Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Tracking MDG 6 in India – not a mean achievement to combat the dreaded disease

Posted on by
Reply

At the turn of the new millennium, in 2000, 189 nations of the world under the banner of United Nations Development Program took a pledge to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations.

This global pledge for humanity on eight key areas was termed as the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDG)’, which the global community should achieve by 2015. Again in September 2010, the world reiterated its pledge to hasten progress towards achieving these goals within the same pre-scheduled time period.

Combating HIV/AIDS is the sixth of the eight MDGs that India, along with other 188 nations, is expected to achieve by 2015.

Looking Back:

Way back in late 1986, the first incidence HIV in India was diagnosed among the sex workers in Chennai. The origin of the infection was reported to be from the foreign visitors.

The National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) was constituted in the following year and by end 1987, around 135 persons were diagnosed as HIV positive and 14 were suffering from AIDS. Almost around the same time, a rapid spread of HIV was reported from within the ‘Injecting Drug Users (IDU)’ in Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland. Incidentally, all these states have a common border with Myanmar.

According to the first joint survey conducted by UNAIDS and NACO in 2007, the number of people living with HIV in India was estimated between 2 million and 3.1 million. In 2009 this estimated number declined to 2.4 million.

As per the Government of India (March 1, 2011), there has been an overall reduction in adult HIV prevalence and HIV incidence (new infections) in the country. The estimated number of new annual HIV infections has declined by more than 50% over the last decade, from estimated 2.7 lakhs in 2000 to approximately 1.2 lakhs in 2009. Adult HIV prevalence at national level has declined from 0.41% in 2000 to 0.31% in 2009, although variations exist across the states.

Some actionable areas:

As reported by the National Aids Control Organization (NACO), ‘Injecting Drug Use (IDU)’ and sexual intercourse through homosexual route by some section of the male population have still remained the routes of transmission of HIV in different parts of India, which need to be addressed with a much greater detail.

In the North Eastern States, besides IDU, HIV prevalence among the Female Sex Workers (FSW) is increasing. This suggests a two-prong spread of the pandemic infection in the country.

Moreover, HIV prevalence within the women attending Ante Natal Clinics (ANCs) in North Indian states also needs to be addressed with utmost care.

HIV/AIDS and Drug Prices:

Pricing of HIV/AIDS drugs are globally a very sensitive issue. Currently, because of the availability of many generic drugs, intense competition between them and direct price negotiation for newer brands, there has been a declining price trend for many HIV/AIDS medicines in the developing countries, like India.

This situation has enabled about 5.25 million HIV positive persons from the developing countries to undergo treatment for the acquired infection.

In India, people living with HIV/AIDS have access to Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs, free of cost, through 292 ART Therapy centers and 550 Link ART Centers spread across the country.

As per the Ministry of Health (February 22, 2011), there is no gap between demand and supply of drugs for the HIV/AIDS patients in the country. About 3, 87,205 patients are on ART therapy through the above centers (2010).

Recently product patents for two key HIV/AIDS medicines namely, Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Atazanavir bisulphate were not granted by the Indian Patent Office giving reasons of ‘lacked inventive ingenuity’. Though, this is a patent law related legal issue, it has been hyped up as a ‘major victory for public health and access to affordable treatment’.

I hasten to add, despite this situation, all drugs used for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS are still not available at an affordable price to the poor, across the world.

Funding for HIV/AIDS treatment in India:

The Finance Minister of India in his Union Budget proposal for 2011-12 allocated a sum of Rs. 1700 Crore (around US$ 380 million ) as against an outlay of Rs.1435 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2010-11 for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

Market Size of HIV/AIDS Drugs:

Current market size of HIV drugs is around Rs. 151 Crores  (around US$ 36 million) growing at 11% over the previous year. As per reported data, around 10 HIV drugs are now being marketed in India with 162 different brand names by over 30 companies including, Cipla, FDC, Torrent, Hetero, Sun Pharma, Lupin, Ranbaxy, Zydus Cadila, Natco, Alkem and GSK.

Globally Gilead, Abbott, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and BMS are among the key manufacturers of HIV drugs.

The world market size for HIV Drugs is estimated to exceed US $15.5 billion by 2015. The key growth driver is still increasing disease prevalence in some countries of the world. Treatment of HIV/AIDS with cheaper Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs has transformed the treatment of this dreaded disease into a manageable proportion.

Unique initiative of UNITAIDS:

For diseases like HIV/AIDS, one school of thought leaders feel that the way forward to resolve such pricing issue is by putting in place an alternative system of ‘remuneration and reward’ to further R&D initiatives in the key areas of public health interest, globally.

Towards this direction, in 2009 UNITAID, an international institution against AIDS, TB and malaria, proposed the ‘Patent Pools’ concept. This system of ‘pool’ will hold licenses on various patented HIV/AIDS drugs, which the generic manufacturers will be allowed to produce at a much lesser price for the least developing countries of the world.

National Institute of Health (NIH) of USA has now become the first patent holder to license a HIV/AIDS drug Darunavir to the patent pool. It appears, the ‘Patent Pool’ initiative to be successful, voluntary participation of larger global pharmaceutical companies is absolutely critical, though many innovator companies may not find any significant commercial benefit within this system.

Will HIV Vaccine be the ultimate answer?

Still with so many newly infected people with HIV every day in various corners of the world, a suitable vaccine to prevent the infection would indeed be indispensable to effectively control this disease. An affordable HIV vaccine could thus be an appropriate answer to fight against HIV/AIDS across the world.

Early In March 2011, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and the Translational Health Sciences and Technology Institute (THSTI), of the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India announced together to fund an HIV vaccine design program in India. This HIV vaccine initiative is estimated to cost around Rs.50 Crore (around US$ 12 million) over a five year period.

Recent Developments:

Early this year, UNAIDS/WHO/UNDP launched a new policy brief urging countries to use IP flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement.

The brief includes flexibilities like, compulsory licensing, parallel imports exemption of ‘Bolar Provision’ and highlights the success achieved in reducing prices in Brazil through the threat of compulsory licensing. The brief also highlights India’s 3(d) provision.

Conclusion:

In India, although the overall progress of MDG initiatives is not satisfactory just yet, ongoing intense efforts to control and treat HIV/AIDS seem to be paying good dividends.

It is interesting to note, UNAIDS ‘Outlook Report 2010’ highlights, “Up to 80% of the cost of treatment isn’t for the medication but for the systems to get it to a person and to keep him or her on it. Globally, only one third of people who need treatment are on it.” I reckon, the situation is no different in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

‘India Taskforce’ takes the first step in an arduous task to bridge the trust deficit.

Posted on by
Reply

To prepare a comprehensive long term strategy to unleash the growth potential of the Pharmaceutical Industry of India considering all its current issues, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare announced constitution of a taskforce on March 15, 2011 involving all the stakeholders, as mentioned below. As per reports, the first meeting of the committee was held on June 6, 2011 to deliberate on the mandated goals.

Within 3 months the taskforce, under the chairmanship of V.M. Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research and Director-General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), is expected to work out and submit a short, medium and long term strategic path and goals to the Government, highlighting the key and specific policy measures required to achieve these objectives.

The taskforce will have members drawn from:

  1. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority,
  2. Department of Industry Policy and Promotion,
  3. Indian Drug Manufacturers Association, Mumbai,
  4. Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, Mumbai,
  5. Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, Mumbai,
  6. Federation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs, Gurgaon,
  7. Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry,
  8. Bulk Drug Manufacturers’ Association, Hyderabad,
  9. SME Pharma Industry Confederation, New Delhi
  10. Drug Controller General of India as the Member Secretary.

The focus areas:

The report has been mandated to cover the following critical areas:

  1. Evolving a short, medium and long-term policy and strategy to make India a hub for drug discovery, research and development.
  2. Evolving strategies to further the interests of Indian pharma industry in the light of issues related to intellectual property rights and recommend strategies to capitalize the opportunity of $60 to $80 billion drugs going off-patent over the next five years.
  3. Evolve policy measures to assure national drugs security by promoting indigenous production of bulk drugs, preventing takeover of Indian pharma industry by multi-national corporations, drug pricing, promotion of generic drugs
  4. Recommend measures to assure adequate availability of quality generic drugs at affordable prices.
  5. Recommend measures to tackle the problem of spurious drugs and use of anti-counterfeit technologies.

Estimates and Perspectives:

  • The pharma industry is growing at around 1.5-1.6 times the Gross Domestic Product growth of India
  • Currently, India ranks third in the world of volume of manufacturing pharmaceutical products
  • The Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to grow at a rate of around 15 % till 2015
  • The retail pharmaceutical market in India is expected to cross US$ 20 billion by 2015
  • According to a study by FICCI-Ernst & Young India will open a probable US$ 8 billion market for MNCs selling patented drugs in India by 2015
  • The number of pharmaceutical retailers is estimated to grow from 5,50,000,  to 7,50,000 by 2015
  • At least 2,00,000 more pharma graduates would be required by the Indian pharmaceutical industry by 2015
  • The Indian drug and pharmaceuticals sector attracted Foreign Direct Investments to the tune of US$ 1.43 billion from April 2000 to December 2008 (Ministry of Commerce and Industry), which is expected to increase significantly along with the policy reform measures and increased Government investment (3%-4%) as a percentage of GDP towards healthcare, by 2015
  • The Minister of Commerce estimates that US$ 6.31 billion will be invested in the domestic pharmaceutical sector
  • Due to low cost of R&D, the Indian pharmaceutical off-shoring industry is expected to be a US$ 2.5 billion opportunity by 2012

Key growth drivers: Local and Global:

Local: • Rapidly growing middle class population of the country with increasing disposable income. • High quality and cost effective domestic generic drug manufacturers are achieving increasing penetration in local, developed and emerging markets. • Rising per capita income of the population and inefficiency of the public healthcare system will encourage private healthcare systems of various types and scales to flourish. • High probability of emergence of a robust healthcare financing/insurance model for all strata of society. • Fast growing Medical Tourism. • Evolving combo-business model of global pharmaceutical companies with both patented and generic drugs is boosting local outsourcing and collaboration opportunities. Global: Global pharmaceutical industry is going through a rapid process of transformation. The moot question to answer now is how the drug discovery process can meet the unmet needs of the patients and yet remain cost effective.

Cost containment pressure due to various factors is further accelerating this process. CRAMS business, an important outcome of this transformation process, will be the key growth driver for many Indian domestic pharmaceutical players in times to come. Bridging the ‘Trust Deficit’ is one of the key Challenges:

Like all other industries, Pharmaceutical Industry in India has its own sets of challenges and opportunities under which it operates. Some of the challenges the industry faces are:

  • Unfortunate “Trust Deficit” between the Government and the Industry to improve access to affordable modern medicines.
  • Regulatory red tape and lack of initiative towards international harmonization.
  • Inadequate infrastructure and abysmal public delivery system.
  • Lack of adequate number of qualified healthcare professionals.
  • Inadequate innovation friendly ecosystem to encourage R&D and other non-product related innovation in the pharmaceutical value chain.
  • Myopic Drug Policies have failed to deliver.
  • Addressing needs of over 350 million BPL families who cannot afford to buy any healthcare products and services.
  • ‘80% out of pocket expenditure’ of the common man towards healthcare.
  • Inadequate Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives in most of the critical areas of healthcare.

Urgent need to bridge the ‘Trust Deficit’ and improve public perception of the Industry:

Like many other countries of the world, in India too there is a negative public perception about the pharmaceutical industry. Recent reports on ‘clinical trials related patient’s compensation’ or the government intervention on allegedly gross ‘unethical’ marketing practices by the pharmaceutical companies, further strengthen such belief.  Unfortunately, despite meteoric success of the generic pharmaceutical industry of India in the global arena, public perception of the industry still remains as one, which is being driven by profiteering motive at the cost of the precious lives of ailing common population of the country. This is indeed acting as a strong retarding force. As a result the regulators are also compelled to introduce more of growth stifling measures at a fairly regular pace.

A new ‘Harris Poll’ conducted in the US between November 8 and 15, 2010 reports as follows:

Top industries that largest numbers of people believe should be more regulated

Industry % of respondents
Oil

47
Pharmaceuticals

46
Health Insurance

42
Tobacco

38
Banks

34
Managed Care

34

That an overwhelming 46% respondent in the US feels that the Pharmaceutical Industry should be regulated, only reflects a poor public perception of the industry in the USA.

Industries trusted by the fewest people

Industry % of respondents
Tobacco

2
Oil

4
Telecommunication

7
Managed Care

7
Life Insurance Companies

10
Pharmaceuticals

11

(Source: Harris Poll 2010) 

It is indeed an irony that a miniscule 11% respondents trust pharmaceutical industry in the USA.

Thus in the prevailing scenario globally, the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry should take more demonstrable self-regulatory measures to improve its public perception and make its growth more inclusive, in the best possible way that it can. Without active support of the government, media and other stakeholders, through conscious efforts to improve its image, all the efforts of the taskforce may ultimately get converted into a zero sum game.

Job Creation by the industry is of critical importance: Pharmaceutical sector in India has created employment for approximately 3 million people from 23,000 plus units. Accelerated growth in job creation, will not only open up more opportunities to pharmaceutical professionals, but will also fuel growth opportunities in allied business segments like Laboratory, Scientific instruments, Medical Devices and Pharma machinery manufacturing sectors.

Despite all these, it is worth noting that a major challenge still remains in getting employable workforce with the required skill sets. This issue will grow by manifold, as we move on, if adequate vocational training institutes are not put in place on time to generate employable workforce for the industry.

Government Initiatives, thus far, are still less than adequate: The government of India has started working out some policy and fiscal initiatives, though grossly inadequate, for the growth of the pharmaceutical business in India. Some of the measures adopted by the Government are follows:

  • Pharmaceutical units are eligible for weighted tax reduction at 175% for the research and development expenditure obtained.
  • Two new schemes namely, New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Research Program have been launched by the Government.
  • The Government is contemplating the creation of SRV or special purpose vehicles with an insurance cover to be used for funding new drug research
  • The Department of Pharmaceuticals is mulling the creation of drug research facilities which can be used by private companies for research work on rent

Pharmaceutical Export going North: In recent years, despite economic slowdown in the global economy, pharmaceutical exports in India have registered a commendable growth. Export has emerged as an important growth driver for the domestic pharmaceutical industry with over 50 % of their total revenue coming from the overseas markets. For the financial year 2008-09 the export of drugs is estimated to be around US $8.25 billion as per the Pharmaceutical Export Council of India (Pharmexil). A survey undertaken by FICCI reported 16% growth in India’s pharmaceutical export during 2009-2010.

This trend needs to be encouraged and be given further boost.

Conclusion:

The newly formed taskforce will hopefully be able to address all these issues in an integrated way to guide this life-line industry to a much higher growth trajectory  to compete effectively not only in the global generic space, but also with the global innovator companies, sooner than later.

So the ball game for the taskforce is to recommend strategy and policy measures to improve access to modern medicines by reducing ‘out of pocket’ expenses significantly through public/private health insurance initiatives, protect public health interest and foster a climate for innovation, simultaneously, and certainly not one at the cost of the other.

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.

In the cacophony of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India

Posted on by
Reply

It is a widely accepted fact that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Pharmaceutical industry, just like in any other industry, is important for an emerging economy like India, mainly because of various important benefits that the country would derive out of such investments, like for example:

  • Job creation
  • World class infrastructure development
  • Transfer of modern technology
  • Help creating a talent pool through international training and development
  • Meeting unmet needs of patients through innovative medicines
  • Help imbibing the best practices of the world

Types of FDIs in the Pharmaceutical sector of India:

There are mainly three types of FDIs that we have witnessed so far in India:

  1. Green field investment: Like, setting up new manufacturing facility at Vizag by Eisai of Japan
  2. Brown field investment: Like, acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA or Shantha Biotech by Sanofi Aventis of France.
  3. Joint venture: Like, Bayer Healthcare and Cadila Healthcare or Sun Pharma and MSD etc.

Besides these, as mentioned below, there have been some collaborative arrangements, as well, between global and Indian Pharmaceutical companies in the last five years like, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Pfizer with Biocon etc.

Key drivers for FDI:

Following are the key factors, which attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, especially in an emerging market like India:

  1. Domestic market size, prospects for future market growth,
  2. Cheaper operating cost
  3. Cheaper input and English-speaking skilled manpower cost
  4. Regulatory environment
  5. Pricing environment
  6. Robust IT infrastructure
  7. Legal, IPR and financial framework

Relationship between FDI and Intellectual Property (IP) Environment:

Some recent media reports in various parts of the world including India had highlighted that China attracts more investment from foreign drug makers due to more robust Intellectual Property (IP) laws in that country.

US Trade Representatives (USTR) is one such agency which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with US trading partners in various countries of the world through annual release of their ‘Special 301 Report’.

The report of US Trade Representatives (USTR 2011 Special 301) rates IPR regime of both China and India as unsatisfactory, so far as law enforcement, piracy prevention and transparency are concerned. The two main categories in the report are the ‘Priority Watch List’ and the ‘Watch List’. Both India and China fall under ‘Priority Watch List’ of this report.

An apparent contradiction:
The key question, in this context, that is being raised for quite some time now is, whether the decisions of foreign drug makers to invest in the emerging markets, like India and China are predominantly dependent on the IPR scenario in the respective countries.

If it is so, some would obviously like to know whether or not the ‘USTR 2011 Special 301 Report’ contradicts the above hypotheses.

Notwithstanding ‘USTR Special 301 Reports’ and being featured in their ‘Priority Watch List’ year after year, China continues to attract more and more FDI in pharmaceuticals over a long period of time. In any case, the FDI from USA in China was just around 12% of the total FDI that the country attracted in 2008. The same trend continues even today.

However, without going into the details of any report, relative robustness of IPR regime could at best be just one of the several key factors for a research based global pharmaceutical company to decide on FDI in any emerging market of the world.

Relatively speaking:

China is certainly attracting more FDI in the Pharma space than India. According to “The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry” of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for a three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million. The percentage of total investments made by the major countries is as follows:

Country wise pharmaceutical FDI % in China in 2008

 

Rank

Country

%

1.

Hong Kong

39.69

2.

United States

11.95

3.

British Virgin Island

11.64

4.

Bermuda

6.45

5.

Singapore

4.91

(Source: Invest in China 2009, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China)

Whereas, as per Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.39 million, as follows:

FDI ( US$ million)

Sector

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10 (upto Sept.09)

Cumulative

DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS

214.84

334.09

181.61

86.85

817.39

These figures would change significantly if FDI through M&A is taken into consideration.

In any case, this trend should not necessarily be exclusively correlated to the relative robustness of the IPR regime in India and China, notwithstanding the fact that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China (Based on WIPO PCT applications)

Impact of FDI on the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector:

Some important FDI in India from 2006 to 2011

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
Aurobindo Pharma Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Dr Reddy’s  Labs GlaxoSmithKline

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition
Claris Lifesciences Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Biocon Pfizer

350

 Insulin Marketing Deal
2011
Cadila Healthcare Bayer

Not disclosed

 Marketing Joint Venture
Sun Pharma Merck & Co.

Not disclosed

 Marketing, Manufacturing Joint Venture

There is no published data, as yet, to justify that the inflow of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, including acquisition of large domestic pharmaceutical players like, Ranbaxy, Piramal Healthcare etc., had any adverse impact whatsoever on the country.

However, the reality is that such apprehension, especially the acquisition of some ‘Pharma Crown Jewels’ of India by the Multinational Companies (MNCs), though not fact-based, are apparently getting reverberated as a ‘sinister and sordid design’ even in the corridors of power ranging from the Ministry of Commerce, Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA), Planning Commission of India to Joint Parliamentary committee for Commerce.

It appears that the government is adopting a ‘wait and watch’ policy in this area for now, presumably because of the fact that the newly formed ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’ from now onwards will keep a careful vigil on such mega acquisitions.

Poor healthcare coverage could be a key barrier:

As indicated above, relative size and growth of the domestic pharmaceutical market together with healthcare coverage and delivery mechanism of a country could well be the most critical factor to influence foreign investment decision of the global pharmaceutical companies.

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India, even without considering the current base of both the countries.
Even in Health Insurance space, “India ranks 136th on penetration levels and lags behind China (106), Thailand (87), Russia (86), Brazil (85), Japan (61) and the US (9),” reported ‘Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)’ on July 21, 2009, in a paper titled, “India’s insurance penetration lower than world average”, jointly prepared by Crisil and Assocham.

Moreover, ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure in India is one of the highest in the world at around 80% against 61% in China.

Country Attractiveness Index (CAI):

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a CAI for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India. This could mainly be due to prevailing lackadaisical regulatory environment in India.
Other reasons to influence FDI:
I would reckon, all foreign direct investments (FDI) by the global pharmaceutical companies are driven by a combination of key business factors, as mentioned above, IPR ecosystem in the country is just one of them. This is vindicated by a recent report, which is as follows:

“Novartis has signed an agreement to build a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in St. Petersburg, Russia. The plant is part of a $500 million Novartis investment in infrastructure, health care initiatives, and R&D in Russia over the next five years”.

The reason behind this investment was reported as follows:
“The announcement follows a pledge late last year by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of some $4 billion in federal funding for pharmaceutical industry development over the next 10 years. The government has set a goal for local industry to produce 90% of Russia’s “essential medicines”—about half of the country’s total pharmaceutical sales—by 2020.”
Other recent examples of FDI made by the global majors in other countries, which will support my above statement, are as follows:

1. Novo Nordisk: US $100 million in Russia 2. Sanofi-Aventis: a plant in Saudi Arabia. 3. Eisai: relocated global Aricept manufacturing facility to India for worldwide export.

Conclusion:

‘The Journal of International Business Studies’ (1999) 30, 1–24 based on the results from an econometric analysis of 136 laboratory investments reconfirms that relative market size, growth and the  strength of science base of a country would ultimately influence FDI in pharmaceutical research and development in an emerging market. The study also reiterated that these factors hold good for even Japanese, European and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Thus, to attract more FDI in the pharmaceutical sector and effectively compete with China, India should primarily focus in creating a vibrant and large domestic pharmaceutical product and services market reflecting sustainable high inclusive growth. A comprehensive ecosystem to provide healthcare to all, efficient regulatory mechanism, effective well balanced IP environment and a robust legal and financial framework will further hasten the process.

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.

Missing the woods for the trees – Yet another golden opportunity to rewrite the Drug Policy of India

Posted on by
Reply

Long overdue the new ‘Drug Policy’ of India, since a long while, has been languishing as the ‘prisoner of indecision’ of the policy makers, while the outdated ‘1995 Drug Policy’ continues to remain operational since over a decade and half, by now.

The need for putting a new, robust, comprehensive, holistic  and reform oriented ‘Drug Policy’ in place, sooner, is absolutely critical for the fast evolving pharmaceutical industry of India.
The ‘Drug Policy 1986’ clearly enunciated the basic policy objectives relating to drugs and pharmaceuticals in India, as follows:-

  • Ensuring abundant availability of medicines at reasonable price and quality for mass consumption.
  • Strengthening the domestic capability for cost effective, quality production and exports of pharmaceuticals by reducing barriers to trade in the pharmaceutical sector.
  • Strengthening the system of quality control over drug and pharmaceutical production and distribution.
  • Encouraging R&D in the pharmaceutical industry in a manner compatible with the country’s needs and with particular focus on diseases endemic or relevant to India by creating an conducive environment.
  • Creating an incentive framework for the pharmaceutical and drug industry which promotes new investment into pharmaceutical industry and encourages the introduction of new technologies and new drugs.

After having completed around 25 years since then, it is high time for the government to ponder and assess whether the successive drug policies have delivered to the nation the desirable outcome, as enunciated above.
‘Missing the woods for the trees’:

The overall objective of the ‘Drug Policy’ is indeed to help accelerating the all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to make it a force to reckon with in the global pharmaceutical arena. At the same time, the policy should help creating an appropriate ecosystem to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the entire population of the nation.

Just one pronged approach of drug price control mechanism for drugs and pharmaceuticals is in no way can be considered as a holistic approach to achieve the set objectives. Isolated initiative of price regulation could at best be treated as just one such important measures, out of very many, at the very best. This initiative may justifiably be construed as ‘missing the woods for the trees’.

Financial cover towards medical expenses for all, is very important: 

One of the major issues in the healthcare space of the country is high out of pocket expenses by majority of the population. Financial protection against medical expenditures is far from universal in India with around 15% of the population having some sort of medical financial cover.

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented as follows:

“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

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

The key affordability issue still remains unresolved: 

The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also pointed out that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively, are financed by loans and sell of assets.

Around 35% of Indian population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the ‘Drug Policy’, the government should keep in mind that a population of around 35% in India, still lives below the poverty line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure towards medicines.

Adding more drugs in the list of essential medicines and even bringing them all under stringent price control will not help the country to resolve this critical issue.

Successive ‘Drug Policies’ of India focused on affordability and access just through ‘price control’:

There is no ‘One Size Fits All’ type of definition for affordability of medicines, just like any other essential commodities, especially when around 80% of healthcare expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ in India.  Any price point, thus, may be affordable to some and unaffordable to some others.

The initiatives taken by the government in the successive drug policies, since the last four decades, have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world.

However, very unfortunately, despite such price control, even today, 47% and 31% of hospitalization in rural and urban areas, respectively, are financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals, as stated earlier. 

Multi-dimensional approach to improve access to healthcare and affordable medicines:

Access to healthcare and affordable medicines can be improved through an integrated and comprehensive approach of better access to doctors, diagnostics and hospitals, along with price monitoring mechanism for each component of healthcare cost, including medicines.

Healthcare infrastructure in India is now constrained by a lack of trained healthcare professionals, limited access to diagnostics and treatment and availability of quality medicines. Moreover, while around 80% of Indians pay out of pocket for healthcare, the Government of India spends less than 1% of GDP on health.

Consequently, the supply of healthcare services falls significantly short of demand. The current figure of 9 beds per 10,000 in India is far from the world average of 40 beds per 10,000 people. Similarly, for every 10,000 Indians, there are just 6 doctors available in the country, while China has 20 doctors for the same number of Chinese population.

Access to affordable medicines still remains a key challenge for the ‘Drug Policy’ makers:

Over 46% of patients in India travel beyond 100 km. to seek medical care.

(Source: Technopak & Philips (2010) Accessible Healthcare: Joining the Dots Now, New Delhi).

Many places in rural India, lack of availability of good quality medicines such as antibiotics poses even a greater challenge than their affordability. The national immunization program provides 6 vaccines free of cost, yet just around 60% of the country’s population is covered by it. The National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) provides free ARV (Anti-Retroviral) treatment to the poor, yet the drugs do not reach more than 10% of those in need of the same.

Without proper equipment and doctors to diagnose and treat patients, medicines are of little value to those who need them most.  Drug price regulation alone, though important, cannot increase access to healthcare without creation of adequate infrastructure required to ensure effective delivery and administration of the medicines, together with appropriate financial cover for health.

The Government won’t be able to do it all alone:

The Government needs to partner with the private sector to address India’s acute healthcare challenges through Public-Private-Partnership (PPPs) initiatives.

Recent examples of successful PPPs in the health sector include outsourcing ambulance services, mobile medical units, diagnostics and urban health centers in several states to private NGOs, hospitals and clinics.  PPPs in India should adequately cover primary and specialty healthcare, including clinical and diagnostic services, insurance, e-healthcare, hospitals and medical equipment.

A golden opportunity for a new beginning:

Many of us may know that the modified Drug Policy of 2002 was challenged under a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court in the same year. The honorable High Court in its order had directed the Central Government to consider and formulate appropriate criteria to ensure that the essential and lifesaving drugs do not fall out of price control. The court, at that time, also directed the Government to review the drugs which are essential and lifesaving in nature.

The above matter came up before the honorable Supreme Court of India on March 31, 2011, when the Union of India made a statement that the Central Government has not implemented and is not going to implement the 2002 Policy and a new Drug Policy is being framed.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of Government of India, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous by the Supreme Court of India.

Expectations from the ‘New Drug Policy’:

In view of the above and especially when a new Drug Policy is being worked out, adequate and immediate policy measures, with an absolutely fresh look, are essential to address the root cause of the country’s failure to ‘Improve Access to Quality Medicines at Affordable Prices’ to ensure ‘Health for all’.

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) along with plans to extend ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ scheme to provide out-patient coverage to low income groups.

As has been demonstrated by many countries of the world, healthcare financing offers an enduring mechanism for reducing the out-of-pocket expenses of the poor and improve access to healthcare. Government and the private sector need to pool resources to expand health insurance coverage initially to at least 40% of the population who are below the poverty line. Positive developments are being reported in this area, as well, albeit slowly.

Allocating resources from national welfare schemes towards health insurance coverage is a step in the right direction.  For example, a portion of the MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) funds could be spent on health insurance premia for labors engaged in such work.

Thus to achieve the objective of ‘Improving Access to Quality Medicines at Affordable Prices’, there is a pressing need for the policy makers to put in place a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of the society, sooner than later. This initiative will significantly reduce high overall ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare in India by the common man.

Encourage healthy competition among healthcare providers:

Simultaneously, by encouraging tough competition within healthcare providers, like health insurance companies, all elements of healthcare expenditure like physicians’ fees, diagnostic tests, hospital beds, medicines etc. will be kept under tight leash by themselves, just to be more cost-effective in their businesses along with ensured patients’ satisfaction.

In such a competitive environment, the patients will be the net gainers, as we have seen in other knowledge based industries, like in the telecom sector with incredible increase in teledensity within the country.

Effective penetration of various types of innovative health insurance schemes will thus be one of the key growth drivers not only for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, but also for its inclusive growth, as desired by many in India.

The policy should also include an equally transparent system to ensure that errant players within the healthcare sector, who will be caught with profiteering motives, under any garb, at the cost of precious lives of the ailing patients, are brought to justice with exemplary punishments, as will be defined by law.

Conclusion:

I have no doubt that the presence of an effective drug price regulator in the country is absolutely necessary to keep a careful vigil on the drug prices.

At the same time one should realize that the good old routine approach in formulating the long overdue ‘New Drug Policy’, even if it includes all drugs featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’, would not suffice anymore to ‘improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price’ to the common man.

The real answer to affordable healthcare in India, including medicines, unlike the developed countries of the world, lies in the expertise of the policy makers in innovatively addressing the vexing issue of  ‘around 80% out of pocket expenses towards healthcare’ by the ordinary citizens of the country.

This factor itself, in case of just one or couple of serious illnesses, could make a middle class household in India poor and a poor could be pushed even Below the Poverty Line (BPL).

Inadequate access to modern medicines in India, after 40 years of stringent drug price control and despite essential medicines being available in the country at the lowest price even as compared to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, will vindicate this critical point.

However, ‘The Economic Times’ dated May 23, 2011 has reported yet again, quoting Shri Srikant Jena, the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, who oversees the pharmaceutical sector, that the Government ‘is putting together a host of policy changes to reduce the cost of medicines’.

This time around, let us sincerely hope that the drug policy makers do not repeat the same old folly of ‘missing the woods for the trees’.

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.

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on by
Reply

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of  ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

The ‘Patent Pool’, as I understand is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties.”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pools’:
Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

Andrew Witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps  navigating through the challenges of change.

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.

In the quagmire of Pharmaceutical Pricing

Posted on by
Reply

Pricing of Pharmaceutical Products has now become one of the most complex and sensitive areas of the business, like never before. This is mainly because of the concern 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.

It is widely believed that invaluable pharmaceuticals products, which play a central role in keeping the population of a nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should not be exploited in efforts to make unreasonable profits by anyone.

Pharmaceutical companies are often criticized in this area by those stakeholders who are concerned with the well-being of ailing poor and underprivileged population globally. The debate of access to medicines continues to revolve round pharmaceutical pricing in almost all countries of the world. India is no exception.

Current scenario in some major countries:

Early April, 2009, China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion was made for the next three years for this purpose.

Similarly, 2010 is also be remembered as yet another significant year in recent times to improve access to medicines to a large number of population by encouraging usage of low cost generics. In this year:

- With contentious new healthcare reform, President Obama expanded access to Health Insurance to additional around 40 million Americans and encouraged prescription of low cost generic medicines.

- The Governments in UK and European Union, including the largest market in the EU – Germany, introduced stringent cost containment measures for pharmaceutical products.

India and Japan signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in February 2011 where Japan will gain access to low cost Indian generic medicines by extending similar facilities, like Japanese, for drug registration and release to the Indian pharmaceutical players.

How much to charge for a brand of medicine?

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

Pharmaceutical pricing model is changing: 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 healthcare systems and delivery along with income status and 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 those countries. This strategy includes India.

If this trend continues, a win-win situation could be created, when unmet needs of a large number of patient groups could be met with innovative medicines, paving the way for the innovator companies to register a healthy, both top and bottom line, business growth in these emerging markets of the world to effectively fund their R&D projects, besides other areas of business. 

Four common pharmaceutical pricing models:

Following are the four common methods, which are usually followed to decide prices of medicines.

  • Cost-plus pricing (CPP):  This is a method of arriving at a selling price where a pre-determined percentage is added to the cost price to cover profit.
  • Target return pricing (TRP): This method of pricing estimates the desired return on investment to be achieved from the fixed and working capital investment and includes the same in the price of a product.
  • Reference Pricing:  In this method a product is sold at a price close to its main competing brand. The idea behind “reference pricing” is that certain drugs are interchangeable in terms of their therapeutic effectiveness within a disease group and reimbursement is based on the least expensive option. The concept started taking hold in Europe and has driven down pharmaceutical prices significantly in Germany.

Both the governments and patients save money in ‘Reference Pricing’ mechanism. However, all patients are free to choose a more expensive brand within the therapeutic group by paying the difference between the cost of those two drugs for reimbursement purpose.

  • Pharmacoeconomics 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 of the drug therapy.  Pharmacoeconomics principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

PBP/VBP basically offers the best value for money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.

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

PBP/VBP concept is gaining ground: The concept of ‘evidence-based medicine’, is gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations like, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area. PBP/VBP could help in ‘freeing-up’ resources to go to front-line healthcare: On November 11, 2010 ‘Pharma Times’ in a news item titled, “Government (UK) to consult on drug pricing in December” reported that newly-published business plan of the Department of Health for 2011-15 sets out the coalition government’s structural reform priorities for healthcare as follows:

  • Create a patient-led NHS
  • Promote better healthcare outcomes
  • Revolutionize NHS accountability
  • Promote public health
  • Reform social care

As per the Department of Health, UK, these reforms ‘will help to create 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’. Global pharmaceutical companies using more ‘health outcomes’ data to set pricing strategies: Some global pharmaceutical companies have already taken pro-active measures on the subject. In early 2009, reported agreements between Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble and Health Alliance, as well as between Merck and Cigna, vindicate this point. These agreements signify a major shift in the approach of the global pharmaceutical industry to gather and use ‘health outcomes’ data.

In the Sanofi-Aventis/Procter & Gamble-Health Alliance agreement, concerned companies reported to have agreed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Health Insurance companies for patients suffering from non-spinal bone fracture, while undergoing treatment with their drug Actonel.

In the Merck/Cigna agreement, Cigna will have the flexibility to price two diabetes drugs based on ‘health outcomes’ data. ‘Outcomes-based’ pricing strategies are expected to become the order of the day, in not too distant future, across the world.

The ground realities in India are very different: Medicines are very important and constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, globally. In India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, including China. In many of those countries around 80% of expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through Health Insurance or similar other mechanisms.

However, in India the situation is just the reverse, about 80% of overall healthcare costs including medicines are private or out of pocket expenses incurred by the individuals/families. The corresponding figures for the same in China is 61%,  Sri Lanka 53%, Thailand 31% and Bhutan 29% (Source: TOI, May 8, 2011).

What’s happening in India now?

Currently in India CPP is being followed by the Government for all those pharmaceutical products which are under ‘Price Control’. However, for products which are outside price control, pharmaceutical manufacturers, by and large, follow the TRP model.

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of the country still remains far behind in this respect and is almost groping in the dark to appropriately address this critical issue.

Many believe that NPPA has been taking arbitrary, non-pragmatic, non-transparent and populist pricing decisions since decades and has not been able to improve access to medicines significantly to a vast majority of population of the country even today. A pragmatic and modern approach in this area is the crying need of the time.

Conclusion:

PBP/VBP pricing models will be able to help yielding true benefits to the civil society only when its healthcare system and pharmaceutical coverage are integrated and made universally available to all, without any exception.

In India, before considering this approach, long overdue healthcare reform process should first be initiated to ensure universal healthcare coverage, together with a robust and comprehensive health insurance model for all strata of society, without further delay.

It is widely believed, without universal coverage of healthcare supported by clearly assigned, organized and well-integrated healthcare providers, the use of PBP/VBP models could prove to be counterproductive with further aggravation of inequities and inefficiencies in the healthcare system of the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of e-healthcare started germinating in India since 1999, when the ‘Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)’ initiated its pioneering step towards telemedicine in the country by deploying a SATCOM-based telemedicine network. This network is currently playing a key role in the evolution and development of e-healthcare in the country. ISRO, with its fine blending of application of world class satellite communication technology with modern medical science and information technology (IT), has engaged itself very seriously to ensure availability of quality and affordable specialty healthcare services right at the doorsteps of a vast majority of population living even in the distant and remote places of the rural India.

However, despite telemedicine gaining slow momentum in India, there is no law in place for ethical, affordable and patient friendly use of e-healthcare facilities in the country.  Considering its vast scope of improving access to healthcare, cost effectiveness and a convenient ways to deliver e-healthcare services to a very large number of patients, especially, located in the distant locations of the country, the law makers should urgently ensure that this important healthcare service is not misused or abused by unscrupulous elements, in any way.

Very recently, taking into consideration this critical legal requirement the Medical Council of India (MCI) has decided to soon forming a panel to address the ethical issues related to e-healthcare in India.

Delivery of e-healthcare through telemedicine:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined telemedicine as follows: “The delivery of healthcare services, where distance is a critical factor, by all healthcare professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for continuing education of healthcare providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities.”

As stated above, telemedicine is gradually gaining popularity in India, like in many other countries of the world. This emerging e- healthcare service has the potential to meet the unmet needs of the patients located in the far flung areas, by providing access to medical specialists for treatment of even tertiary level of their ailments, without requiring traveling outside their villages or small towns where they reside.

The key objectives of e-healthcare:

1. To provide affordable quality healthcare services even to those places where these are not available due to lack of basic healthcare infrastructure and delivery issues.

2. Speedy electronic transmission of clinical information of both synchronous and asynchronous types, involving voice and data transfer of patients to distantly located experts and get their treatment advice online.

3. To effectively train the medics and the paramedics located in distant places and proper management of healthcare delivery/service systems.

4. Disaster management.

The Process:

The process can be: – ‘Real time’ or synchronous when through a telecommunication link real time interaction between the patients and doctors/experts can take place. This technology can be used even for tele-robotic surgery. – ‘Non-real time’ or asynchronous type when through a telecommunication link, stored diagnostics/medical data and other details of the patients are transmitted to the specialists for off-line assessment and advice at a time of convenience of the specialists.

These processes facilitate access to specialists’ healthcare services by the rural patients and the medical practitioners alike by reducing avoidable travel time and related expenses. At the same time, such interaction would help upgrading the knowledge of rural medical practitioners and paramedics to hone their skill sets.

The Promise:

e-healthcare is capable of taking modern healthcare to remote rural areas using Information Technology (IT), as specialists are mostly located in the cities. As majority of the diseases do not require surgery, e-healthcare would prove to be very conducive to such patients and economical too.

Relevance of e-healthcare in India:

With its over 1.2 billion population and equally huge disease burden, spreading across distant semi-urban and rural areas, where over 70 per cent of the population of the country lives, India should focus on e-healthcare to meet unmet healthcare needs of the common man, at least, located in far-flung areas. e-healthcare, therefore, is very relevant for the country, as it faces a scarcity of both hospitals and medical specialists. In India for every 10,000 of the population just 0.6 doctors are available.

According to the Planning Commission, India is short of 600,000 doctors, 1 million nurses and 200,000 dental surgeons. It is interesting to note that 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent of dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals, are situated in urban India.

Progress of e-healthcare in India:

Equitable access to healthcare is the overriding goal of the National Health Policy 2002. e-healthcare has a great potential to ensure that the inequities in the access to healthcare services are adequately addressed by the country.

Very encouragingly, a good number of even super-specialty hospitals like, Apollo Group of Hospitals have unfolded the launch plan of ‘Healthcare India Pharmaceutical Registry (HIPAAR)’, which is an electronic drug database for reference by the doctors and patients.  Apollo Group feels that HIPAAR module will enable the patients to know whether right medications have been used or not to treat the ailment that the concerned patient is suffering from along with the information of possible adverse effects of the medicines prescribed to them.

Currently, in the dedicated e-healthcare centers of ‘Narayana Hrudayalaya group’ pioneered by Dr Devi Shetty, patients from far-flung areas can have consultations with doctors in Bangalore.

Similarly, Asia Heart Foundation (Kolkata) and Regional Institute of Medical Science (Imphal, Manipur) are currently providing multi-specialty e-healthcare through telemedicine to 10 district hospitals, which will be extended to 75 District Hospitals, shortly. At the same time, some Government hospitals also have started extending e-healthcare through telemedicine facilities, which among others will handle e-transfer of medical data of patients like, X-ray, CT scan and MRI for not only diagnosing the disease, but also for treatment and medical consultation. Department of telemedicine of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital of New Delhi is one such example.

Well reputed cancer hospital of India, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) of Mumbai is now well connected with B.Barooah Cancer Institute of Guwahati, Assam and K.L Walawalkar Cancer Center of Chiplun, Maharashtra. Over a short period of time TMH plans to connect with 19 such regional cancer institutes.

Today the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI), a global network of partners that seeks to improve the functioning of health markets in developing countries to deliver better results for the poor, profiles more than 55 telemedicine programs globally including 24 in India.

Public Private Partnership:

As the Ministry of Health and Family welfare has now constituted a ‘National Telemedicine Taskforce’, some private healthcare institutions, as mentioned above, and various State Governments like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal have started taking admirable initiatives to translate the concept of e-healthcare into reality, especially for the rural India. Subsequently, private e-healthcare solution providers have also started coming-up, though in a sporadic manner.  Active participation of the civil society and meaningful Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are essential not only to get engaged in creating awareness for e-healthcare within India, but also to ensure that required blend of a high quality technical and medical manpower that the country currently possesses are effectively utilized to establish India as a pioneering nation and a model to emulate, in the field of e-healthcare.

The market of e-healthcare in India:

Frost & Sullivan (2007) estimated the e-healthcare (telemedicine) market of India at US$3.4 million is expected to record a CAGR of over 21 percent between 2007 and 2014.

More fund required for e-healthcare:

e-healthcare shows an immense potential within the fragile brick and mortar public healthcare infrastructure of India to catapult rural healthcare services, especially secondary and tertiary healthcare, to a different level altogether. Current data indicate that over 278 hospitals in India have already been provided with telemedicine facilities. 235 small hospitals including those in rural areas are now connected to 43 specialty hospitals. ISRO provides the hospitals with telemedicine systems including software, hardware, communication equipment and even satellite bandwidth. The state governments and private hospitals are now required to allocate adequate funds to further develop and improve penetration of Telemedicine facilities in India.

Issues with e-healthcare in India:

– Telemedicine will not be immune to various complicated legal, social, technical and consumer related issues.

- Some government doctors could feel that for e-healthcare they need to work extra hours without commensurate monetary compensation

- The myth created that setting up and running any e-healthcare facility is expensive, needs to be broken, as all the related costs can be easily recovered by a hospital through nominal charges to a large number of patients, who will be willing to avail e-healthcare facilities, especially from distant parts of India.

- Inadequate and uninterrupted availability of power supply could limit proper functioning of the e-healthcare centers.

- High quality of telemedicine related voice and data transfer is of utmost importance. Any compromise in this area could have a significant impact on the treatment outcome of a patient.

- Lack of trained manpower for e-healthcare services needs to be addressed quickly by making it a part of regular medical college curriculum, just as the University of Queensland in Australia has it for their Graduate Certificate in e-Healthcare (GCeH). A pool of competent professionals for e-healthcare services in the country will be a step in the right direction.

- Reimbursement procedure of e-healthcare treatment costs by the medical insurance companies needs to be effectively addressed.

Conclusion:

For an integrated and sustainable healthcare delivery model covering the entire population of the country, a robust e-healthcare strategy is absolutely essential.  Three critical success factors for e-Healthcare initiatives may be considered as follows:

  1. A comprehensive government policy
  2. Increasing level of literacy
  3. Power and telecommunications infrastructure

Unlike common perception, for greater effectiveness and better acceptance of any sustainable e-healthcare service project, the focus should be the same or rather a little more on non-technological areas like consumer mindset and competent healthcare providers than technological factors such as biomedical engineering or information technology.

A very large rural population of India living in remote areas could get access to affordable and quality health related services through e-healthcare facilities, which, I reckon, should be made to play a very special and critical role to address the healthcare needs of the common man. With its gradually increasing coverage, it is imperative that required regulatory standards and guidelines for e-healthcare are put in place across the country, sooner. Technological expertise to make e-healthcare successful is already available in India. The pioneering role that ISRO has been playing in this field is still not known to many.

Thus, to make e-healthcare successful, the country needs to create an appropriate groundswell for the same. All powerful and effective ‘Fourth Estate’ of the country should demonstrate greater interest to initiate a healthy discussion on e-healthcare by all stakeholders and play the role of a facilitator to ensure access to quality and affordable healthcare to all the people 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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

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.