Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry could well be a contender for global supremacy by the next decade, competing effectively with China

Posted on by
Reply

By the next decade of this millennium both India and China are expected to be the top two emerging markets of the world in the pharmaceutical sector, registering a scorching pace of growth all around. The quality of consistency and sustainability of growth, will determine who will be the main contender of supremacy and the ultimate winner in this game of wealth creation for the respective countries and be the ‘Eldorado’ of the global pharmaceutical companies.

The financial reform measures in the run up to the process of globalization started earlier in China, in 1980 as against 1990 in India. In that sense China took a plunge to be an active member of the ‘global village of commerce’ at least a decade earlier than India.

Reform process started earlier in China:

The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that 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 centres, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on global ‘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 other, will vindicate this point. On the other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20% of the global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Moreover, in ANDA and DMF filings, as well, India is currently much ahead of China.

FDI in India and China:

The Pharmaceutical Industry in India has now started attracting increasing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). As per the reply to question No. 615 tabled in the Parliament of India (Rajya Sabha) on November 25, 2009 by 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 $ 817.30 million for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals with a compounded growth rate of around 60%. USA, Canada, Singapore, UAE and Mauritius contributed 82% to this FDI, which in turn helped significantly to fuel further development and growth of the Industry.

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 the three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million, over one third of which coming from Hong Kong and around 11% from the USA.

It is worth noting that the financial and policy reform measures were initiated in China much earlier, as compared to India, which in turn have enabled China to attract more FDIs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus far. In the new paradigm of the post product patent regime both the countries are expected to grow at a scorching pace attracting more and more FDIs for their respective countries.

In this article, I would like to focus on some of these comparisons to assess the progress made so far by both the countries, in a comparative yardstick and the key factors, which will decide the pace-setter.

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

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.

Healthcare coverage of population:

China is racing ahead and gradually but surely distancing itself from India, widening the performance gap with rapid increase of domestic consumption of modern medicines. It is worth mentioning that as per WHO, the access to modern medicines in China is around 85% as against just 35% in India. Of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million of Chinese are covered by health insurance, another 250 million partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. In India total number of people who are having some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population.

Currently India is losing grounds to China mainly in healthcare infrastructure development, with inadequate healthcare delivery systems and delay in rolling out a long overdue comprehensive healthcare reform process in the country.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.
Department of Pharmaceuticals recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just through investments of couple of million US $ through Public Private Partnership (PPP). A strong commitment of the Government to hasten regulatory reform processes will be the key factor. The new product patent regime for the pharmaceutical industry has ushered in a new paradigm, with the Government planning to strike a right balance between TRIPs compliant IPR regime and the ‘Public Interest’ and NOT one at the cost of the other.

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

Since last 5 years both India and China have made rapid strides in the space of pharma outsourcing. Today the evolving business model of ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)’, is shaping up quite well. To make India a global hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the pharmaceutical industry of the country has all the ingredients. India has the potential to emerge as a serious contender for global supremacy, in this fast growing sector, especially in ‘contract manufacturing’ area, having largest number of US-FDA approved manufacturing plants, outside the USA.

According to ‘Global Services”, in 2009 Pharmaceutical outsourcing market in China and India was of US $ 1.77 billion and US $ 1.42 billion, respectively with China growing at a faster pace. The future growth potential for both the countries is huge, as each enjoyed just 2% share of this outsourcing market in 2009.

It has been forecasted that China will have more environmental growth accelerators than India due to greater continuing fiscal stimulus and policy support by their Government, which could catapult the country ahead of India, just beyond 2010.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index (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.

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing too China seem to be ahead of India. 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. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas, as well.

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature arena for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China. Most probably because of this reason, companies like, DRL, Aurigene, Advinus, Glenmark, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term deals with Multinational Companies (MNCs) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

India is currently an attractive pharmaceutical outsourcing destination across the globe. Pharmaceutical exports of India is currently far ahead of China. However, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by the end of 2010, establishing itself as the largest country for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports China has already overtaken India, way back in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. By the end of 2010, China is expected to widen the gap further with API export of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

Korn/Ferry International reports 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.

Conclusion:

As I said earlier and as has been reported by Korn/Ferry, China’s current overall infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to initiate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country. Government of India seems to be lacking in its commitment to play its role both as a provider and also as an effective enabler in this important space of ‘knowledge economy’ of the world.

India has all the potential to surge ahead with more rapid strides in this ball game. To achieve this cherished goal, the government, other stakeholders and the domestic pharmaceutical Industry should play the ball well, effectively, and in tandem.

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.

Prescribing 10 steps for comprehensive Healthcare Reforms in India

Posted on by
Reply

Recently President Barack Obama, by enacting historic healthcare reform legislation, fulfilled his election campaign pledge to provide healthcare to all in the United States of America. This piece of legislation will provide health insurance benefits to another around 34 million poor and uninsured Americans. The key highlight of this health insurance scheme is that it will compel the insurers to extend insurance to even those with any pre-existing illness and impose stringent criteria on expenditure towards medical treatment to cut healthcare costs. The new healthcare reform will cost around US $940 billion over 10 years to the US Government. To partly recover this cost, President Obama administration will levy new fees to the healthcare and pharmaceutical companies along with a new tax for the high income groups.

So far as healthcare reform in the US is concerned, President Obama, has therefore, ‘walked the talk’.

Closer home, just prior to the US healthcare reform, our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh reiterated in his speech delivered at the 30th Convocation of PGIMER, Chandigarh on November 3, 2009, the dire need of the country to strike a right balance between preventive and curative healthcare for the common man. The Prime Minister articulated his thoughts as follows:

” We must also recognize that a hospital centered curative approach to health care has proved to be excessively costly even in the advanced rich developed countries. The debate on health sector reforms is going on in US is indicative of what I have mentioned just now. A more balanced approach would be to lay due emphasis on preventive health care”.

However, the Prime Minister has not walked the talk, not just yet.

The key issues of Indian healthcare system:

Access: mostly due to inadequate healthcare infrastructure and affordability issues
Affordability: Socio-economic complexities and lack of adequate healthcare financing model in the country

Some key research findings on ‘Public Health’:

Interesting research studies on public health highlight two very interesting points:

- Health of an individual is as much an integral function of the related socio-economic factors as it is
influenced by the person’s life style and genomic configurations

- Socio-economic disparities including the educational status lead to huge disparity in the space of
healthcare.

Tweaking of the existing system is not enough:

An increase in allocation of Rs. 27,000 for healthcare, over the previous year, in the Union Budget 2010-11 covering as large as 1.13 billion population, is just not enough. The public expenditure towards healthcare, as indicated by Dr. Manmohan Singh should be around 2.5% – 3% of the GDP, against the current expenditure on the same of just 1%. To effectively address the key issues of affordability and access to healthcare the country will need a radical reform in its healthcare space with a sharp focus on preventive healthcare of the population of the country, education and related critical socio-economic issues, as has already been enunciated by the Prime Minister of our country.

Where does India stand in the ‘World’s Health Systems’:

The WHO ranking of the ‘World’s Health Systems’ was last produced in 2000. This report is no longer produced by the WHO due to huge complexity of the task.

In this interesting report, the number one pharmaceutical market of the world and the global pioneer in pharmaceutical R&D, the USA features in no. 37, Japan in no. 10, UK in no.18 and France tops the list with no.1 ranking. Among emerging BRIC countries, India stands at no. 112, Russia in no.130 and China in no. 144.

In a relative yardstick, although India scored over the remaining BRIC countries in year 2000, one should keep in mind that China has already undertaken a major healthcare reform in the last year. As stated before, earlier this year, we all have seen how President Obama introduced a new healthcare reform for the USA, despite all odds. India’s major reform in its healthcare space is, therefore, long overdue, which will require similar leadership passion to make it happen.

No need to reinvent the wheel:

When we look at the history of development of the developed countries of the world, we observe that all of them had invested and are continuously investing to improve the social framework of the country where education and health get the top priority. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas of any nation have always proved to be the most effective drivers of economic growth. This is a work in continuous progress. Recent healthcare reforms both in China and the USA will vindicate this argument. In India we, therefore, do not require to reinvent the wheel, any more.

It has been observed that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important healthcare issues. Otherwise, the minority population with adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power will always have necessary resources available to address their concern towards healthcare, appropriately.

A recent report from KPMG also reiterates “One of the major challenges remains the need to develop scalable and sustainable healthcare delivery models to deal with India’s diversity and changing socio-economic population profiles”.

Path breaking medicines are desirable, but just not enough:

Regular flow of newer and path breaking medicines in India to cure and effectively treat many diseases, have not been able to eliminate either trivial or dreaded diseases, alike. Otherwise, despite having effective curative therapy for malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhea/dysentery and venereal diseases, why will people still suffer from such illnesses? Similarly, despite having adequate preventive therapy, like vaccines for diphtheria, tuberculosis, polio, hepatitis and measles, our children still suffer from such diseases.

Reducing socio-economic inequalities is equally important:

All these continue to happen in India, over so many decades, because of socio-economic considerations, as well. Thus, together with comprehensive healthcare reform measures, time bound simultaneous efforts to reduce the socio-economic inequalities will be essential to achieve desirable outcome for the progress of the nation.

Proper focus on education is critical for a desirable health outcome:

Education is of key importance to make any healthcare reform measure to work effectively. Very recently we have witnessed some major reform measures in the area of ‘primary education’ in India. The right to primary education has now been made a fundamental right of every citizen of the country, through a constitutional amendment process.

Sharp focus on both education and healthcare is very important to realize the economic potential of any nation. India will not be able to realize its dream to be one of the economic superpowers of the world without this focus and significant resource allocation in these two critical areas – Health and Education, simultaneously.

Progress in the healthcare space of India:

It sounds quite unfair, when one comments that nothing has been achieved in the area of healthcare in India, as is usually done by vested interests with a condescending attitude in various guises. Since independence, India has made progress, may not be highly significant though, with various government sponsored and private healthcare related initiatives, as follows:

- Various key disease awareness/prevention programs across the country, for both communicable and
non-communicable diseases.
- Eradication of smallpox
- Excellent progress in polio eradication program
- Country wide primary vaccination program
- Sharp decline in the incidence of tuberculosis
- Significant decrease in mortality rates, due to water-borne diseases.
- Good success to bring malaria under control.
- The mortality rate per thousand of population has come down from 27.4 to 14.8 percent.
- Life expectancy at birth has gone up to 63 years of age.
- Containment of HIV-AIDS
- India has been recognized as the largest producers and global suppliers of generic drugs of all
categories and types.
- India has established itself as a global outsourcing hub for Contract Research and Contract
Manufacturing Services (CRAMS).
- The country has now been globally recognized as one of the fastest growing emerging markets for
the pharmaceuticals

Recent healthcare initiatives in India:

There are various hurdles though, to address the healthcare issues of the country effectively. However, these are not definitely insurmountable. ‘National Rural health Mission (NRHM)’ is indeed an admirable scheme announced by the Government. Similar initiative, like, ‘Rashtriya Bima Yojana (RBY)’ to provide health insurance program for below the poverty line (BPL) population of the country, is also equally commendable. However, effectiveness of all such schemes will warrant effective leadership at all levels of their implementation.
Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare is inadequate:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is (please see below) much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s, overall public spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend has increased to around 4.5 per cent of the GDP.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8 percent on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

In India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the center and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Encourage deep penetration of ‘Health Insurance’ in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just around 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organized health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country. It is encouraging that the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia has recently commented to the media that the commission is working on it.

A 10 pronged strategy prescribed:

In my view, the country should adopt a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process:

1. Government should assume the role of provider of preventive and basic primary healthcare across the
nation to ensure adequate access to healthcare for the entire population of the nation.

2. At the same time, the government should play the role of enabler to create public-private partnership
(PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels.

3. The issue of affordability of medicine can best be addressed by putting in place a robust model of
healthcare financing for all sections of the population of the country. Through PPP a strong and
highly competitive health insurance infrastructure needs to be created through innovative fiscal
incentives.

4. These insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate all fees payable by the patients for getting
their ailments treated including doctors/hospital fees and the cost of medicines, with the concerned
persons/companies, with a key objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations
of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation
through the healthcare services regulatory authority.

8. Make the regulatory authority accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare
to the entire population of the country.

9. Make operations of public healthcare services transparent to the civil society and cost-neutral to the
government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual. The US
model of Medicare and Medicaid could be examined in this regard..

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments
made by them

Conclusion:

A comprehensive healthcare reform in India is long overdue. The magnitude of the task is equally daunting. The pace of change in the healthcare space of the country has been very slow over the last six decades, despite sharp ascending GDP growth trend of the nation. Private sector can play the role of the game changer, provided government plays the role of an effective enabler through various policy measures, fiscal/ other incentives and by creating enough competition within the healthcare providers. Such healthy competition will trigger introduction of innovative healthcare solution models, the ultimate beneficiary of which will be none other than the patients. Health being a state subject in India and as the respective state governments control healthcare spending, quality of involvement of all the states in this reform process will determine its success or failure.

Right to education has now become a fundamental right of the citizens of the country. Will right to health continue to remain far behind?

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

 

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on by
Reply

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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 needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be known in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.

Pragmatic intervention of all the states for Preventive Healthcare could significantly reduce the burden of disease of ‘We, the People of India’.

Posted on by
Reply

Overall disease pattern in India is showing a perceptible shift from the age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23% in 2005 to 26% in 2009.

It is estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade in the country, significantly increasing the burden of disease across the socio-economic strata of the nation. It goes without saying that poor people will be hit harder, if corrective actions are not undertaken right now.

As a consequence of such changing disease pattern, healthcare needs and related systems of the country should undergo a paradigm shift together with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ for the entire population of the nation.

It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:

There is a common perception that Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society. However, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

However, a research recently study done in 1600 villages, spanning across 18 states of India and published on the September 27, 2010 edition of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), reported that the risk-factors of non-communicable diseases are high in rural India, which is the home of over 70% of the population of India. (Non-communicable Disease Risk Factors High in Rural India.

As this population has limited access and affordability to healthcare in general, the situation demands greater importance and focus.

Risk-factors of NCDs in rural India:

The above BMJ study highlighted prevalence of the following key risk-factors for the vulnerable population:

• Tobacco use (40% men, 4% women)
• Low fruit and vegetable intake (69% men, 75% women)
• Obesity (19% men, 28% women)
• High cholesterol (33% men, 35% women)
• Hypertension (20% men, 22% women)
• Diabetes (6% men, 5% women)
• Underweight (21% men, 18% women)

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently with appropriate disease treatment measures, alleviation of acute symptoms of the disease that a particular patient is suffering from, is the key concern of all concerned, starting from the doctors to the patients including their families. The process of the medical intervention revolves round treatment protocols and procedures based on the diagnosis of the current ailments and not so much on preventive measures for other underlying diseases, except with the use of vaccines for some specific diseases.

Developing a protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ for non-communicable diseases is very important:

In the above process, while addressing the acute problems of the patients’ current ailments is very important, proper risk assessment of other underlying diseases, if any, which the patient could suffer from in future, for various reasons, do not attract any organized attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctors, properly highlighting its importance, is not available to most of the patients to enable them to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, their future burden of disease.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become a crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should attract high priority of the healthcare policy makers with a careful vigil on its effective implementation at the ground level:

All said and done, the ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of mental and physical stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn immensely help the population to remain disease free and healthy, thereby contributing to improvement of their respective work productivity in a very substantial way.

Recently re-structured Medical Council of India should also step in:

Thus the role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advise those patients about various measures of underlying disease prevention, for which different patients have different types of exposures.

Keeping all these points in view, through regulatory initiatives, the newly restructured Medical Council of India (MCI) should consider making ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor.

Include the civil society in the preventive healthcare initiatives:

The risk factors of many of the diseases like, cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes, and hypertension can be identified well in advance and appropriately assessed. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, to a great extent, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation, improving awareness of the civil society and above all including them in this healthcare improvement process of the nation.

Need to raise general awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general, together with the healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the planning commission, the government of India has initiated the following structured measures for the prevention of NCD:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action;
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs:
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages;
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction;
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities;
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors;
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors;
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”.

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India, with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. It is worth repeating that some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

All the state governments of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives with all stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry and the civil society, should make the movement of ‘Preventive healthcare’ self-sustainable across the nation. Health being a state subject in India, the role and initiatives of the respective state governments towards this important initiative will be the key determinant of success or failure.

Such a movement, at the same time, needs to be strengthened by appropriate government policy measures and regulations wherever necessary. Pan India roll out of innovative disease awareness campaigns in tandem, highlighting sustainable and effective disease prevention processes will help reducing longer term healthcare cost significantly, thereby translating the well-known dictum into reality, ‘Prevention is better than cure’.

By Tapan 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.

Envisaging a paradigm shift in strategic marketing of pharmaceutical in India

Posted on by
Reply

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended, about three years ago, in mid-2007 that for sustainable business performance the research-based global pharmaceutical companies should move a part of their significant expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide.

The report titled ‘Pharma 2020: The Vision’ commented that the business model of the global pharmaceutical companies is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets.”

Undergoing a paradigm shift:

As we witness, the global pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a paradigm shift. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan had gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that low growth trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13.

Global pharmaceutical ‘Marketing Expenditure’ is increasing:

The publication titled “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” co-authored by Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin estimated from the data collected from the industry and doctors during 2004 that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales turnover on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development. This was as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$ 235.4 billion in that year.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year, as this appears to be the latest year in which information was available from both IMS Health and CAM Group, the two international market research companies that provide the marketing and sales data together with those of consulting services. IMS obtains its data from pharmaceutical companies, while CAM obtains its data from the doctors. This study appeared in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

The above findings though highlight that the US pharmaceutical industry is overall marketing-driven, also argues strongly in favor of a shift away from this direction.

Another publication named, the ‘Triangle Business Journal’ reported the findings from another study of ‘Cutting Edge Information’, a pharmaceutical research company based in Durham, North Carolina, USA. This survey reported, “the companies marketing the six blockbuster (turnover US $ 1 billion in the first year) drugs it studied spent an average of $238.5 million to market each product.”

The “Pharmabiz” of April 2, 2007 also reported, “The study of top 15 global pharma giants revealed that the marketing expenditure as percentage of total sales of these companies worked out to 30.5 as against the R&D expenses as a percentage of total sales of 15.1.”

Such high marketing expenditure is not sustainable in the long run – alternatives being explored:

As reported by IMS Health, in 2009 though the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US $ 837 billion with a growth rate of around 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001, the moot question remains, whether such type of marketing expenditure is sustainable during the era when the “patent cliff’ is pushing the global pharmaceutical industry to the brink.

This situation gets further aggravated when IMS Health reports, as the world’s 10 top selling prescription drugs go off patent, it will be difficult to replace them in terms of single-product value turnover. These brands are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (sanofi-aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Pfizer)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

The business focus is now on the emerging markets like, India:

Thus the business focus of the global pharmaceutical majors are now on the key emerging markets, like India not only with their patented products, but more importantly by having a robust fast growing branded generic portfolio to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit from the blockbusters, as they go off patent.

Publicly expressed expectations of some Governments of the emerging markets:

Governments of some of these emerging markets expect local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there could be following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia had commented, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “They can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may ultimately come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, some global companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and MSD have already started implemeting differential pricing strategies for their patented products in the emerging markets like India.

Some visionary global CEOs like, Andrew witty of GSK strongly believes that such differential pricing will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford his company’s products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only offset the sales value loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets, over a period of time.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK had reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets of Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

India has also witnessed such differential pricing strategy by other innovator companies for their patented products in the country.

Prescribing four new key strategic changes in the new paradigm:

In the new paradigm, almost in tandem, four new key strategic changes, in my view, will gradually unfold in the Indian pharmaceutical market. These are as follows:

1. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treating the diseases.

2. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day.

3. Over the counter (OTC) medicines, especially those originated from natural products to treat common and less serious illness, will curve out a sizable share of the market, as appropriate regulations are expected to be put in place adequately supported by AYUSH.

4. Most importantly, the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system, as already articulated just in the last month by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, which will usher in the following changes:

- Doctors will no longer be the sole decision makers for prescribing drugs to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Ministry of Health/ Healthcare providers/ Medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

- For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

- Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will gradually play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

- This could well mean lesser role of the Medical Representatives in the demand generation process for the pharmaceutical products, which could possibly have a positive impact on the cost of marketing and sales promotion, incurred by the respective pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion:

With all these changes within the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to the new paradigm sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing, even in the branded generic space. In my view, those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own right and relatively well versed with the nuances of this new ball game, will have a significant competitive edge over other domestic players. The global-local companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the local-global players, especially, in the branded generic space and at the same time will be able to bring down their marketing expenses significantly.

So far as other domestic players are concerned, the fast changing environment could throw a new challenge to many of them, accelerating the consolidation process within the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

We all should be well aware, just as today’s pharmaceutical business dynamics in India are not replica of what these were in the yesteryears, tomorrow’s pharmaceutical business dynamics of the country will not be a replica of what these are today.

By Tapan 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.

Why does the Government divert focus on to fringe issues to address critical healthcare concerns of the nation?

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India has recently initiated a public debate through a ‘Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licensing (CL) of Patented Pharmaceutical Products’.

The key intent of the discussion is presumably to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the people of the country.

Could such debate serve any meaningful purpose?

Since the issue of CL involves only patented products, I wonder, whether this debate would in any way help sorting out the issue of poor access to modern medicines in our country or this is just another ‘hog wash’ or ‘diversion ploy’ of the decision makers to divert the attention of the stakeholders from the core issues of poor access to healthcare for the common man of India.

Will CL be able to address abysmally poor access to medicines issues in India?

A quick analysis of the prevailing situation related to access to modern medicines in India suggests that the usage of patented pharmaceutical products account for much less than 1% of the sum total of all medicines consumed in India in value terms. In volume terms it will be even more miniscule in terms of percentage.

As per IMS (MAT July, 2010) Indian Pharmaceutical Market size is Rs. 44,476 Crore, even 1% market share of the patented pharmaceutical products will mean Rs. 445 Crore, which is quite far from reality.

Thus, CL of patented medicines would have no sustainable and meaningful impact on improving access to modern medicines for the common man of the country. Moreover, around 40% of the population of India live below the poverty line (BPL). These ‘Children of a lesser God‘ very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicine, however cheap these could be. Vast majority of the such population who lack the financial capability to pay for even the cheapest off-patent generic medicines, which comprise more than 99% of the total medicines consumed within the country, will continue to be left in the lurch.

65% of Indians do not have access to WHO list of essential medicines, which surpasses even the African countries:

Our government also admits that 65% of Indians do not have access to even WHO list of essential medicines, none of which holds a valid patent in the country. This should be the key concern in the country. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during 2000-2007, India had poorer access to essential medicines than even many African countries. It is worth noting that many of these African countries has a patent life for pharmaceuticals for around 30 years, against of 20 years in India. What are we then talking about?

Provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are robust enough:

In any case, the provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are not only quite clear and well articulated, but also at the same time offer flexibility in the decision making process to the Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) to invoke CL in a justifiable situation. Thus proposed guidelines related to CL would possibly invite more questions than answers. Consequently, it will be an extremely complicated process for the IPOs to categorize all the situations related to CL. Therefore, in my view, such initiatives, as initiated by the DIPP to frame guidelines for CL could prove to be totally counterproductive, as such guidelines, as stated above, would seriously limit the flexibility of the IPOs to take appropriate action, even when it would require to do so.

Moreover, it is absolutely imperative for the Government to ensure that the primacy of the patent statutes is not disturbed in any way, as such guidelines related to CL would only be consistent with the appropriate provisions within the statute and cannot be used beyond the Patent Law of the land. It goes without saying that any dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of the provisions within the statute related to CL, should only be resolved by the judiciary.

Conclusion:

How could then CL possibly offer answers to the vexing healthcare access issues of the nation? Is the Government not wasting its precious little time, instead of trying to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and resolve the critical ‘access to affordable quality medicines’ issue of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives?

By Tapan 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.

Exploring a new ‘Business Model’ to improve access to healthcare in rural India with the industry participation

Posted on by
Reply

Rural India – the home of around 72% of 1.12 billion population of India is undergoing a metamorphosis, as it were. Disposable income of this population is slowly but steadily rising, as evidenced by rapid market penetration of the ‘Fast Moving Consume Goods (FMCG)’ industry in general and companies like Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Dabur in particular.

Size of the Healthcare Sector in India:

It has been reported that the current size of the healthcare industry in India ia around US $ 23 billion or around 5.2% of the GDP. Though the sector is showing an overall healthy growth of around 13%, public expenditure towards healthcare is just around 0.9% of the GDP of the country. As per WHO (2005) per capita government expenditure on health in India was just around US $7, against US $31 of China, US $24 of Sri Lanka, US $11 of Kenya and US $12 of Indonesia.

Currently the number of Government Hospitals/Healthcare centers in India are grossly inadequate and are as follows:

  • Medical Colleges: 242
  • Community Health centers: 3346
  • District Hospitals: 4400
  • Other Public Hospitals: 1200
  • Primary Health Centers: 23236
  • Subcenters: 146026
  • Number of Hospitals in rural areas: 53400
  • Population to rely on Public Hospitals: 43%

Even with the above network of public healthcare centers in India, overall effectiveness of public healthcare delivery system is very poor in the country. Increasing penetration of Information Technology could perhaps partially address this problem.

Growth drivers of rural India?

I reckon, mainly the following reasons attribute to the growth of the rural economy:

- Gradual increase in procurement prices of food grains by the government and waiver of agricultural loans to the tune of US$13.9 billion

- Growing non-farm income: Currently more than 50% of rural income is through non-farm sources, fuelled by various non-farm activities like food-processing, manufacturing, trading, in addition to the income flow from the rural migrants.

– Increased spending by the Government, which is expected to be around US$ 20 billion by March 2010, in the rural areas through various projects and schemes, like National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), Bharat Nirman Program etc. coupled with easier access to requisite loans and credits, have improved the spending power of rural households significantly.

Though the government is making heavy budgetary allocations in rural India to improve the basic infrastructural facilities, healthcare and education, the implementation of most of these schemes still remains far from satisfactory, as of now.

A gaping hole in the rural healthcare space:
In the healthcare space of rural India there is still a gaping hole in various efforts of both the government and the private players to create a robust primary healthcare infrastructure for the common man. Thus poor access to healthcare services, coupled with lack of ability to pay for such services and medicines round the year, are the key challenges that the country will need to overcome. Lack of disease awareness and poor affordability towards healthcare services, still account for 60% of rural ailments not getting treated at all.

Key shortcomings of the current rural healthcare infrastructure:

Despite the numbers quoted above, following shortcomings continue to exist in the healthcare infrastructure of the country:
- Number of Primary Health Centers (PHC) are far less than the budgetary estimate/allocation
- Inadequate treatment facilities even where the PHCs exist
- Shortage of doctors, nurses and paramedics
- Very high rate of absenteeism

Pharmaceutical companies in India should now explore fortune at the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ to reap a rich harvest, creating a win-win situation:

If the pharmaceutical companies operating within the country, partner with the government and other key stakeholders, as a part of their corporate business strategy, to make a fortune from the ‘bottom of the pyramid’, this critical issue can be effectively resolved, sooner. Novartis India has already ventured into this area and has tasted reasonable success with their ‘Arogya Parivar’ program.

However, in my view additional sets of the following value delivery objectives need to be considered to make this the rural healthcare mission with PPP initiatives successful:

- Affordable medicines of high quality standard
- Increase in health awareness by collaborating with the NGOs and rural institutions for various common diseases.
- Continuing Medical Education (CME) for the rural doctors and para-medics
- Arranging microfinance for the healthcare professionals to create small micro- level healthcare infrastructure and also for the patients to undergo treatment
- Help reducing the transaction cost of medicines and healthcare services through fiscal measures by collaborating with the government
- The product portfolio to be tailor made to address the common healthcare needs of rural India

Private healthcare facilities are preferred to public healthcare facilities even in the rural India:

Irrespective of rich or poor, around 80% of the population in India prefer private domiciliary treatment facilities and 50% of the same prefer private hospital treatment services. However, let me hasten to add that even within the private healthcare space in rural India, a lot needs to be done. Many so called ‘doctors’, who are practicing in rural India, have no formal medical qualifications. Moreover, even such doctors are not available in villages with a population of around 300 to 500 households.

The key success factors of the rural marketing ‘Business Model’:

Urban pharmaceutical marketing model, I reckon, should not be replicated for ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing’, as the success factors required for each of them, is quite different. In rural marketing the stakeholders’ needs and wants are quite different. If these are not properly identified and thereafter adequately addressed, mostly through collaborative initiatives, the rural pharmaceutical marketing ‘Business Model’ may not fly at all.

Partnership with Microfinance Institutions will be a key requirement:

Interested pharmaceutical companies will need to collaborate with the rural microfinance institutions for such business initiatives. This will ensure that appropriate loans can be extended to doctors and retailers, wherever needed, to help them create requisite local healthcare infrastructure to make such projects viable and successful. At the same time, such institutions will also require to help the needy rural population with requisite loans to help meeting their cost of medical treatment.

Conclusion:

From a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ it appears that such projects can definitely be made profitable with a modest gross margin of around 40% – 50% and operating profit of around 6% to 8% . The high volume of turnover from over 650 million population of India, will make these ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing projects’ viable. Simultaneously, such corporate business initiatives will help alleviating pain and suffering from diseases of a vast majority of the rural population of India.

By Tapan 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.