Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Provision for Compulsory Licensing (CL) in India – some issues still need to be addressed.

Posted on by
Reply
Patent law systems provide for a provision for granting of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances. Article 5A(2) of The Paris Convention, 1883 indicates that each contracting State may take legislative measures for the grant of compulsory licenses and reads as follows:“Each country of the Union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example, failure to work.”TRIPS agreement also contains important public health safeguards provisions to allow countries to override TRIPS requirements by engaging in compulsory licensing under certain situations and circumstances. Globally all patent systems comply with the requirements of TRIPS.

Doha declaration:

Doha Declaration gives WTO member-countries the right to grant compulsory licences (CL) and the right to decide on the reasons upon which such licences are to be granted. The declaration also states that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted and implemented by the member-countries in a manner to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all.

“Safeguards provision” in India:

The Indian Patent Act 2005 bestows enough power to the Controller General of Patents, Trademarks and Designs of India to issue compulsory licenses (CL) under following different sections of the Act:

1. Section 84:

This section prevents the abuse of patent as a monopoly and states that at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of grant of a patent, any interested person may make an application to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) for grant of compulsory licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or

(b) That the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or

(c) That the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India

Section 6 of section 84 states that in considering the application filed under this section, the controller shall take into account the following:

(i) The nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patent or licensee to make full use of the invention;

(ii) The ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(iii) The capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application is granted;

(iv) Whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit:

Provided that this clause shall not be applicable in case of national emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use or on establishment of a ground of anti-competitive practices adopted by the patentee.

Terms and conditions of CL will be determined by the Controller under section 90.

2. Sections 92 (1) and 92 (3):

These sections enable the Central Government to deal with circumstances of national emergency or circumstance of extreme urgency or in case of public non-commercial use by issuing CL.

3. Section 92 A:

This part enables grant of CL for export of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances to any country having insufficient or no manufacturing capacity for the concerned product to address public health problems.

Some loose knots:

Some believe that there are still some loose knots in the CL provisions in India, which need to be tightened, immediately.

Granting CL for a Biopharmaceutical product could be an issue:

It will not be very easy to grant CL for a biopharmaceutical product as the conditions in which biopharmaceuticals are produced largely define the final product and its manufacturing process defines the product quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product.

Therefore following are the main issues, which need to be urgently addressed:

• Small changes in the manufacture of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar medicinal products can dramatically affect the safety and efficacy of the therapeutic molecule.

• The very nature of a biologic means that it is practically impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceuticals if identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies are not used. This has to be demonstrated in an extensive comparability program. Therefore a generic biopharmaceutical cannot possibly exist.

• Substitution issues:

By contrasts with the situation applicable for generic chemical entities, biosimilar medicines can be “similar” but not “identical” to the innovator reference products. The “similar, but not identical” nature of biosimilar medicines means that substitution of the innovator product with a biosimilar product could have clinical consequences as patients could respond differently to the two products. To guarantee the efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved following the submission of appropriate data generated with the biosimilar drug.

• Currently there are no published clear Indian guidelines for the approval of biosimilar drugs which will ensure the approval of efficacious and safe biosimilar drugs.

Some apprehensions on CL in India need to be addressed:

Some apprehensions have been expressed on possible misuse of CL and representations made to the government to address the following issues urgently. Tarceva and Stutent cases involving Nepal will probably justify such apprehensions:

o As the entire concept is based on “Working of Patents” in India, the term “Working of Patents” needs to be defined explicitly.

o Issuance of CL to be restricted to national emergency, extreme urgency and public non-commercial use

o Provisions in (Sec. 84 [7]) needs to be suitably amended that provide grounds for triggering CL by competitors for commercial benefits.

o Safeguards enshrined in the Aug 30 decision (Motta-Menon text) is to be provided for exports under Section 92A of the Indian Patents Act 2005, corresponding to Para 6 of the declaration on the TRIPS Agreement

Is paying royalty to patent holder an acceptable solution to this issue?

Many feel that this question totally ignores the right of an innovator to protect his/her innovation, which is the outcome of a painstaking, long, costly and risky R&D process. Such protection is granted to an innovator against disclosure of the data generated for the innovation to the patent office for public knowledge at large through grant of a patent for a specific time period. During this period the innovator is the exclusive owner of the innovation. The provision of CL can be invoked during this period, as stated above, for some very specific and extra-ordinary situation.

Such extra-ordinary situation, as and when will arise be addressed by the government based purely on the merits of the cases. Carte blanche permission by any authority allowing use of an innovator’s product during its patent life against a royalty payment, without innovators wish, is believed to be against the letter and spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005.

Conclusion:

In Indian Patents Act 2005, the provisions of CL should maintain a fine balance between the critical need of innovation by the pharmaceutical companies and its reach to the users to meet their unmet needs. For a country like India, CL is probably the most appropriate safeguard against potential abuse of monopoly by the patentees in case of national emergencies and to address critical public health issues.

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.

Centralization of the system of issuing ‘Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product’ (CoPP) by the DCGI is a welcome step.

Posted on by
Reply
The ‘Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product’(CoPP), which is valid for two years, is issued by the drug regulatory authorities to a particular pharmaceutical product. CoPP is accepted as a proof of international quality by Latin America, Africa, CIS and other developing countries.
Why is this decision?

The decision of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to centralize the issue of CoPP stems from a request to this effect made by the World Health Organization (WHO).

It has been reported that WHO in April, 2009 informed the Ministry of Health of the Government of India that the organization takes objection in using WHO logo in the CoPP by the Indian exporters of pharmaceutical products as the WHO formats and guidelines are allegedly not properly adhered to by various local issuing authorities of CoPP, in India. The DCGI indicated that WHO specifically requested India that such an important documentation procedure should be controlled at the central drug regulatory authority level and hence is this decision.

Why is the criticism?

By the states:

However, the state drug authorities have expressed their unhappiness and even challenged the power of the DCGI to effect such changes. They feel that there will be revenue loss to the states for this procedural amendment. In addition, they argue that as the manufacturing license to the exporters are issued by the state drug authorities, the CoPP also is to be issued by the same authority, which they feel is an age old practice and works quite well.

By the exporters:

So far as the exporters are concerned, they feel that with the existing inadequate infrastructure available with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), effective implementation of the new system is not possible. This change, they apprehend, would result in unusual delay in issuing the certificate.

The latest status:

On October 13, 2009, the Madras High Court issued a stay order on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Drug Inspectors Association, against the directive of centralization of CoPP by the DCGI.

On October 15, 2009 the same Madras High Court acting on a petition of the Federation of South Indian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association issued an injunction, which will remain in force until further orders, staying the same order of the DCGI.

On October 20, 2009, Karnataka High Court issued yet another stay order, which will remain effective for a period of four weeks, suspending this new directive on CoPP.

This is the third stay order against the new centralized system of granting CoPP.

Conclusion:

Many stakeholders genuinely feel that this change will help strengthening the regulatory framework of the country and improving confidence level on the high quality standard of generic drugs manufactured in India within the world trading community with a positive impact on pharmaceutical exports. This will also enable the DCGI to provide up-to-date details on CoPP to the international regulators, as and when required. In the previous system, the DCGI feels, it used to be quite challenging to quickly compile such data to respond to any national and international request for the same. In the new system there will be one uniform format and the details of all CoPP with their expiry date will be available in the CDSCO website for greater transparency.

The infrastructural issue including the manpower need of the CDSCO to handle this new initiative is being addressed with adequate speed. Overall, this is indeed a laudable move to ensure uniform high quality standard for the pharmaceutical products made in India. Ministry of Health of the Government of India should be complimented for this important initiative.

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.

A brief history of the Indian Patent System from Indian Pharmaceutical Industry perspective, the concerns and opportunities.

Posted on by
Reply
Although a comprehensive Act on Patents and Designs allowing product patents of drugs came into force in India in 1911, the first Patents Act of India was enacted in 1856.This Act gave a head start to the global pharmaceutical companies in this business primarily through imports into India. As a result, in no time the global pharmaceutical companies curved out a sizeable chunk of the Indian pharmaceutical market capturing over 80% of the total domestic consumption of drugs and pharmaceuticals.It has been reported that in 1959 an American Senate Committee headed by Senator Kefauver wrote in its report:

“…in drugs, generally, India ranks amongst the highest priced nations of the world”.

In 1970 the Indian Patents Act was amended abolishing the product patent system, based on ‘Ayyangar Committee report, 1959’, which examined the factors influencing the high prices of the drugs and pharmaceuticals in India and concluded:

“.. high prices resulted from the monopoly control foreign based pharmaceutical companies exercised over the production of drugs.”

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was, once again, amended under the TRIPS agreement and the Indian Patents Act, 2005 came into force effective January 1, 2005 , re-introducing product patents for the drugs and pharmaceuticals, as a part of the globalization process of the country including the pharmaceutical industry of India.

This is perhaps the testimony of India’s realization that research and development is the bed rock for the progress of pharmaceutical industry in any country in the long run, as this industry, unlike many other industries, relies quite heavily on product patents.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry to build on its acquired strength:

Reverse engineering with high calibre skills in process chemistry emerged as one of the key strengths of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry since 1970. The industry has to build on this strength and move towards ‘incremental innovation model’ of R&D, which is less expensive and more cost effective starting with a known substance, to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The product patent regime has given a boost to pharmaceutical R&D in India:

Many medium to large Indian pharmaceutical companies, like Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy’s Lab (DRL) and Glenmark etc. have already started shifting their focus on R&D. The large number of patent applications filed by these companies to the Indian patent offices will vindicate this point. As a result of the new focus, one observes business initiatives like, spinning off the R&D units into a separate company and many R&D driven mergers and acquisitions by these domestic Indian companies.

R&D investments are also being made in traditional chemistry based screening. Moreover, companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, and Bharat Biotech etc. have engaged themselves in the space of biotechnology research.

Increasing opportunity to collaborate with the global companies:

Increasingly more and more Indian companies have started collaborating with the global companies in collaborative research and cost efficient process development to leverage their human capital and infrastructural facilities. The collaborative arrangement towards this direction between GSK and Ranbaxy provides a good example.

Contract research and manufacturing:

Some other domestic companies like Divi’s Lab, Suven Pharma, Dishman Pharma, Piramal Healthcare, Shasun Chemicals, Jubilant Organosys etc. are moving into the space of contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) establishing world class facilities and collaborating with the global players like, GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis etc.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in R&D:

Initiatives by the Indian companies in collaborative research with government research institutes like CSIR and NIPER have already commenced, though much lesser in number. Some companies like, Shasun have already derived benefits in the field of biotechnology out of such collaborative research under PPP. It is expected that more such projects will see the light of the day in not too distant future.

Some concerns in the new regime:

Some serious concerns are being raised as the country is in the process of settling down in the new paradigm. The key concern is about the affordability of patented products by those who are currently having access to other modern medicines.

To address such concerns related to public health issues in general, there are already provisions in the TRIPS agreement for price control of patented products.

At the same time, one finds, the government has exempted those patented products from price control, which are domestically produced with indigenous R&D. Many feel that these differential measures will not help improving affordability and access to such patented medicines by the common man.

Keeping prices of essential medicines under the lens of price regulator is more important:

Even over last sixty years of independence, the access to modern medicines in India is meager 35 percent. 65 percent of the nation’s population does not have any access even to off patent essential drugs. In a country like India where there is no adequate social security cover towards healthcare, it will be important to keep the prices of essential medicines for treating common diseases under the close vigil of the drug price regulator.

Will the prices of medicines spiral in the product patent regime of India?

While addressing this question one will need to keep in mind that around 98 percent of drugs, which are generic or branded generic, manufactured in India and costs cheaper than their equivalents available even in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will continue to remain unaffected. Hence, it is very unlikely that prices of such medicines will go up significantly because of the new product patent regime in India.

Conclusion:

The key concerns raised in the new product patent regime are that it will further deteriorate the current poor access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population.

It is undeniable that one of the key reasons for poor access to essential medicines in India is lack of buying power of a large number of both rural and urban poor. This problem gets compounded by the poor public health infrastructure, delivery system and financing system, despite sporadic initiatives taken by the government towards this direction.

To be successful in the new regime by improving access to modern medicines to those who do not have means to satisfy such basic needs, the country should take a rational and holistic approach in this matter. It is high time for all the stakeholders to ponder and flesh-out the real factors, which have been responsible for such a dismal rate of access to modern medicines to a huge 65 percent of the country’s population over decades, even when the product patent law was not in place in the country.

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

Recent efforts to improve the functioning of the WIPO-administered Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is a welcome step for the interest of India.

Posted on by
Reply
As the third largest user among developing countries of the PCT system, India has a particular interest in ensuring that the PCT system supports its innovators and exporters in the most efficient manner possible.
What does PCT system do?

The PCT system allows reliance on international searches and examination in assessing patentability but it does not preclude national examination including decisions on patentability at a national level. In that regard, the Director-General Francis Gurry of WIPO made the following remarks at the opening of the WIPO Assembly on September 22, which clearly states that PCT reform is not a norm setting exercise and is voluntary:

“…I would like to make specific mention of one project, which I believe to be of great significance, the so-called Road Map for the improvement of the functioning of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which will come up for consideration in the PCT Assembly during this meeting. This is not a norm-making exercise. The PCT makes it very clear (Article 27(5)) that nothing in it is to be construed as in any way limiting the freedom of each Contracting State to determine its own substantive conditions of patentability. Neither the PCT nor the Road Map in any way affects TRIPs flexibilities. The Road Map is about improving the functioning of a procedural treaty that links together the patent offices of the world. It is about finding ways to increase work-sharing, to decrease unnecessary inefficiencies, to improve the quality of the output of the international patent system and, thereby, to contribute to the management of the unsustainable backlog of 4.2 million unprocessed patent applications in the world. There are many initiatives occurring already in this regard: the Patent Prosecution Highway and work-sharing initiatives in ASEAN, in South America and between the Vancouver Group of Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. The PCT Road Map aims to bring all these initiatives ultimately under the multilateral umbrella of the PCT“.

PCT is not a substantive treaty:

The PCT is not a substantive treaty and it will not become one. By mixing up the different work streams of WIPO–some of which are substantive and some of which, like the PCT, are technical and administrative, some vested interests seek to create confusion. It is difficult to understand why such people would want to defeat a project that will permit Indian high-tech companies to leverage India’s strong educational and legal infrastructure to compete effectively in the global economy of the twenty-first century.

PCT has important ramifications:

The proposed changes in the PCT have indeed important ramifications for countries like India, as they represent the greater opportunities that the PCT changes will provide Indian commercial interests through an improved international patent search and examination process.

In many technological sectors, including pharmaceuticals, Indian innovators are finding that, indeed, strong intellectual property protection both in India and abroad is critical to the success of their business models. As a result they are becoming users of the PCT system. Opposition to the current WIPO efforts to improve the PCT system, I reckon, would deny Indian innovators these opportunities.

Indian innovators have a stake in WIPO PCT reform:

Indian innovators also have an important stake in “WIPO PCT Reform”. It is, therefore, very much in the interest of the Government of India that such reform succeeds now that it has reached elite status in the international intellectual property regime.

Just last year, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) became one of only fifteen national patent offices to be recognized as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) by WIPO. As an ISA, the Indian Patent Office now approves or establishes the title and conducts international searches. Scepticism of a group of vested interests on this much desirable “WIPO PCT Reform” could set back the international recognition that India has deservedly gained from being the only English speaking country in the Asian region to be recognized as an ISA and IPEA.

Conclusion:

I would, therefore, expect our Government to continue its support for efforts such as “WIPO PCT Reform” that seek to facilitate India’s further integration into the international economy while at the same time protecting Indian national interests.

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.

Will the ‘Bayer–Cipla case’ now put the ‘Bolar Provision’ under judicial scrutiny?

Posted on by
Reply
To enable the domestic pharmaceutical industry gaining a critical mass and cater to the pressing healthcare needs of the nation, in 1970 product patent act was abolished by the government of India. This immensely helped the domestic companies to launch the generic version of innovative medicines at a very low price, making those drugs quite affordable to a large section of the population.
Cost and process efficiencies helped the Indian pharma companies to reach out:

Quickly acquired cost and process efficiencies of the domestic generic pharma companies soon made India a power to reckon within the global generic pharmaceutical industry. Besides fueling the domestic demand of the essential medicines in general and these drugs in particular, the domestic pharma players soon commenced exports of these cheaper but high quality medicines to non-regulated and the least developed countries of the world to cater to their affordable healthcare needs.

India played a key role in combating HIV-AIDS in Africa:

In that process, India also played a critical role to ensure that HIV-AIDS drugs are available to the poor and down trodden in Africa in general and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, at an affordable price.

A paradigm shift:

On January 1, 2005, India stepped in to a new paradigm with re-enactment of the product patent act in the country, which is widely believed to be TRIPS compliant. This consequently ushered in a transition within the Indian pharmaceutical industry from the mindset of an ‘imitator’ to the prestigious status of an ‘innovator’, which ultimately drives the wheel of progress of a nation.

The voice of concern:

At the same time and for the same paradigm shift many expressed their grave concerns about the role that the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry will play in the new paradigm to continue to make cheaper but quality modern medicines available not only to a large section of the Indian society, but also to the needy patients of non-regulated and least developed countries of the world.

TRIPS safeguard provisions:

Although minimum standards of patent protection that patent holders should get have been articulated in TRIPS, it also very clearly specifies three very important public health safeguard provisions simultaneously, which will allow any participating country to utilize these during such types of needs.

These three TRIPS public health safeguard provisions are as follows:

A. Compulsory Licensing:

- There is nothing in TRIPS, which can limit the authority of the government, in any way, to grant compulsory licensing of a patented product for public health safeguard.

B. Parallel importing:

- TRIPS clearly indicates that under WTO dispute settlement body parallel imports cannot be challenged, if there is no discrimination on the patent holders’ nationality.

AND

C. Bolar Provisions

The Bolar Provision:

To enable the generic players launching new molecules at a much cheaper price, the Patent Act 2005 provides for exceptions to the patentee’s exclusive rights under Article 30 of TRIPS, as ‘Bolar Provisions’ in its section 107A(a):

“any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product.”

This section provides an exemption from patent infringement to the generic manufacturers from producing and importing patented drugs for research and development, related to submission of information for regulatory approvals of generic versions of patented products before the original patents expire. The legislative intent of this section is to ensure that the generic versions of patented products are ready with necessary regulatory approval for market launch, immediately after the innovator products go off patent, rather than going through a long rigorous process of getting the regulatory approval only after expiration of the patent term.

Is the Section 107A now under judicial scrutiny?

This section may be unfairly used by some generic manufacturers, soon after the launch of products patented in India, for unfair commercial reasons. The final judgement on Bayer–Cipla case on Nexavar may throw some light on this important provision. It is quite possible that because of this reason Delhi High court has ordered Cipla to seek the High Court’s permission before market launch of the generic version of Bayer’s patented product.

Conclusion:

Although there is nothing wrong in using a patented molecule for getting regulatory approval with a genuine intent to launch the generic version after the original product goes off patent, it now appears that in absence of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, this section may most likely to be abused more by some generic players with mala fide commercial interest.

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.

The relevance of the Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act – the country needs all stakeholders’ open debate on the proposed bill.

Posted on by
Reply
The Bayh-Dole Act is an American legislation, which was originally sponsored by two US senators named Birch Bayh and Bob Dole. This Act deals with Intellectual Property (IP) arising out of US government funding. Bayh-Dole Act is also known as University and Small Business Patent Procedure Act. In December 12, 1980 this was enacted into a law by the US Congress.
What it does:
Under this Act, IP rights over government funded inventions for further development, license to other parties or direct commercialization are transferred to the universities and small businesses operating with government contracts. The government though retains its right to license the invention to any third party without any consent from the IP right owner or the licensee, if it feels that on a reasonable basis the public is being denied of the benefits of the invention.

The Indian version of the Bayh-Dole Act:

The Utilization of the Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008, which has been formulated in line with the US Bayh-Dole Act, has already been approved by the Union Cabinet of India. This bill ensures both utilization and protection of the IP arising out of government funded research initiatives. Currently government funded academic institutions and research institutes cannot commercialize the inventions.

The proposed bill will not only allow them to patent such inventions but will also reward the inventors and the institutes with a share of its commercialization proceeds as per specific guidelines.
The bill has attracted a mixed response from the stake holders.

The relevance of Bayh-Dole Act in India:

Relevance of Indian version of the Bayh-Doll Bill in the post product patent regime in India is
significant. The core concept of the bill encourages innovation and ensures protection of patents and other forms of IP rights of the government funded R&D outcomes, where the owner of the intellectual property will be the government grant receipients or the government.

This bill is expected to offer to various research institutions, universities, small businesses and non-profit organizations, the IP rights on their inventions, resulted from the government funding. Overall environment towards innovation within the country is expected to get a boost in that process.

Is the ownership and protection of R&D a real remedy to make government academic institutions and universities self sustainable?

This is certainly not the only remedy, but an important one. This process will have significant potential to effectively facilitate technology transfer from government funded research laboratories or universities to the user industry to make these establishments self-sustainable.

What are the main implications of the bill if enacted in its current form?

Although the fine prints of the bill are not yet clearly known, the bill in its current form raises more questions than answers. Some of the concerns with the bill in its current form are as follows:

- This law could effectively transfer the decision making process about
publications of the research papers from the researchers and academia to
the bureaucrats in the government establishments, making the R&D
environment quite stifling for the researchers and the initiative
counterproductive.

- Academia at times will be compelled to incur significant expenditures
towards different types of IPR related litigation, which could have been
otherwise productively spent by these institutions towards research
initiatives.

- The learning and research may get transformed into another kind of
businesses activity, as such a law could change the research focus on to
the issues, which will be of greater commercial interest to various
industries and will offer immediate financial benefits to the
institutions. As a result vital non-commercial research, which could be of
critical interest to the nation as such, may take a back seat.

Conclusion:

The country will therefore need an extensive public debate on this bill, which has not taken place, as yet. The loose knots of the bill need to be tightened and the concerns of the stakeholders need to be adequately addressed before its enactment into a law.

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.

How have the ‘Drug Policies’ of India fared against the set objectives?

Posted on by
Reply
Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has by now established itself as one of the most important knowledge based industry of the nation with significant sets of differential advantages. It has earned global recognition as a low cost producer and global supplier of generic drugs. The domestic industry today meets almost the entire demand for pharmaceutical products of the country. This happened, as many would consider, primarily due to the pragmatic decision of the government to abolish the product patent during the growth stage of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, in the early 70’s.
In global perspective India is still a small market in terms of value turnover:

Having achieved all these, one should keep in mind that despite being the second largest country in terms of population, domestic Indian pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of just U.S$ 7.8 billion in 2008, which is significantly lower than any smaller country of the developed world.

This is primarily because India is a low priced generic pharmaceuticals market. McKinsey forecasts that by 2015 the industry will record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion. The key drivers of growth are forecasted to be the following:

1. Overall rising income level, particularly of the middle class.

2. Increase in life-style related diseases.

3. Change in demographic pattern with increase in life expectancy.

4. Greater penetration in the rural markets.

5. Increasing penetration of health insurance.

6. Increase in government expenditure towards healthcare.

A quick snapshot of ‘Drug Policy’ changes:

With the initiation of globalization process in 1991, many significant steps have been taken by the government for the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Along with reduction in the span of price control of drugs, reservation of some drugs for the public sector was withdrawn and private sector was allowed to manufacture all types of drugs. Although industrial licensing for pharmaceuticals was abolished, for bulk drugs the system is still in force. Foreign investments through automatic route was first raised to 74 percent and then to 100 percent.

The product patent regime with the introduction of the Patents Act 2005 ushered in a paradigm shift in the pharmaceutical landscape of India. Almost simultaneously, on in-house research and development, the facility of weighted deduction of 150 percent (though inadequate) to cover expenditure towards R&D, patent filing, regulatory approvals and clinical trials was a welcome step. These steps, howsoever good, were considered to be not good enough by a large section within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The need for some more key changes:

The reform initiatives as enunciated in the successive drug policies were considered by the pharmaceutical industry as far from satisfactory. In the era of globalization, where market forces play a dominant role to control prices including of essential commodities like, food grains, the rigors of stringent price control on pharmaceuticals need to have a relook urgently. This was re-inforced even in the ‘National Economic Survey Report of 2009′.

Moreover, considering the new product patent regime is well in place since January 2005, to foster and encourage innovation within the country, there is an immediate need to take robust fiscal measures and offer attractive financial incentives for indigenous pharmaceutical R&D initiatives.

Simultaneous reform measures are warranted in the health insurance sector:

It is worth mentioning, effective penetration of health insurance being one of the key growth drivers of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, adequate and immediate reform measures in this area is necessary to respond to the need of a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of the society. This should work in tandem with the new drug policy measures.

The health insurance sector is growing, but not to the extent that it should. Health insurance premiums had grown to around U.S$ 800 million as on 2007 and are expected to reach around U.S$ 4.5 billion by 2013. Entry of more private health insurance players along with a reformed health insurance regulatory policy, is expected to expedite the growth rate of this important sector further.

Achievements against each key objective areas of the drug policy, thus far:

In the Drug Policy 1986 the basic objectives of policies relating to drugs were clearly enunciated. But the question is: have the objectives of the successive drug policies yielded the desirable outcome? Let us have a reality check as follows:

1. Objective: To ensure abundant availability of medicines at reasonable price and quality for mass consumption.

Reality: 65 percent of the population of the country still do not have access to modern medicines

2. Objective: To strengthen the domestic capability for cost effective, quality production and exports of pharmaceuticals by reducing trade barriers in the pharmaceutical sector.

Reality: The country has been able to make good progress in this area.

3. Objective: To strengthen the system of quality control over drug and pharmaceutical production and distribution.

Reality: The quality of all medicines produced in the country against valid manufacturing license still raises a big concern. Even the government of India while purchasing medicines for its own ‘Jan Ausadhi’ outlets, restricts purchases of medicines only upto a certain category of pharmaceutical manufacturers, for product quality reasons.

4. Objective: To encourage R&D in the pharmaceutical industry in a manner compatible with the country’s need and with particular focus on diseases endemic or relevant to India by creating conducive environment.

Reality: Nothing worth mentioning has been done in this area.

5. Objective: To create an incentive framework for the pharmaceutical industry, which promotes new investment into the industry and encourage introduction of new technology and new drugs?

Reality: Again nothing significant has been done by the government in this area.

Conclusion:

The role and objectives of the drug policy should help accelerating the all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and make it a force to reckon with in the global pharmaceutical industry. The drug policy is surely not formulated only to implement rigorous price control of drugs. The policy formulates other key objectives to contribute significantly towards achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation, working closely with other related ministries of the government.

Unfortunately, it has not been able to keep pace with the globalization process of the country as compared to the other industries, also dealing with the essential commodities. The amended Indian Patents Act came into force in India in 2005. The drug policy of India, for various reasons, has not been able to articulate, as yet, specific measures to encourage innovation, giving a new thrust to the pharmaceutical R&D space of the nation.

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.

‘Medical Outsourcing’ – a fast evolving area in the healthcare space with high business potential.

Posted on by
Reply
Medical outsourcing is an evolving area in the global healthcare space. It can offer immense opportunity to India, if explored appropriatly with a carefully worked out strategic game plan from the very nascent stage of its evolution process. This sector could indeed be a high potential one in terms of its significant financial attractiveness by 2015.
Key components of medical outsourcing:

The following four basic components constitute the medical outsourcing industry:

• Healthcare providers: Hospitals, mainly corporate hospitals and doctors

• Payer: Medical/ Health insurance companies

• Pharmaceutical Companies

• IT companies operating in the healthcare space

So far as payers are concerned, currently they are primarily involved in the data entry work, the present market of which in India is estimated to be around U.S$ 100 million.

Key drivers and barriers for growth:

The world class cost-effective private sector healthcare services are expected to drive the growth of the medical outsourcing sector in India. However, shortages in the talent pool and inadequate infrastructure like roads, airports and power could pose to be the major barriers to growth.

At present, majority of medical outsourcing is done by the US followed by the UK and the Gulf countries.

How is this market growing?

Medical Tourism, by itself, is not a very recent phenomenon all over the world. Not so long ago for various types of non-essential interventions like, cosmetic surgeries, people from the developed world used to look for cheaper destinations with relatively decent healthcare facilities like, India, Thailand etc.

Now with the spiraling increase in the cost of healthcare, many people from the developed world, besides those who are underinsured or uninsured have started looking for similar destinations for even very essential medical treatments like cardiac bypass surgery, knee replacement, heap bone replacements, liver and kidney transplants, to name just a few.

Significant cost advantage in India with world class care:

It has been reported that for a cardiac bypass surgery, a patient from abroad will require to pay just around U.S$ 10,000 in India, when the same will cost not less than around U.S$ 130,000 in the US. These patients not only get world class healthcare services, but also are offered to stay in high-end ‘luxury’ hospitals fully equipped with the latest television set, refrigerator and even in some cases a personal computer. All these are specially designed to cater to the needs of such groups of patients.

Recently ‘The Washington Post’ reported that the mortality rate after a cardiac bypass surgery is better in Indian private hospitals than their equivalents in the USA.

An irony:

It is indeed an irony that while such private hospitals in India are equipped to provide world class healthcare facilities for their medical outsourcing business and also to the rich and super rich Indians, around 65 percent of Indian population still does not have access to affordable modern medicines in the country.

Is the government indirectly funding the private medical outsourcing services in India?

In India, from around 1990, the government, to a great extent, changed its role from ‘healthcare provider’ to ‘healthcare facilitator’. As a result private healthcare facilities started receiving various types of government support and incentives (Sengupta, Amit and Samiran Nundy, “The Private Health Sector in India,” The British Journal of Medical Ethics 331 (2005): 1157-58).

While availing medical outsourcing services in India, the overseas patients although are paying for the services that they are availing from the private hospitals, such payments, it has been reported, only partially fund the private hospitals. If such is the case, then the question that we need to answer: Are these medical tourists also sharing the resources and benefits earmarked for the Indian nationals?

Conclusion:

Due to global economic meltdown many business houses in the developed world are under a serious cost containment pressure, which includes the medical expenses for their employees. Such cost pressure prompts them to send their employees to low cost destinations for treatment, without compromising on the quality of their healthcare needs.

Other countries in quite close proximity to ours like, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia are offering tough competition to India in the medical outsourcing space. However, superior healthcare services with a significant cost advantage at world class and internationally accredited facilities, treated by foreign qualified doctors, supported by English speaking support staff and equipped with better healthcare related IT services, will only accelerate this trend in favor of India. In this ball game it surely is, ‘Advantage 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.