Category Archives: Blog

Finance Ministry Disallows Expenses on ‘Freebies’ to Doctors by Pharma Companies in line with MCI Guidelines: A Possible Game Changer?

Posted on by
Reply

Things are unfolding reasonably faster now related to the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Last month, around middle of July, most of the leading English business dailies of India reported that much-awaited “Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)” authored by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, quite in line with the amended guidelines for the medical profession by the Medical Council of India (MCI), is expected to be notified by the government by August, 2012 for implementation by the entire pharmaceutical industry on a voluntary basis for six months, to start with.

Department of Revenue now steps in:

Closely following the recent series of events, it now appears that there is a good possibility of framing a robust financial regulation by the Government of India to make the disclosure of all payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ mandatory, like the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the USA’.

I reckon, this is just a matter of time that similar steps are taken in India, perhaps in stages.

CBDT disallows expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors:

However, taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses.

MCI Guidelines are the basis:

The above decision of the CBDT is based on the notification of the Medical Council of India (MCI) dated December 10, 2009 amending the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002”, prohibiting the medical practitioners and their professional associations from taking any gift, travel facility, hospitality, cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. Amended guidelines of the MCI came into force with effect from December 14, 2009.

Areas of stricter MCI regulations: The above notification of MCI clearly specifies stricter regulations for doctors in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry and associations’ in the following areas: 1. Gifts 2. Travel facilities 3. Hospitality 4. Cash or Monetary grants 5. Medical Research 6. Maintaining Professional Autonomy 7. Affiliation 8. Endorsement

Tax Assessing Officers have also been instructed:

Based on this amendment, CBDT has now decided that all claims related to expenses incurred in providing the above mentioned or similar ‘freebies’ in violation of the provisions of Regulations 2002 of the MCI on ‘Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics’ of the doctors, shall now be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law.

This disallowance shall be made in the hands of all such pharmaceutical or allied health sector industries or other assesses which have provided the ‘freebies’ mentioned above and claimed it as deductible business expenses in their respective accounts against income.

CBDT has directed its assessing officers, with the above circular, to follow this new practice.

CBDT Circular:

“INADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING FREEBEES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PHARMACEUTICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH SECTOR INDUSTRY

CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 [F. NO. 225/142/2012-ITA.II], DATED 1-8-2012

It has been brought to the notice of the Board that some pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries are providing freebees (freebies) to medical practitioners and their professional associations in violation of the regulations issued by Medical Council of India (the ‘Council’) which is a regulatory body constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956.

2. The council in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the regulations) on 10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries.

3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. However, the explanation appended to this sub-section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offense or prohibited by law.

Thus, the claim of any expense incurred in providing above mentioned or similar freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assesse which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductible expense in its accounts against income.

4. It is also clarified that the sum equivalent to value of freebees enjoyed by the aforesaid medical practitioner or professional associations is also taxable as business income or income from other sources as the case may be depending on the facts of each case. The Assessing Officers of such medical practitioner or professional associations should examine the same and take an appropriate action.

This may be brought to the notice of all the officers of the charge for necessary action.”

The turning point:

In 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that “the evil practice” of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India had no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.’

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO that “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, it now appears that the new ball game of working out winning pharmaceutical marketing strategies and practices will no longer be driven by more of a ‘deep pocket’ syndrome and less of ‘cerebral power’, by all concerned.

If the new regulations are implemented effectively by the Government, I shall not be surprised to witness a dramatic change in the prescription share of various companies in the next 3 to 5 years, thereby impacting the ranking of these companies in the Indian pharmaceutical industry league table significantly, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the name of the game in the pharmaceutical marketing space, in not too distant future, is expected to be decided by the winning innovative ideas, whose time has just become ripe.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

e-Patients: Quality and Cost Empowered Patients Will Help Reducing Healthcare Costs in India Significantly

Posted on by
Reply

Currently many important stakeholders of the healthcare industry, reportedly, are using or rather exploiting the individual patients not just to derive petty commercials gains, but also for quite significant strategic commercial advantages, mainly due to ignorance or helplessness of a large section of the ailing population of India.

The Lancet:

A relatively recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, states in a similar, though not exactly the same context, as follows: 1. “Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.” 2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.” 3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.” Considering the above critical issues of India, as reported by ‘The Lancet’, it is rather apparent that these stakeholders could be doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, pharmaceutical industry, even activists and politicians. It is unfortunate that they all, sometime or the other use the patients as pawns to achieve their respective commercial or political goals or to achieve competitive gains of various types prompted by vested interests.

e-Patients:

e-Patients or empowered patients can play a very important role in India to take this raging bull by its horn to liberate themselves from such kind of a pathetic environmental condition.

The term e-Patients may be defined as those who seek or are encouraged to seek information regarding various therapeutic options, which will enable them to actively participate in the decision making process on whether or how to undergo a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure at the right cost or the pros and cons of pursuing other available alternatives.

In this sense, a large majority of patients in India are not empowered at all with health and disease related information. Despite unprecedented access to health related information in the cyberspace and elsewhere, not only a large section of the industry, but also majority within the medical profession, in general, does not seem to quite believe in the concept of e-Patients, as yet.

Though all concerned speak and even pontify about ‘Patient Centric’ approaches, at the ground level, most of them do not seem to walk the talk for tangible benefits of the patients.

In this context the news appeared earlier this month reporting  that patients would soon be able to find the most affordable alternative to the medicine prescribed by the doctors through an SMS-based service, is a breath of fresh air.

The report stated, “The government plans to cover at least two-thirds of the prescription market through this scheme, which would include all widely used therapies like anti-infectives, painkillers, respiratory and gastro-intestinal drugs.”

This initiative, if becomes successful, can certainly be termed as one of the praiseworthy e-Patient related schemes of the Government.

Role of the Civil Society along with the Government:

Under the prevailing scenario, the government and the civil society, in tandem, should encourage creation of more and more e-Patients by making them understand how the healthcare system is currently working on the ground, what and which are the key obstacles in getting reasonably decent healthcare support in India and what should be done to uproot these barriers in civilized ways.

A movement yet to gather its full steam:

e-Patient movement first started in America in the 70’s, which asserts that for truly healthy living, one should get engaged in transforming the social situation and environment affecting their lives, demanding a greater say in their treatment process and observing the following tenets:

Patients’ choice and lifestyle cannot be dictated by others.

  • ‘Patient empowerment’ is necessary even for preventive medicines to be effective.
  • Patients, just like any other consumers, have the right to make their own choices.

The ‘Empowered Patient’ should always play the role of a participating partner in the healthcare process.

e-Patients will help reducing the growing trust-deficit:

In today’s world, the distrust of patients on the healthcare system, pharmaceutical companies and the drug regulators, is growing all over the world, including in India. This situation makes an e- Patient resolve to actively participate in the decision making process of his/her required medical treatment.

Under the above circumstances, other stakeholders will have no other option but to take a ‘Patient-Centric’ posture in its real sense, the seeds of which are slowly and gradually being sown in India, as cited above.

In India, as ‘out-of-pocket’ healthcare expenses are skyrocketing, in the absence of a comprehensive and affordable universal health  coverage, e- Patients’ will increasingly demand to know more of not only the available treatment choices, but also about the medicine prescriptions options.

e-patients will prompt a change in basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies:

Not so long ago, to generate increasing prescription demand and influence the prescription decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies used to provide product information to the medical profession through various persuasive means of the sales forces along with samples and a variety gifts, besides meeting their unmet needs with innovative medicines.

The above approach though still working well in India, will no longer fetch desired results to the pharmaceutical companies, as we move on, just as what is happening in the developed markets of the world.

e- Patients have already started demanding much more from the pharma players even through their doctors. As a result, many global companies are now cutting down on their sales force size to try to move away from just hard selling by gaining more time from the doctors.  They have started taking new initiatives to open up a chain of direct communication with their primary and secondary customers with an objective to know more about them to satisfy them better.

In future, growing number of e-Patients is expected to prompt a radical change in the basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies. At that time, so called ‘Patient-Centric’ companies of today will have no choice but to walk the talk.

Consequently, they will have to willy-nilly switch from the ‘hard-selling mode’ to a new process of achieving business excellence through constant endeavor to satisfy both the expressed and the un-expressed needs of the patients, not just with innovative products, but more with innovative and caring services.

Growing influence of e-patients in their healthcare decision making process:

In the years ahead, growing number of e- Patients is expected to play an important role in their healthcare decision making process, initially in urban India, ensuring further improvement not just in the public and private healthcare systems, but also in inviting the pharmaceutical industry to be a part of that changing process.

In the book titled, “The Empowered Patient: How to Get the Right Diagnosis, Buy the Cheapest Drugs, Beat Your Insurance Company, and Get the Best Medical Care Every Time”, Elizabeth Cohen articulated as follows:

“The facts are alarming. Medical errors kill more people each year than AIDS, breast cancer or car accidents. A doctor’s relationship with pharmaceutical companies may influence his choice of drugs for you. The wrong key word on an insurance claim can deny you coverage.”

‘USA Today’ dated August 31, 2010 in an article titled, “More empowered patients question doctors’ orders,” reported:

‘In the past, most patients placed their entire trust in the hands of their physician. Your doc said you needed a certain medical test, you got it. Not so much anymore.’ 

Unfortunately in India, the pace of this change is rather slow as on date. All stakeholders of the healthcare industry need to think now more of inclusive growth, not just the commercial growth of the respective organizations, which could further widen the socioeconomic divide in India, creating numbers of serious social issues. As we know, this divide has already started widening at a brisk pace, especially in the healthcare sector of the country, the impact of which we have started reading in the media much too often now.

Influence of e-patients in the R&D process:

Reinhard Angelmar, the Salmon and Rameau Fellow in Healthcare Management and Professor of Marketing at INSEAD, was quoted saying that ‘Empowered Patients’ can make an impact even before the drug is available to them.

He cited instances of how the empowered breast cancer patients in the US played a crucial role not only in diverting funds from the Department of Defense to breast cancer research, but also in expediting the market authorization and improving market access of various other drugs.

Angelmar stated that e- Patients of the UK were instrumental in getting NICE, their watchdog for cost-effectiveness of medicines, to change its position on the Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) drug Lucentis of Novartis and approve it for wider use than originally contemplated by them.

e-Patients have started influencing the global pharma companies:

To respond to the challenges of change posed by the e-Patients, pharmaceutical companies, especially in the US and Europe are in the process of developing a more direct relationship with the patients (consumers). Creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks may help to address this issue effectively.

For example, Becton, Dickinson and Co. created a web-based patient-engagement initiative called “Diabetes Learning Center” for the patients, not just to describe the causes of diabetes, but also to explain its symptoms and complications. From the website a patient can also learn how to inject insulin, along with detailed information about blood-glucose monitoring. They can even participate in interactive quizzes, download educational literature and learn through animated demonstrations about diabetes-care skills.

To cite one more example, companies like, Novo Nordisk is developing a vibrant patient community named ‘Juvenation’, which is a peer-to-peer social group of individuals suffering from Type 1 diabetes. This program was launched by the company in November 2008 and now the community has over 16,000 members, as available in its ‘Facebook’ page.

Some other Pharmaceutical Companies, who are in the process of engaging with the customers through social media like Twitter, are Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and Merck.

Conclusion:

Since the last few years, especially in the developed countries of the world, pharmaceutical companies have been talking about being ‘Patient Interest-Centric’ to ride squarely the increasingly powerful tide of ‘Patient Empowerment’ in their endeavor to satisfy the assertive demands of the new generation of healthcare consumers – the e-Patients.

However, in many cases the prevailing healthcare provisions, its structure and culture, together with stiff resistance of the regulators to let the industry engage directly with the patients, have inhibited the ‘Patient Interest-Centric’ intent of the stakeholders to take off the ground in a meaningful way.

At the same time, the aggressive marketing focus of the pharmaceutical industry and blatant commercialization of the system by the healthcare professionals, have more often than not failed to translate the good intent of ‘Patient Interest-Centric’ healthcare process into reality.

Increasing general awareness and rapid access to information on diseases, products and the cost-effective treatment processes through internet, in addition to fast communication within the patients/groups through social media like, ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ by more and more patients, I reckon, are expected to show the results of creation of more number of e-Patients in India.

As reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), at the First European Conference on ‘Patient Empowerment’ held in Copenhagen, Denmark on 11–12 April 2012, Robert Johnstone of the International Alliance of Patient Organizations said:

“What needs to happen is for doctors to come down off their pedestal and for patients to get up off their knees.”

To reduce healthcare costs significantly in India, let the government together with the civil society accelerate the process of creating more and more e-Patients – Quality and Cost-Empowered Patients in the country, avoiding any further delay. In that endeavor likes of SMS based services, as stated above, are expected to be just the small steps before a giant leap is taken towards this direction.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

“Pharmaceutical Marketing Malpractices are Barriers to Healthcare Access” – The Relevance of Government Code of Ethical Marketing Practices in India

Posted on by
Reply

Last week (July 19, 2012), most of the leading English business dailies of India reported that much-awaited “Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)” authored by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, quite in line with the amended guidelines for the Medical Profession by the Medical Council of India (MCI), is expected to be notified by the government next month for implementation by the entire pharmaceutical industry on a voluntary basis, to start with.

This is only because the draft UCPMP has already specified the following:

“This is a voluntary code of Marketing Practices for Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, for the present and its implementation will be reviewed after a period of six months from the date of its coming into force and if it is found that it has not been implemented effectively by the Pharma Associations/Companies, the Government would consider making it a statutory code.”

This decision of the government is the culmination of a series of events, covered widely by the various sections of the media, at least, since 2004.

The series of events:

Way back, in its January – March, 2004 issue, ‘Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME)’ in the context of marketing practices for ethical pharmaceutical products in India commented: “If the one who decides, does not pay and the one who pays, does not decide and if the one who decides is ‘paid’, will truth stand any chance?” Three years later in 2007, the situation remained unchanged when IJME (April – June 2007 edition) once again reported: “Misleading information, incentives, unethical trade practices were identified as methods to increase the prescription and sales of drugs. Medical Representatives provide incomplete medical information to influence prescribing practices; they also offer incentives including conference sponsorship. Doctors may also demand incentives, as when doctors’ associations threaten to boycott companies that do not comply with their demands for sponsorship.”

‘The Times of India’ also reported the following in its December 15, 2008 edition:

“1. More drugs a doctor prescribes of a specific company, greater are the chances of his/ her winning a car, a high-end fridge or a TV set. 2. Drug companies dole out free trips with family to exotic destinations like Turkey or Kenya. 3. In the West, unethical marketing practices attract stiff penalties. 4. In India, there are only vague assurances of self-regulation by the drug industry and reliance on doctors’ ethics”.

Thus, it has been quite a while from now, serious concerns are being expressed by the media, government and the civil society at large about the means adopted by the pharmaceutical industry in general to get their respective brands prescribed by the doctors.

The discontentment still growing:

Many within the civil society feel, as a result of fast degradation of ethical standards, moral and the noble values, just in many other areas of public life, in the healthcare space as well, the patients in general have started losing their absolute faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies, by and large. However, health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest against the vested interests.

Growing discontentment of the patients both in the private and public healthcare space in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media all over the world, including reputed medical journals like, ‘The Lancet’ to help arrest this moral and ethical decay with demonstrable and tangible proactive measures.

The issue:

The entire issue arises out of the key factor that the patients do not have any say on the use/purchase of a medicine brand/brands that a doctor will prescribe.

It is generally believed by the civil society that doctors predominantly prescribe mostly those brands, which are promoted to them by the pharmaceutical companies in various ways.  Thus, in today’s world and particularly in India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services, as reported quite often by the media, has reached a new high, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices at the altar of unlimited greed, want and conspicuous consumption.

A credible international report: Let me now combine this scenario with a relatively recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which states in a similar (though not the same) context, as follows:

1. “Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.” 2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.” 3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.” Considering the above three critical issues of India, as reported in ‘The Lancet’, the need to follow a transparent code of pharmaceutical marketing practices by the entire pharmaceutical industry is of utmost importance.

A global phenomenon:

Since quite some time, this issue has indeed become a global phenomenon. Many countries, including India, are taking note of such examples of socioeconomic decay, that too in the healthcare sector.

Just the other day, the July 4, 2012 edition of ‘The Guardian’, while reporting that GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3bn (£1.9bn) to settle a series of old criminal and civil investigations by the US authorities into the sales and marketing of some of its best-known products, commented, “GlaxoSmithKline’s bribes are evidence that Big Pharma isn’t working – the inadequacies of relying solely on market forces for our drugs are clearer than ever. This scandal should prompt a rethink.”

The Guardian further commented:

“After all, this has happened before. All the giants – AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer – have been investigated for bribery. One of the most notorious episodes of misconduct involved Merck’s anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 after the company persistently played down its risk of causing cardiovascular problems.”

The New York Times  (NYT) in its April 12, 2010 edition in an article titled, “Data on Fees to Doctors is Called Hard to Parse”, reported that though some big pharmaceutical companies have started disclosing payments to doctors who act as consultants or speakers, many still find it far too difficult to follow the money trail.

NYT reported in the same article, “Senate researchers have found that some prominent doctors at academic medical centers have failed to disclose millions of dollars in drug company payments, despite university requirements that they do so. Federal prosecutors say some payments are really kickbacks for illegal or excessive prescribing”.

General scenario was not much different even in the US until recently:

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, April 26, 2007 reported that virtually, all doctors in the US take freebies from drug companies, and a third take money for lecturing, and signing patients up for trials. The study conducted on 3167 physicians in six specialties (anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine and pediatrics) reported that 94% of the physicians had ‘some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry’, and 83% of these relationships involved receiving food at the workplace and 78% receiving free drug samples. 35% of the physicians received re-reimbursement for cost associated with professional meetings or Continuing Medical Education (CME). And the more influential a doctor was, the greater the likelihood that he or she would be benefiting from a drug company’s largess. As a result of some strict regulatory measures, the situation in the US has presumably started changing now.

However, such issues are not related only to physicians. ‘Scrip’ dated February 6, 2009 published an article titled: “marketing malpractices: an unnecessary burden to bear”. The article commented:

“Marketing practices that seem to be a throwback to a different age continues to haunt the industry. Over the past few months, some truly large sums have been used to resolve allegations in the US of marketing and promotional malpractices by various companies. These were usually involving the promotion of off-label uses for medicines. One can only hope that lessons have been learnt and the industry moves on.”

“As the sums involved in settling these cases of marketing malpractices have become progressively larger, and if companies do not become careful even now, such incidents will not only affect their reputation but financial performance too.”

‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’:

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate, disclosure of all such payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies has been made mandatory by the Obama administration, as a part of the new US healthcare reform process.

As a result, ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’, originally proposed in 2009 by Iowa Republican Charles Grassley and Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, became a part of the US healthcare law in 2010. This Act came as an integral part of the healthcare reform initiatives of President Obama to reduce healthcare costs and introduce greater transparency in the system.

The Act requires all pharmaceutical and medical device companies of the country to report all payments to doctors above US $10. As stated earlier, the industry’s gifts to physicians in the US, reportedly, can range from expensive hospitality/dinner in exotic locations, pricey golfing vacations in various places of interest to consulting and speaking fees. As the Act came into force with all its rules in place, failure to provide such details will attract commensurate penal provisions.

Australia sets another example: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has decided to grant authorization for five years to Medicines Australia’s 16th edition of its Code of Conduct. The Code sets standards for the marketing and promotion of prescription pharmaceutical products in Australia. The Code provides, among other measures, a standard to address potential conflicts of interest from unrestricted relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the doctors, which may harm the consumers through inappropriate prescriptions. The Code also prohibits the pharmaceutical companies from providing entertainment and extravagant hospitality to doctors with the requirement that all benefits provided by companies should be able to successfully withstand public and professional scrutiny. “The requirement for public disclosure was imposed by the ACCC as a condition of authorization of the previous version of Medicines Australia’s Code and was confirmed on appeal by the Australian Competition Tribunal.” Edition 16 of the Code fully incorporates the public reporting requirements.

“Market malpractices are barriers to healthcare access”: The WHO report of 2006:

A 2006 report of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) and ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India’ titled ‘Options for Using Competition Law/Policy Tools in Dealing  with Anti-Competitive Practices in Pharmaceutical Industry and Health Delivery System, states:

“The right to health is recognized in a number of international legal instruments. In India too, there are constitutional commitments to provide access to healthcare. However despite the existence of any number of paper pledges assuring the right to health, access to health remains a problem across the world”.

“There are several factors that are responsible for such deprivation. Market malpractices in general, and in particular, anti-competitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry and the health delivery system are also among them.”

India Today: 

The current scenario in India though not very much different, in terms of seriousness of the issue, from what is being reported in the US, the evolving regulatory standards in the US in this matter are definitely more robust and far superior to what we see in our country.

In India, over 20, 000 pharmaceutical companies of varying size and scale are currently operating. It has been widely reported in the media that the lack of regulatory scrutiny is prompting many of these companies to adapt to ‘free-for-all’ types of aggressive sales promotion and cut-throat marketing warfare involving significant ‘wasteful’ expenditures. Such practices reportedly involve almost all types of their customer groups, excepting perhaps the ultimate consumer – the patients.

It has been well reported that industry’s gifts to physicians in India can range from expensive cars, dinners in exotic locations, pricey vacations at various places of interest of the world and sometimes with the doctors’ families, to hefty consulting and speaking fees.

Unfortunately in India there is no single government agency, which is accountable to take care of the entire healthcare needs of the patients and their well-being, in a holistic way.

The pharmaceutical industry in India, in general, has already expressed its desire for self-regulation of marketing practices, instead of any regulatory compulsion by the Government.

However, many activists groups and NGOs still feel that the bottom-line in this scenario is the demonstrable transparency by the pharmaceutical companies in their dealings with various customer groups, especially the physicians/doctors.

Ministry of Health blinked first by amending the MCI Guidelines:

Being concerned with the media outcry, MCI, in 2009, amended their guidelines of ‘Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics’ for the doctors, clearly articulating what they can and cannot do during their interaction and transaction with the pharmaceutical and related industries.

MCI, through amendment of the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulation 2002” introduced a new code of conduct for doctors and their professional associations in their relationship with the pharmaceutical and allied industry in India. The amended regulations are known as the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2009 – Part-I”, which prohibit the doctors from accepting, among many others, any travel facility or hospitality, including gifts of any value, from any pharmaceutical companies.

The Ministry of Health believes that these guidelines, if strictly enforced, would severely limit what the doctors can receive from the pharmaceutical companies in terms of free gifts of wide ranging financial value, entertainments, free visits to exotic locations under various commercial reasons, lavish lunch and dinner etc. in exchange of prescribing specific pharmaceutical brands of the concerned companies.

‘Draft Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ from the DoP:

In May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) released a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the Pharmaceutical Industry of India for comments by the stakeholders.

Some Key features of the DoP Code are as follows:

  • All promotional material must be consistent with the requirements of this Code.
  • Brand names of products of other companies must not be used for comparison without prior consent of the concerned companies.
  • Paid or arranged publication of promotional material in journals must not resemble editorial matter.
  • The names or photographs of healthcare professionals must not be used in promotional material.
  • Audio-visual material must be accompanied by all appropriate printed material to ensure compliance of the Code.
  • Samples should be provided directly to prescribing authority and be limited to prescribed dosages for three patients and in response to a signed and dated request from the recipient. Each sample pack shall not be larger than the smallest pack presented in the market.
  • Medical and Educational events for doctors should be organized in the appropriate venue in India and all expenses must be incurred only for the events held in India.
  • Outline of a detailed Complaint Lodging and Redressal mechanism (Committee for Code of Pharma Marketing) to ensure compliance of the marketing code.

The quality of UCPMP:

The UCPMP draft document is well written, balanced and by and large fair. The DoP should indeed be commended on the great work that they have done in putting all details of pharmaceutical marketing practices together in this document in a very comprehensive manner.

Draft UCPMP does not seem to pose any major extra restrictions to the pharmaceutical companies as compared to the MCI guidelines. All concerned should welcome this decision of the DoP, as the same ethical standards will now be applicable to all small, mid-sized and large pharma players, equally. The main focus of the DoP should be in ensuring that all companies across the pharmaceutical industry follow these well-defined standards in their marketing practices and interactions with the doctors.

The draft UCPMP also states that companies must maintain a detailed record of expenditures incurred on these events. It is not quite clear though, as to what extent the pharmaceutical companies are expected to keep these detail records and how long?  It is also not clear whether such records have to be maintained on file by the individual companies and supplied to the DoP only on specific requests for the same or all these details are expected to be disclosed on a regular basis to the regulator.

The draft UCPMP indicates that industry associations must upload full details of received complaints on their respective websites. Although this provision could help making the system transparent, the DoP should clearly articulate the details about the specific information that will require to be disclosed in cases of any proven breach of the marketing code.

It is interesting to note that the draft UCPMP states that media reports and published letters alleging that a company has breached the UCPMP will be treated as complaints.

Skepticism with the UCPMP:

Some are quite skeptical about the effectiveness of UCPMP in containing unethical marketing practices within the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry.

This section of people believes, with thousands of pharmaceutical companies operating in India, just self-control with UCPMP without any properly enforceable stringent Government regulation, will simply not work.

Conclusion:

In all countries and India is no exception, pharmaceutical companies, by and large, have been articulating that they try to follow the legal ways and means to maximize turnover of their respective brands. Many of them do follow transparent and admirable stringent self-regulations, stipulated either by themselves or by their industry associations.

‘Self-regulation with pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some leading global pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this vexing issue. However, the moot question still remains, are all these good enough for the entire industry in India?

It appears, immediately after the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 58th Report on the action taken by the DoP on the recommendations / observations contained in the 45th report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, the DoP has reportedly taken an extra step forward towards this direction last week. The amended MCI regulations for the doctors coupled with the notified UCPMP for the entire pharmaceutical industry should make the financial transactional relationship between the physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in India clean and transparent.

It was also reported  last week that Government will soon decide whether there will be an independent industry appointed ‘Ombudsman’ for the enforcement of UCPMP across the country or the implementation of the code will strictly be monitored under the Government control.

It is worth reiterating that the draft UCPMP very categorically warns, in case the self-control with UCPMP by the industry appointed independent ‘Ombudsman’ does not work effectively, the Government would seriously consider making it statutory for the entire pharmaceutical industry of India. This is indeed quite a strong signal from the government to the industry for ‘Shaping Up’… sooner the better.

The popular dictum, especially used by the healthcare industry, “patients’ interest come first”, should not be allowed to be misused or abused, any further, by some unscrupulous elements and greedy profiteers, to squeeze out even the last drop of financial resource from the long exploited population of ailing patients of India, as “Pharmaceutical Marketing Malpractices are Proven Barriers to Healthcare Access”.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

‘Free Essential Medicines for All’ – A Laudable Public Healthcare Initiative of India, Tough Challenges Notwithstanding

Posted on by
Reply

Recently the Government of India has taken a landmark ‘Public Healthcare’ related initiative to provide unbranded generic formulations of all essential drugs, featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011’, free of cost to all patients from the public hospitals and dispensaries, across the country.

This social sector project is expected to roll out, as reported in the media, from October/November this year with a cost of around US$ 5 billion during the 12th Five Year Plan period of the country.

Considering medicines account for around 70% of the total ‘Out of Pocket’ expenses, this particular initiative is expected to benefit, especially the poorer patients, significantly.

Recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee:

Noting the keen interest of the Government for speedier implementation of this scheme, it appears that the Ministry of Health has accepted the recommendations made by the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) for Health and Family Welfare’ to the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, regarding prescription of medicines by their generic names in the Public hospitals and dispensaries, to start with.

In this context, it is worth noting that the ‘Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB)’ has also reportedly considered the proposal to amend the rules of the ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India’ for regulatory approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient in the generic names by all State Licensing Authorities.

This recommendation of the  PSC is based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs includes a very high sales and marketing expenditure.

The Committee felt that by putting in place a well structured policy such ‘avoidable’ expenditures can easily be eliminated making generic medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

The scheme is new for India, but other countries have already taken similar steps:

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government recently enacted a law compelling the doctors in Spain to prescribe generic drugs instead of more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drug costs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain require prescribing only in the generic or chemical names of such drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Product quality of generic/ generics and branded generics:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic/generic and branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance standards. Thus when a generic/generic medicine is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically expect that it has met with the required standards set for the identity, strength, quality, purity and potency of the chemical substance.

It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during their manufacturing process and all formulations of both the categories produced by different manufacturers may not also contain exactly the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, both generic/generic and branded generic drugs must be shown to be bio-equivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will also be the same.

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, “A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21)2514-2526]”.

Generic drugs are prescribed more, even in America:

As per published reports, generic medicines account for around 78% of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. For example, in 2010 generic prescriptions were four percentage points more than what these were in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Capacity constraints could hold back full implementation of the Indian initiative:

Huge shortages in the number doctors, nurses, paramedics and hospital beds per 10,000 population in India will pose a tough challenge for speedier implementation of ‘Free medicines for all’ project in the country. India should respond to its healthcare infrastructure developmental needs much faster now than ever before to achieve its objective of providing ‘healthcare to all’, sooner.

Overall impact of the scheme:

I reckon, this new scheme will hasten the overall growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as poor patients who could not afford will now have access to essential medicines. On the other hand, rapidly growing middle class population will continue to favor branded generic drugs prescribed by the doctors at the private hospitals and clinics.

Some people are apprehending that generic drug makers will have brighter days as the project starts rolling on. This apprehension is based on the assumption that large branded generic players will be unable to take part in this big ticket drug procurement process of the Government.

However, in my view, it could well be a win-win situation for all types of players in the industry, where both the generic/generic and branded generic businesses will continue to grow simultaneously, because of the reasons as mentioned above.

That said procedural delays and drug quality issues while procuring cheaper generics may pose to be a great challenge for the Government to ensure speedier implementation of this project. Drug regulatory and law enforcing authorities will require to be extremely vigilant to ensure that while sourcing cheaper generic drugs, “Public health and safety” due to quality issues do not get compromised in any way.

How long will it take?

Full implementation of ‘Universal healthcare’ projects takes considerable time in any country. China has taken a long time for its roll-out covering even a larger population than India. Even Mexico has reportedly taken more than seven years for implementation of similar public healthcare initiative.

Thus, I guess, though it is quite possible for India to offer ‘Free Essential Medicines’ to its 1.13 billion people, it may take a decade long efforts for the country to reach out to the entire population.

Are generic/generic drugs really cheaper than their branded generic equivalents?

The recommendation of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ on this issue, as stated above, makes sense for India. However, the moot question, which is the basis of choosing generic/generic drugs over their branded generic equivalents, still remains as follows:

“Are the generic/generic drugs really cheaper than their branded generic equivalents in India?”

From the MRPs, as printed on the packs of both branded generic and the generic/generic formulations, it appears that this basic assumption may not hold good universally across the country.

Following examples will vindicate this point:

Molecule

Product

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Telmisartan 40 mg Branded Generic

Telmiline 40 mg

John SmithKline

M111622

14/-
Generic/Generic

Generic

Unichem

BTL(11/11001)

30/-

 

Molecule

Brand/ Generic

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Rosuvastatin 10 mg Branded Generic

Rosufine

Morpen

P20472

13.20
Generic/Generic

Generic

Sharon Bio-Medicines

AC-2159

16/-

 

Molecule

Brand/ Generic

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Cetirizine HCL 10 mg Branded Generic

Cetfast

Elder

CO81810

2.50
Generic/Generic

Generic

Ra Biotech

CT 016B

3/-

 

Molecule

Brand/ Generic

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Nimesulide 100 mg Branded Generic

NICIP

Cipla

-

2.53
Generic/Generic

Generic

Themis

-

3/-

 

Molecule

Brand/ Generic

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Amlodipine 5 mg Branded Generic

Aginal 5

Alkem

-

2.48
Generic/Generic

Generic

Sandoz

-

2.70

 

Molecule

Brand/ Generic

Company

Batch No.

Price Per Tab.
Ampicillin 500 Branded Generic

Ampisyn

Cipla

-

6.40
Generic/Generic

Generic

SGS

-

7.50

As on July 6, 2012

Let me hasten to add, it is quite possible to present another set of examples, which may show that the MRPs of generic/generic drugs are lesser than the comparable branded generics.

However, the bottom-line is, it will not be fair to comment that MRPs of generic/generic drugs, which do not include any expenditure towards ‘brand-building’, are always significantly lesser than their branded generic counterparts as shown above.

Why are MRPs of generic/generics and branded generics not much different?

It is a general perception, as stated above, that ‘Brand Building’ exercise for generic drugs in India includes a very high component of ‘sales and marketing expenditures’ which are built into the price, making MRPs of the branded generic formulations significantly higher than their generic/generic equivalents.

However, it will not be realistic to accept that generic/generic drugs are not promoted at all, in any form, by the concerned manufacturers. The fact is, in case of generic/generic medicines almost the same amount that is spent on ‘sales and marketing’ for branded generic drugs, is passed on to the retail chemists by their manufacturers as huge incentives for promotion and substitution of such drugs by the respective pharmacies.

Thus, in a large number of cases the patients do not get any significant pricing benefit for buying generic/generic drugs against doctors’ prescriptions instead of branded generics from the retail outlets. 

Conclusion:

In the prevailing scenario, the decision of the Government to procure and distribute only the generic/generic essential medicines through public hospitals/dispensaries simply on pricing ground, keeping the branded generics at bay, is indeed intriguing.

From the data presented above, it will be quite reasonable to believe that MRPs being similar, the ‘sales and marketing’ costs for branded generics are quite comparable to hefty discounts being passed on to the wholesalers and retail chemists by the manufacturers of generic/generic drugs.

Hence, in the balance of probability, a branded generic product can well compete with its genuine generic/generic equivalent, even on pricing ground, in the government procurement process.

Thus, to be fair to the pharmaceutical companies, across the board, the government should invite all generic manufacturers selling their products with or without brand names to participate in the public procurement process and thereafter make the final purchase decisions based on well laid out and transparent criteria, which can stand scrutiny of the strictest audit. 

That said, I fully recognize that the participation in the public procurement process of essential medicines, will indeed be the business decision of individual  companies. If it makes commercial sense, there is no reason why large companies, including the multinationals, will not participate in this laudable project of the Government.

The record of the Government in the implementation of various social sector projects, thus far, may not be brilliant by any measure. Despite that, it does make enough sense for all of us to be rather optimistic about this well hyped ‘Free Essential Medicines for all’ project of India, considering the immense benefits that the common man will derive out of it.

For the effective implementation of the project, the government should now get adequately prepared with required wherewithal, put in place world class skill-sets by partnering with private domain experts wherever required and chart the pathway of success with clearly assigned accountability to each individual responsible for translating this grand ‘Public Healthcare’ initiative of India into reality .

By: Tapan J Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Pharma industry is going through a consolidation process:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Acquisitions of Indian companies:

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

Year Indian Companies Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

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

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

Key apprehensions on FDI in pharma and the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apprehension 3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

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

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

  1. Each branded generic/ generic molecule (constituting over 99% of the IPM) has not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound.
  2. 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, around 20% under cost based price control as per DPCO 95 and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism with a maximum annual price increase cap being effectively in place.

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

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

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

Investments through ‘Collaborative deals’:

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

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

Bayer

Cadila Healthcare

MSD

Sun Pharma

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

Positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries:

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

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

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

Many countries are trying hard to attract FDI:

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

Access to generic medicines cannot be improved by restricting FDI:

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

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

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

“ Protectionism is harmful”:

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

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

India now needs to ‘Walk the Talk’.

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Some reports:

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

  • A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
  • A February, 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15% – 20% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
  • Another recent report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted, “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

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

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

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

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

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

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

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

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

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

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

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

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

It raises more questions than answers:

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

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

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

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

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

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

Ongoing WHO debate: 

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

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

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

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

Three emerging views:

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

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

The role of WHO:

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

A Rational Approach:

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

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

Countries already approached WHO:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on by
Reply

How much to charge for a drug?

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

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

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

An evolving rational system of drug pricing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A contrarian view:

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

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

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

Pharmaceutical Price Control has assumed global importance:

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

Evolving Pharmaceutical pricing models:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Kaleidoscope of Drug Price Control across the world:

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

Price Control in Germany:

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

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

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

Price Control in Spain:

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

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

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

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

New Price Control mechanism in the UK:

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

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

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

Price Control in France:

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

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

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

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

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

Price Control in Australia:

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

Price Control in China:

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

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

Pricing mechanism in Singapore:

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

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

Price control in Japan:

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

Price Control in Brazil:

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

Price Control in Russia:

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

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

A damning article from “Los Angeles Times”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Compulsory Licensing (CL) – A perspective:

World Trade Organization (WTO) defines CL as follows:

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

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

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

The key purpose of CL: 

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

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

Can CL be granted only in an Emergency situation?

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

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

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

China was preparing for it since 2008-09: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some other countries have already issued CL:

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

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

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

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

A key Chinese concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A subtle difference: 

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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.