encourage pharmaceutical innovation:

Based on the WIPO data, as mentioned above, the current status of the global pharmaceutical innovation does not seem to be very encouraging.

That said, in the environment of declining R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, there is indeed a strong requirement to encourage pharmaceutical innovation across the globe, based on the socio-economic environment of each country, together with adequate safeguards in place to protect public health interest.

Why protect patent?

The pharmaceutical major Eli Lilly has very aptly epitomized the reason for patent protection in their website called ‘LillyPad’, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies continue to invest in innovation not only because it is good for business, but it is what patients expect. If we want to continue to have breakthrough products, we need patent protection and incentives to invest in intellectual property. The equation is simple, patents lead to innovation – which help lead to treatments and cures”.

Conclusion:

Currently, various socio-economic expectations, demands and requirements, not just for the poor, but also of the powerful growing middle class intelligentsia are gradually getting unfolded on this subject from many parts of the globe. These collective demands cannot be either wished away or negotiated with a strong belief that the future should be a replication of the past.

There should be full respect, support and protection for innovation and the product patent system in the country. This is essential not only, for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population, effectively.

At the same time, available indicators point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socio-economic status of the local population. Some experts have already opined that prices of life saving innovative drugs, unlike many other patented products, will no longer remain ‘unquestionable’ in increasing number of countries.

Thus, even at the time of declining pharmaceutical R&D productivity, striking a right balance between a strong patent regime and safeguarding overall health interest of its population, particularly of those with a very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare, will indeed be a crafty gutsy ball game for a country.

By: Tapan J Ray

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Currently both China and India, the two most populous nations of the world are also the front runners of the global economy in terms of the pace of GDP growth. The economies of the two countries are greatly influenced by their respective sociopolitical environment. However, the economy of China is more robust ranking second in the world, against eleven of India. The dragon is indeed breathing fire.

A comparison of the economy of the two countries, as reported by ‘MapsofIndia.com’ updated in July 2011, is as follows:

Facts	India	China
GDP	US$1.31 trillion	US$ 4.90 trillion
GDP growth	8.90%	9.60%
Per capital GDP	US$1124	US$7,518
Inflation	7.48 %	5.1%
Labor Force	467 million	813.5 million
Unemployment	9.4 %	4.20 %
Fiscal Deficit	5.5%	21.5%
Foreign Direct Investment	US$12.40 billion	US$9.7 billion
Gold Reserves	15%	11%
Foreign Exchange Reserves	US$2.41 billion	US$2.65 trillion
World Prosperity Index	88th Position	58th Position
Mobile Users	842 million	687.71 million
Internet Users	123.16 million	81 million.

Global pharmaceutical ranking:

As reported by IMS, in global ranking, China was ninth largest pharmaceutical market against thirteenth of India in 2004, became fifth largest in 2009 against thirteenth of India and is expected to be the third largest by 2014 against tenth of India, growing at a much faster pace.

	2004 Rank		2009 Rank		2014 Rank
1	United States	1	United States	1	United States
2	Japan	2	Japan	2	Japan
3	France	3	Germany	3	China
4	Germany	4	France	4	Germany
5	Italy	5	China	5	France
6	United Kingdom	6	Italy	6	Brazil
7	Canada	7	Canada	7	Italy
8	Spain	8	Spain	8	Canada
9	China	9	United Kingdom	9	Spain
10	Brazil	10	Brazil	10	India
11	Mexico	11	Russia	11	Russia
12	Australia	12	Mexico	12	United Kingdom
13	South Korea	13	India	13	Venezuela
14	India	14	Australia	14	Turkey
15	Netherlands	15	Turkey	15	South Korea

Source: IMS Health MIDAS, Market Prognosis September 2010; Market size ranking in constant US$

Healthcare coverage:

In China, out of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million are covered by health insurance, another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance.

Against these statistics of China, in India total number of population who have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.1% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China in this respect mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure and regulatory challenges by China.

Commitment to globalization:

A very high level of commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional global hub for pharmaceutical R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is now paying rich dividends.

Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India (GoI) also expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved with just good intent of investments of couple of million US$ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, as announced by the DoP earlier.

A strong commitment of the GoI to hasten regulatory reform processes with visible action will be the deciding success factor. IPR regime in the pharmaceutical industry has been put in place, but an appropriate to foster innovation in the country is yet to be created.

Healthcare Infrastructure:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that China’s infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to accelerate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country.

It has been reported that China has not only better healthcare infrastructure as compared to India, but they are also more open to of foreign trade and investments to improve these further in their country.

R&D Comparison:

Talent Pool and no. of Patents granted:

According to WIPO, China has better R&D talent pool and grants more patent per year than India as follows:

	India	China
R&D Talent Pool	45,000	56,000
Patents Granted (2008-09)*	16,061	48,814

*Patent Granrted in India during 2009-10:6168

Source: FE Bureau / WIPO / IPO

Scientific Publications:

India also lags behind China in the number of scientific publications as follows:

	Pre 2000 (A)	Post 2000 (B)	B/A*
India	3,04,737	4,98,394	1.64
China	2,30,154	19,94,706	8.67

*Multiple of Post-2000 over Pre 2000

Between pre-2000 and post-2000 era, China’s count of scientific publications rose more than eight times compared to India’s 1.6 times. (Source: Search on Scopus Sciverse (Database from Elsevier)

Based on ‘WIPO PCT’ applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China.

Biology Research:

China is taking faster strides in the Biology Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Only about five companies with proven skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research focused on bioinformatics and bio-chips

3. Limited biology talent pool owing to historic focus on generics1. Established skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research in stem cells, bio-chips, and gene sequencing

3. Expanding biology talent pool

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Clinical trials:

In the area of clinical trial, though by amending the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in line with ICH GCP, India has already put in place the Good Clinical Practices (GCP), China has, on the other hand, brought its GCP, GLP, and GMP standards in line with ICH guidelines.

May be because of all these reasons ‘A.T. Kearney’ in its ‘Country Attractiveness Index’ (CAI) for clinical trials has given 6.10 to China against 5.58 to India.

BCG compared India with China in the Clinical Trial space as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Experienced CROs with full service range and output of similar quality to that of developed markets.

3. Limited FDA approved hospitals

4. Shorter trial approval times than in China

5.Uneven infrastructure and shortage of clinical research assistants

Experienced CROs and growing vendor pool providing full spectrum of services
High quality FDA-approved hospitals
Low-cost and efficient enrollment compared to the US and Europe
Trial approvals lengthy and complex

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Despite all these, both India and China pose challenges to both global and the local pharmaceutical players in dealing with subjects of wide cultural diversity within the country besides illiteracy and poverty. Many cases of conflict between ethics and natural justice have been reported from both countries during recruiting process of the subjects for clinical trial.

Pharmaceutical outsourcing:

In terms of attractiveness for outsourcing among the emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, India and China are outpacing others with their cutting edge offering of high quality services at lower cost together with large pool of skilled manpower.

India has the potential to be a contender of supremacy for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types with all the required success ingredients. However, putting these ingredients together for effective use to make it happen has indeed become a real challenge.

On the other hand China is racing ahead to effectively avail the global opportunities and in that process fast distancing itself from India, widening the competitive performance gap between the two countries. Brain drain:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Where India is a high flier:

Chemistry Research:

India is globally considered as a more mature place for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Aurigene, Advinus, Divis Lab and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

BCG report, ‘Looking Eastward’ compared India with China in the Chemistry Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Large pool of vendors with full services and track record of strong capabilities

2. Generally better IP protection than in China

3. Trend toward project based alliances and emerging build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts

4. Vast pool of skilled and low cost chemists

Capabilities residing mostly with government institutes; only a few small private companies with a track record
Established basic chemistry skills moving to more complex offerings, but no end to end capabilities
Large and growing pool of raw talent, but limited English language skills still an issue

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Earlier reform in China: It is important to mention that healthcare reform process started much earlier in China. The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that time China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centers, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on economies of scale, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many others, will vindicate this point.

On other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20 percent of global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Even in ANDA and DMF filings, India is currently ahead of China.

Conclusion:

While comparing India with China one should also take into consideration that not only the sociopolitical structure of India and China are quite different, but the difference exists also in their commerce and industry related political decision making process.

Moreover, the average age of Chinese population is much more than Indians and continues to increase rapidly. The factor of aging population may have an adverse impact on the overall productivity of their people in the coming years constraining the economic growth of China. In contrast, the percentage of young working people in India is expected to keep increasing through 2030, offering a very critical demographic advantage to the country in the years ahead.

Though China will continue to have aging population and India the younger ones, both countries will have to deploy greater resources to cater to the growing healthcare needs for altogether different reasons. The net gainer will indeed be the pharmaceutical industry in both the countries.

That said, just a wishful thinking of the Government of India, sans expeditious and prudent regulatory and other related policy reforms, will helplessly make India watching the gap between the pharmaceutical industry of the two countries fast widening, making the dragon keep breathing fire, unabated.

By: Tapan J Ray

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Drug Price Control has remained the key feature of all Drug Policies of India, since their inception in early 70’s. Most of these policies continued to remain behind their times consistently, without any exception.

That said, the Drug Policy 1994 and the consequent Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO ’95) have now become the largest ‘Dinosaur’ of all Drug Policies. However, the most intriguing point though, both these have still been kept operational by the government and the very concept of a new and a more contemporary one is languishing in a labyrinth since over a decade, for reasons of anybody’s guess.

Drug Price Control system in India:

It appears that the drug price control system in India is here to stay, at least in the short to medium term and that too in a seemingly best case scenario.

The key reasons:

As we know, the key reasons of price control for pharmaceuticals in India are the following:

To contain cost of medicines, particularly the essential ones, at a reasonably affordable level, which is a very important part of the total healthcare expenditure of the common man.
To provide greater access to medicines to all, especially in view of very high ‘out of pocket expenditure’ for health for a vast majority of population in the country.

The economic factors:

Some of the economic factors, which may cause impediments in achieving these objectives are the following:

Sub optimal public healthcare infrastructure, leaky delivery system and high cost of private healthcare services
This is fueled by, as stated above, unabated increase in ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ on healthcare in general and medicines in particular at 78 per cent, as compared to 61 per cent in China, 53 per cent in Sri Lanka, 31 percent in Thailand, 29 per cent in Bhutan and 14 per cent in Maldives (Source: The Lancet)
High expenses on drugs for outpatient care

Though very important, drug cost alone, however, does not determine quality of access to healthcare.

Global scenario for drug price control:

As per published reports, all 34 developed nations of the world have ‘Universal Health Coverage’ mechanism in place in various different forms, including mandatory medical insurance requirements, to effectively address the issue of high access to healthcare including pharmaceuticals in their respective countries, significantly reducing ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards health.

All these 34 countries belong to ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the governments of which, in some way or the other control and regulate drug prices.

The Governments/payors of most of these countries implement the price control measures by playing the role of a dominant market force directly, while negotiating a favorable price from the manufacturers, which are much lower than their equivalent free market prices.

Many other OECD governments set the drug reimbursement prices right at the time of introduction of new drugs through hard negotiation, which are also well below free market prices and acts as the bench mark market prices, in many ways.

In addition to all these mechanisms, the governments in many OECD countries periodically reduce the prices of already marketed drugs quite significantly.

A contrarian view on Drug Price Control:

Some industry experts feel that there is a hidden consequence for the ‘Drug Price Control System’, especially with the cost based one.

The cost based price control as is currently practiced by the government in India compels the pharmaceutical manufacturers to restrict to:

Minimum acceptable quality standard rather than maximum possible quality standards for the patients
Does not encourage innovation in formulation development like novel galenic formulations for better patient acceptance and compliance
Indirectly discourage innovation in product packaging
Ceiling Price mechanism does not encourage advanced anti-counterfeit measures for patients’ safety

These experts also feel that adverse consequences of price control will have a significant negative impact on the pharmaceutical players to plough back fund towards R&D projects to meet the unmet needs of the patients and thereby reducing the range of treatments that could be made available to the patients in the years ahead.

What is China doing?

On March 28, 2011 Reuters reported that China had cut the maximum retail price for more than 1,200 types of antibiotics and the drugs for the circulatory system by an average of 21 percent.

It has also been reported that the Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’

Supreme Court directive on ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

It is worth noting in this context that in 2003, the Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the Drug Policy 2002 directed the government to work out effective mechanism to bring all essential and life-saving medicines under price control.

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Even in its report the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ in India, set up by the Planning Commission of India under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, under recommendation no. 3.5.1, postulated price control and price regulation on essential drugs, which is quite in line with the draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011).

The HLEG report says:

“We recommend the use of ‘essentiality’ as a criterion and applying price controls on formulations rather than basic drugs. Direct price control applied to formulations, rather than basic drugs, is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transactions and prevent a substantial rise in drug prices. It may also be necessary to consider caps on trade margins to rein in drug prices while ensuring reasonable returns to manufacturers and distributors. All therapeutic products should be covered and producers should be prevented from circumventing controls by creating nonstandard combinations. This would also discourage producers from moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen Central and State regulatory agencies to effectively perform quality and price control functions.”

Types of drug price regulations in India:

Cost based price control: e.g. as specified in the Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO 95)
Marked based price control: e.g. as was suggested by ‘The Pronab Sen Committee’ in 2005
Price Monitoring with a cap on annual price increase: e.g. as is currently followed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) for all products which are outside DPCO ’95

The weaknesses of cost based pricing mechanism:

The key criticism of cost based pricing mechanism flows from the following arguments:

This system is not followed by any developed or developing countries worth mentioning, which follow drug price control mechanism in any form
A Complex, intrusive and inefficient system of pricing medicines
Does not consider important variations in the level of GMP standards and the quality of input costs
The conversion cost and packing norms are determined through a sample survey of less than one per cent of pharmaceutical manufacturing units

Pronab Sen Committee report – the basis of price control in the draft NPPP 2011:

The draft NPPP 2011 is based on the ‘Recommendations of the Task Force constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Pronab Sen to explore issues beyond Price Control to make available Life-saving Drugs at reasonable prices’ to all.

‘Pronab Sen Committee’ suggested the following principles of Price regulation to achieve part of the above objective:

1. The National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) should form the basis of drugs to be considered for intensive price monitoring, ceiling prices and for imposition of price controls, if necessary.

2. The government should announce the ceiling price of the drugs contained in the NLEM (other than the drugs procured by hospitals directly and which an individual does not have to purchase from the market) on the basis of the weighted average prices of the top three brands by value of single ingredient formulations prevailing in the market as on 01.04.2005. In cases where there are less than three brands, the weighted average of all the existing brands would be taken. The Org–IMS data set can be used for this purpose initially with a 20 per cent retail margin provided. There is, however, a need to improve the available data coverage, which should be taken up with ORG-IMS or any other data provider.

3. For drugs which are not reflected in ORG-IMS data, the NPPA should prepare the necessary information based on market data collection.

4. During the transition period (i.e. till the time ceiling prices are fixed and notified) prices of all essential drugs may be frozen.

5. The Government should specify the reference product in terms of strength and pack size for each product which would form the basis for price determination. The price ceiling would be specified on a per dosage basis, such as per tablet/per capsule or standard volume of injection. Where syrups and liquids are sold in bottles the ceiling price may be fixed on individual pack size.

6. Price relaxations may be permitted for non-standard delivery systems, packaging and pack sizes through applications to the negotiations committee, which should become applicable for all similar cases.

7. In the case of formulations which involve a combination of more than one drug in the NLEM, the ceiling price would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of its constituents.

8. For formulations containing a combination of a drug in the NLEM and any other drug, the ceiling price applicable to the essential drug would be made applicable. However, the company would be free to approach the price negotiations committee for a relaxation of the price on the basis of evidence proving superior therapeutic effectiveness for particular disease conditions.

9. In order to determine the reasonableness of the ceiling prices fixed as above, the prices quoted in bulk procurement by Government and other designated agencies may be examined for use, provided that the system of bulk procurement meets certain minimum prescribed standards. Recognizing that retail distribution has costs not reflected in bulk procurement, a markup of 100 per cent over this reference price is recommended.

10. NPPA should set up a computer based system which would scan the price data provided by companies against the ceiling prices determined as above and identify formulations which breach the relevant price ceiling. The company manufacturing or marketing such a product would be required to reduce its price or to face penal action.

11. Companies should be permitted to represent for any price increase on valid grounds, which should then become applicable to the entire class of products.

12. The NLEM should be revised periodically, say every 5 years, in order to reflect new drugs and significant changes in pattern of drug sales within the therapeutic categories. However till the time the new list is finalized the existing list will continue to be valid for the purpose of price control.

13. In the case of drugs not contained in the NLEM, intensive monitoring should be carried out of all drugs falling into a pre-specified list of therapeutic categories. Any significant variation in the prices (say above 10 per cent) would be identified for negotiation.

The stakeholders’ comments on NPPP 2011:

About 60 stakeholders have commented by now on the draft NPPP 2011. The views are quite divergent though. It is interesting to note that the new draft pricing policy, in its current form, has been rejected by all key stakeholders, like the Industry, Ministry of Health, Expert Groups, WHO, NGOs and reportedly even by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, on quite different grounds.

As widely reported in the media, the pharmaceutical industry, though in favor of the marked based pricing mechanism, feels that the draft NPPP 2011 will increase the span of drug price control to over 60 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM). This means over eight times increase in the span of price control from its current level, making the task unwieldy for even the NPPA.

Majority of other stakeholders including the Ministry of Health, on the contrary, are arguing in favor of cost based price control. They commented that the price control system of the draft policy would give legitimacy to high drug prices in India, leading to increase in the overall prices of medicines. This group feels that the top three brands in majority of cases will be the most expensive ones.

Two interesting observations by the World Health Organization (WHO) on ‘Trade Margin’:

The WHO in their observations on the draft NPPP 2011 has made the following interesting comments:

“The new price regulation uses a margin of16% to calculate the retail prices. This is a lower margin than currently – based on the market data 1.1 and 3.3 I calculated a current retail margin of 22%. So the new price regulation implies a margin reduction of 6%, alternatively the CP might be set at a 6% lower price than currently is the case.”

If the WHO observation is correct, there is a scope to reduce the price of essential medicines by 6 per cent only through proper regulation of the trade margin.

WHO also comments that IMS data, the basis of all such calculations by the NPPA, has severe limitations as “Their data does not take into account the discounts, rebates and bundling deals and when the data is collected at the level of the wholesaler they estimate the retailer and patient prices”.

If such is the case, what could possibly be the basis of all calculations as captured in the draft NPPP 2011?

Observation of a distinguished Parliamentarian:

Dr. Jyoti Mirdha , a Member of the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) commented as follows:

“Under this policy the weighted average of three top selling brands will be the ceiling price. There is no logic in restricting the formula to just three brands. Why not five? Why not 10 to arrive at a more representative and reasonable figure? Besides why base on sales figures? In any pricing policy the parameter should be the price. Why not weighted average of 10 least priced brands?”

This could well be a pertinent question.

How to break the logjam now?

Taking on from Dr. Mirdha’s argument , WHO observations and Pronab Sen Committee report, one could possibly try to resolve this logjam by exploring various other available alternatives like for example, the following broad points, to ascertain whether a win-win situation can be created for all through the new drug policy:

What happens if ‘Weighted Average Price’ is calculated based on all brands, instead of top three or bottom three with some exclusion criteria, if required?
When inclusion criteria for price control in the new draft NPPP 2011 is ‘essentiality’ of drugs, it sounds logical that price control should be restricted to National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). Only possible extension could perhaps be taking the entire molecule, instead of specified strengths of the same molecule.
Enough non-price control checks and balances to be put in place to ensure proper availability of NLEM 2011 drugs to the common man and avoidance of any possible situation of shortages for such drugs.
As commented by WHO, trade margin should be rationalized, the MRP needs to be reduced accordingly and the consequential benefits to be passed on to the patients.

Conclusion:

The issue of the new National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy should be resolved sooner than later and that too by conforming to the directive given by the Supreme Court on essential medicines. At the same time, all the stakeholders must feel comfortable with the new drug policy.

The four points, as mentioned above, are just an illustration for choosing an alternative solution. If it works, let us move on. If it does not, let us search for the pathfinder who can break the decade old labyrinth rather quickly, without losing the way yet again.

However, the bottom-line remains that the solution should be a win-win one, both for the patients and the industry alike, benefiting the healthcare space of the country in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Tapan Ray

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of advanced renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis. Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

Manufactured in India
Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
MSD has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
In 2008 Novartis reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
Roche has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year. Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Increasing Healthcare Consumption in India with equity

Reaping rich harvest with less moaning and bagful of creative ideas from emerging Rural Markets of India

India – Young Today, Old Tomorrow: Emerging Issues of Aging, Health and Socioeconomic Profile of the Country

Chasing the “Holy Grail”: Reasonably affordable healthcare for all

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers