Abbott – Piramal deal: the way future is expected to shape up

Posted on by
Reply

In my view, these are still very early days for such acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. However, there is no doubt that in the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space.

Squeezing margin due to cut-throat domestic and international competition may affect future valuation of the domestic companies:

I reckon, the number of such high profile mergers and acquisitions will significantly increase, as and when the valuation of domestic Indian companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the domestic players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
Abbott possibly has a well-structured game plan for seemingly high valuation of the deal:
Having said that let me point out, during Ranbaxy-Daiichi Sankyo deal, analysts felt that the valuation of the deal was quite high. US $ 3.7 billion Abbott – Piramal deal has far exceeded even that valuation. Does this deal not make any business sense? I do not think so. Abbott is a financially savvy seasoned player in the M&A space. It is very unlikely that they will enter into any deal, which will not have any strategic and financial business sense.

Big ticket Indian Pharma deals:

So far India has seen four such major deals starting from Ranbaxy – Daiichi Sankyo, Dabur Pharma – Fresenius, Matrix – Myalan and Orchid – Hospira, besides some global collaborative arrangements, such as, Pfizer with Aurobindo/Claris/Strides GSK with DRL, AsraZeneca with Torrent and again Abbott with Zydus Cadila.

Key drivers for these deals:

Such acquisitions and collaborations will be driven by following eight key factors:

1. R&D pipelines of the global innovative companies are drying up
2. Many blockbuster drugs will go off-patent in the near future
3. Cost containment pressure in the western world exerting pressure on the bottom lines
of the global pharma majors
4. Increasing demand of generics in high growth emerging and developing markets
5. The new Healthcare Reform in the US will promote increased usage of generic drugs.
6. The fact that India already produces 20% of the global requirement for generic drugs
increases the attractiveness.
7. The fact of domestic Indian companies account for 35% of ANDAs highlights the future
potential of the respective companies.
8. Highest number of US-FDA approved plants, next to the US, is located in India.

A strategic move by Abbott:

As announced by Abbott from its headquarter in Chicago that Abbott in India will increase its sales four times to around Rs. 11,000 Crores by 2020 with the acquisition of 350 brands of ‘Piramal Healthcare’ business.

Facing the stark reality of a ‘patent Cliff’, cost containment pressures especially in the US and EU, low single digit growth rate of the developed markets and high growth of branded generic dominated emerging markets, Abbott has taken a new global initiative aimed at the emerging markets with the creation of its global ‘Established Products’ Business’. This initiative started with worth US $ 6.2 billion acquisition of branded generic business of Solvay Pharma, which has a sizeable presence in the EU markets.
Recently announced licensing agreement of Abbott with Zydus Cadila to market 24 products initially in 15 emerging markets of the world is another step towards this direction.

Advantage Abbott India:

The asset based acquisition of ‘Piramal Healthcare’ by Abbott will help its Indian arm to increase its domestic market penetration, significantly, both for branded generic and patented products in urban, semi-urban and rural markets spearheaded by around 7000 strong sales force. This strategy perhaps will also help Abbott in India distancing itself from the number 2, in the Indian Pharma league table, probably with a handsome margin.

Global players want a risk-cover with the generic business and minimize tough competition:

Like Abbott, it is quite likely that other major global players are also planning to reduce their business risks by expanding the business from mainly high risk and expensive R&D intensive patented products to a more predictable and rapidly expanding branded generic business.

Will such move have any significant effect on competition?

Such M&A initiatives may seemingly minimize the cut throat competition from large generic players from India. However, I do not envisage any significant impact on over all competition between the generic players for such moves, as their will be mounting competition from more number of new entrants and emerging players, entry barrier in Indian generic pharmaceutical market being quite low.

Conclusion:

In the globalized economy where the ‘world is flat’ such types of business consolidation initiatives are inevitable. The domestic Indian companies across the industry are also in the prowl for suitable global targets, which are at times of world class ‘Crown Jewels’ like Arcelor, Chorus or Jaguar/Land Rover. Pharmaceutical industry is, therefore, no exception.

By Tapan Ray

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

MCI has been dissolved but the guidelines to doctors must remain, carefully sanitizing the ambiguities within the process

Posted on by
Reply

The recent developments within the MCI are indeed very disturbing and were definitely avoidable, if appropriate checks and balances were in place within the system. Even after the immediate ‘damage control measures’ by the Government, I reckon, the stigma on the credibility of MCI, may continue to haunt the institution, for a reasonably long time. The steps taken by the government, so far, are definitely necessary.

The new board appointed by the Ministry of Health, we expect, will work out an appropriate policy framework not only to restore the credibility of MCI, but also to put in place enough measures to prevent repetition of blatant misuse of power by the vested interests, in future.

The other side of it:

In today’s India, blatant commercialization of the noble healthcare services has reached its nadir, as it were, sacrificing the ethics and etiquettes both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices at the altar of unlimited greed. As a result of fast degradation of ethical standards and most of the noble values supposed to be deeply rooted in the healthcare space, the patients in general are losing faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, by and large. Health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest.

Growing discontentment – a stark reality:

Growing discontentment of the patients in the critical area of both private and public healthcare in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media to encourage or rather pressurize all concerned to arrest this moral and ethical decay and reverse the evil trend, without further delay, with some tangible regulatory measures.

It was a laudable move by the MCI, the current fiasco not withstanding:

In such a prevailing situation, recent steps taken by the ‘Medical Council of India (MCI)’ deserves kudos from all corners. It is now up to the medical profession to properly abide by the new regulations on their professional conduct, etiquette and ethics. The pharmaceutical industry of India should also be a party towards conformance of such regulations, may be albeit indirectly.

No room for ambiguity:

The amended MCI regulations, no doubt, are aimed at improving the ethical standards in the medical profession and are expected to achieve the desired objectives. However, in many places the guidelines lack absolute clarity.

Ambiguity, if any, in the MCI regulations, should be addressed through appropriate amendments, in case such action is considered necessary by the experts group and the Ministry of Health. Till then all concerned must ensure its strict compliance… for patients’ sake. The amended MCI regulations are only for the doctors and their professional bodies. Thus it is up to the practicing doctors to religiously follow these regulations without forgetting the ‘Hippocrates oath’ that they had taken while accepting their professional degree to serve the ailing patients.

If these regulations are implemented properly, the medical profession, I reckon, could win back their past glory and the trust of the patients, as their will be much lesser possibility for the patients to get financially squeezed by some unscrupulous elements in this predominantly noble profession.

A concern:

Although the new MCI regulations are steps in the right direction, the pharmaceutical industry, by and large, does have an apprehension that very important and informative ‘continuing medical education (CME)’, which in turn could help the patients immensely, may get adversely impacted with this new regulation; so are the areas involving medical/clinical research and trials.

What is happening in the global pharmaceutical industry?

Just like in India, a public debate has started since quite some time in the US, as well, on allegedly huge sum of money being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to the physicians on various items including free drug samples, professional advice, speaking in seminars, reimbursement of their traveling and entertainment expenses etc. All these, many believe, are done to adversely influence their rational prescription decisions for the patients.

USA:

In the USA ‘The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ has recently revised their code of marketing practices as follows:

• “Prohibits distribution of non-educational items (such as pens, mugs and other “reminder” objects typically adorned with a company or product logo) to healthcare providers and their staff. The Code acknowledges that such items, even though of minimal value, “may foster misperceptions that company interactions with healthcare professionals are not based on informing them about medical and scientific issues.”

• Prohibits company sales representatives from providing restaurant meals to healthcare professionals, but allows them to provide occasional meals in healthcare professionals’ offices in conjunction with informational presentations. The Code also reaffirms and strengthens previous statements that companies should not provide any entertainment or recreational benefits to healthcare professionals.

• Includes new provisions that require companies to ensure that their representatives are sufficiently trained about applicable laws, regulations and industry codes of practice – including this Code – that govern interactions with healthcare professionals. Companies are also asked to assess their representatives periodically and to take appropriate action if they fail to comply with relevant standards of conduct.

• Provides that each company will state its intentions to abide by the Code and that company CEOs and Compliance Officers will certify each year that they have processes in place to comply, a process patterned after the concept of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance mechanisms. Companies also are encouraged to get external verification periodically that they have processes in place to foster compliance with the Code. PhRMA will post on its Web site a list of all companies that announce their pledge to follow the Code, contact information for company compliance officers, and information about the companies’ annual certifications of compliance.

• Other additions to the Code include more detailed standards regarding the independence of continuing medical education (CME); principles on the responsible use of non-patient identified prescriber data; and additional guidance for speaking and consulting arrangements with healthcare professionals, including disclosure requirements for healthcare providers who are members of committees that set formularies or develop clinical practice guidelines and who also serve as speakers or consultants for a pharmaceutical company.

• Other changes to the Code include, PhRMA’s recent acceptance of the revised Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the Senate.”

Raging ongoing debate on the financial relationship between industry and the medical profession:

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate, it appears that there is a good possibility of making disclosure of all such payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’, like the proposed Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the USA, mandatory in many other countries, probably even in India.

Exemplary voluntary measures taken by large global pharmaceutical majors:

Eli Lilly, the first pharmaceutical company to announce such disclosure voluntarily around September 2008, has already uploaded its physician payment details on its website. US pharmaceutical major Merck has also followed suit and so are Pfizer and GSK. However, the effective date of their first disclosure details is not yet known.

Meanwhile, Cleveland Clinic and the medical school of the University of Pennsylvania, US are also in the process of disclosing details of payments made by the Pharmaceutical companies to their research personnel and the physicians. Similarly in the U.K the Royal College of Physicians has been recently reported to have called for a ban on gifts to the physicians and support to medical training, by the pharmaceutical companies. Very recently the states like Minnesota, New York and New Jersey in the US disclosed their intent to bring in somewhat MCI like regulations for the practicing physicians of those states.

Transparency is the key for drug industry relationships – 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 things, a standard to address potential conflicts of interest from unrestricted relationships between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals, which may harm consumers, for example through inappropriate prescribing by healthcare professionals.

The Code prohibits pharmaceutical companies from providing entertainment and extravagant hospitality to healthcare professionals, with the requirement that all benefits provided by companies 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.

Conclusion:

Currently in the US, both in Senate and the House of Congress two draft bills on ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ are pending. It appears quite likely that Obama Administration, with the help of this new law, will make the disclosure of payments to physicians by the pharmaceutical companies mandatory.

If President Obama’s administration takes such regulatory steps, will India prefer to remain much behind? The new amended MCI regulations together with such disclosure by the pharmaceutical companies, if and when it comes, could make the financial transactional relationship between the physicians and the pharmaceutical industry squeaky clean and totally transparent.

By Tapan Ray

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

Differentiating Seven ‘Ps’ of Marketing-Mix for Health Food Products – A strategic overview

Posted on by
Reply
As estimated by Nicholas Hall the health food products market in India is currently around U.S.$ 1.3 Billion with a huge marketing potential. However, the marketing-mix for such groups of health food products will need to be crafted in an innovative way and carefully tailored to suit the need of individual brands, by an astute marketer.
Definition of Health Food Products:In my view, the health food products are those, which have a favorable impact on human health, their physical performance or state of mind. Such products include various types of food substances, dietary supplements with medical benefits and are used mostly for the prevention of various types of diseases.

The global market:

The global market for health food products is projected to be around U.S.$ 190 Billion by 2010 with a CAGR of 6.1% during 2000 – 2010. In 2007 its market size was reported to be U.S.$ 166 Billion.

Categories of health food products:

Before we delve into the space of marketing-mix, let me try to categorize these products under the following six categories:

• Functional Foods:

- These are dietary components, which provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition, like
isabgool or psyllium husk, whey proteins, bran or oats

• Medicinal Foods:

- These are functional foods with more medicinal value, for e.g. cranberry juice, anti-diabetic/anti-obesity health
bars with added medication etc.

• Nutraceuticals:

- This category comprises of substances which are foods or part of a food with usually preventive health benefits
like vitamins, minerals, gingko biloba, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, ginseng, garlic, tulsi, kalmegh, brahmi, saffron,
ashwagandha, green tea, karela powder etc.

• Phytochemcials:

- These products are like lycopene found in tomatoes or flavanoids in fruits. Such substances usually do not
possess any nutritive value but offer some disease preventive properties.

• Ayurvedic and Herbal Medicines:

- These are derived from plants and are used as such or in form of extracts and possess disease preventive
properties.

• Other health related products are like sports nutrition and various types of organic foods.

Key Drivers:

In my view following are the four key drivers of the health food products market in India:

• Consumer awareness:
- Increasing consumer health consciousness will increase the popularity of health food products

• Changing lifestyle:
- Incidence of lifestyle diseases like hypertension, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases has been
increasing with fast changing consumer lifestyle. Moreover, increasing cost of serious medical treatment is
also encouraging people to go for preventive health care.

• Ageing population:
- Ageing population in India is expected to contribute significantly to increase the demand for health foods
supplements and functional foods to address various types age related health conditions.

• New scientific evidence of various health foods:
- Ongoing scientific research studies to establish health benefits of various food substances and dietary
supplements will help expanding the ambit health food products at a faster speed.

Key challenges for Herbal Food Products:

Herbal products taken from two or more different sources may not necessarily have the same potency, leading to concerns of batch to batch product quality variations in terms of efficacy, which depends on the potency of the material used.

Differentiating the marketing-mix:

For health food products, instead of conventional four Ps of marketing, one will need to consider the following seven Ps:

1. Product :

Health food products will need to have the following:

• Scientifically documented health benefits
• Innovative product development targeting different consumer segments
• Clear brand differentiation
-Without this ‘Horlicks Vs Viva’ story is expected to be repeated more often than in the past with enlightened consumer base.
• Reasonable standardization

2. Place:

Innovative use of this ‘P’ will play a critical role in the success of any health food product.

The following distribution outlets for the health food products are important:

• Kirana / Grocery stores
• Supermarkets

However, equally important is the availability of these products in pharmacies as many consumers will perceive these products as important as medicines and may enquire at the pharmacy outlets for their availability.

• Multi Level Marketing (MLM)
- MLM can be used innovatively for health food products marketing, as is being done currently by Amway, Herbal Life etc.

3. Price:

Price of a health food product like many other products is a function of values that the brand will offer and will also depend on:

• Differential brand features and benefits
• Product life cycle

However, pressure on margin for health food products will be more due to:
• Strong bargaining power of distributors’ chain / supermarket stores, unlike pharmaceutical products where retail and wholesale margin is fixed in India
• High promotional expenditure due to usage of both mass media and relatively intensive personal selling.

4. Promotion :

For health food promotion following common tools just like any consumer product marketing will help:

• Advertising through mass media
• Point of Purchase Promotion (POP)
• Sampling

In addition, following campaigns may prove to be highly beneficial for such products:

• Awareness campaign for usefulness of disease prevention measures
• Medical promotion
- This will be important especially for health food products designed for children where the parents usually seek a doctor’s opinion about the product benefits. Doctors may not necessarily prescribe the product but their ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer in reply to parents’ questions on the product may prompt whether the parents will continue with this product for the child or not.

Other types of promotion for health food products may be the following:

• Multi level marketing
• Promotion in schools, sports clubs etc.
• Telemarketing of brand services
- These are especially important for health food products meant for children. In such cases, a telemarketing cell consisting of trained nurses or dieticians, will enquire about the progress of the child with the product and give various advices to the mothers for the child, as required by them. Such types of telemarketing services through specialists will help adding a premium image to the brand to indirectly boost up the sales.
• Internet / social forums
- These tools can also be innovatively used for health food brand promotion.

5. People :

For health food products marketing, people with the following skill sets have been found immensely beneficial:

• Sales person with additional training inputs on concerned health related subjects
• Telemarketing of services with people having nursing or a dietician’s background

6. Process :

- All other ‘P’s’ may work with absolute efficiency, but if the marketing process remains inefficient, the branding exercise may be adversely impacted. Thus following areas need to concentrated upon with equal zest:

• Process efficiency
• Process speed
• Process innovation
• Efficiency of IT interface within the marketing process

7. Physical Evidence :

Now a day’s individual enlightened consumer usually wants to know the ability of the manufacturer and the environment in which a product is manufactured, along with the quality of services that is delivered for the brand. Hence, while considering the marketing-mix for health food products the ‘P’ of ‘physical evidence’ is expected to play an increasingly important role.

Conclusion:

It is therefore of immense importance for the marketers to consider the differentiated marketing-mix of seven ‘Ps’ for health food products in their branding exercise.

By Tapan Ray

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

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on by
Reply

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan Ray

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

Innovative Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Healthcare Financing is the way forward to improve ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to Healthcare’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

Despite various measures taken by the Government of India (GoI), around 65% of the population do not have access to modern medicines in the country. Such medicines do not include treatment just for ‘Tropical Diseases’ like, Malaria, Tuberculosis, Filariasis or Leishmaniasis or even anaemia in women. These medicines, in fact, cover much wider spectrum of the primary healthcare needs of the country and include antibiotics, anti-hypertensive, anti-diabetics, anti-arthritic, anti-ulcerants, cardiovascular, oncology. anti-retroviral etc. Many stakeholders in the country, including the policy makers feel that the reason for poor access to medicines to a vast majority of Indian population is intimately linked to the affordability of medicines.

A bold public measure to achieve the dual objectives:                           To make medicines affordable to the common man and at the same time to create a robust domestic pharmaceutical industry in the country, the Government took a bold step in early 1970 by passing a law to abolish product patent in India.

The changed paradigm, encouraged domestic pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and market even those latest drugs, which were protected by patents in many countries of the world, at that time. This policy decision of the GoI enabled the domestic players to specialize in ‘reverse engineering’ and launch the generic versions of most of the New Chemical Entities (NCEs) at a fraction of the innovators price, in India.
Simultaneously other low cost ‘essential medicines’ continued to be produced and marketed in the country.

‘Reverse Engineering’ – a huge commercial success in India:
From 1972 to 2005 domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies were replicating most, if not all the blockbuster drugs of the world, to their low price generic substitutes, just within a year or two from the date of their first launch in the developed markets of the world. These innovative drugs include quinolones. H2 Receptor anatagonists, proton pump inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, ace inhibitors, Cox2 inhibitors, statins, anti-coagulants, anti-asthmatic, anti-cancer, anti-HIV and many more.

In 1970, the Market share of the Indian domestic companies, as a percentage of turnover of the total pharmaceutical industry of India, was around 20%. During the era of ‘reverse engineering’, coupled with many top class manufacturing and marketing strategies, domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies wheezed past their multinational (MNCs) counterparts in the race of market share, exactly reversing the situation in 2010.

‘Reverse engineering’ was indeed one of the key growth drivers of domestic pharmaceutical industry. In its absence, during this period, the growth rate of branded generic industry may not be as spectacular.

India – now the ‘Eldorado’ of the pharmaceutical world:
This shift in the Paradigm in 1970, catapulted the Indian domestic pharmaceutical industry to a newer height of success. India in that process, over a period of time, could establish itself as a major force to reckon with in the generic pharmaceutical market of the world. Currently, the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India caters to around one third of the global requirement of generic pharmaceuticals and is a net foreign exchange earner for the country.

Currently, within top ten pharmaceutical companies of India, eight are domestic companies. All those global pharmaceutical companies who had left the shores of India and many more, have returned to the country after India signed the WTO agreement in January 1995 with great expectations.

Government feels quite confident and exudes a sense of accomplishment with its pharmaceutical policies:
The government therefore believes that a combination of these policy measures resulting in the stellar success of the domestic pharmaceutical companies since last four decades has helped the country earning the global recognition as one of the most attractive emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, with commensurate and sustainable ascending growth trend.

Has stringent Price Control/Monitoring of Medicines worked in India?
Be that as it may, from 1970 to 2005, India could produce and offer even the latest NCEs at a fraction of their international price, to the Indian population. There are as many as 40 to over 60 Indian branded generic versions for each successful blockbuster drug of the world. Competition has been intense and cut-throat, which keeps the average price well within the reach of common man. Average price of medicines in India is even lower than that of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Thus the combination of price control, price monitoring, fear of price control and cut throat competition within branded generics have been able to drive down the prices of medicines in India.

Has the focus mostly on ‘Price’ been able to resolve the issue of poor access to modern medicines by the common man?                       Although the GoI should be complemented for the above measures and putting in place the Product Patents Act in India effective January 1, 2005, the issue of access to modern medicines to the common man has still remained unanswered in the country. Why then access to medicines in India is confined to just to 35% of the population even after 62 years of Independence of the country? Comparable figures of access for Africa and China are 53% and 85%, respectively. This is indeed an abysmal failure on the part of the government to achieve the core healthcare objective of the nation.

Strategy adopted to address the core issue of ‘affordability’ and ‘access’ to healthcare and medicines are grossly inadequate:
Despite the stellar success of the pharmaceutical industry in India thus far, there is a pressing need for the government to address this vexing problem without further delay. The situation demands from the policy makers to put in place a robust healthcare financing model in tandem with significant ‘capacity building’ exercise, initially in our primary and then in the secondary and tertiary healthcare value chain.

Towards this direction, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds.

Government changing its role from ‘Healthcare Provider’ to ‘Healthcare Facilitator’:
Frugal budget allocation (0.9%) by the GoI towards healthcare as % of GDP of the country and its other healthcare related policy statements suggest that government is changing its role in this area from a healthcare provider to a healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop the healthcare space of the country adequately.

In such a scenario, it is indeed imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic healthcare financing model and primary healthcare infrastructure in many places across the country, leave aside other fiscal incentives, will impede the penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. Innovative PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, effectively.

Laudable projects like NRHM and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ must deliver:
Over 70% of Indian population are located in rural India. A relatively recent study indicates that despite some major projects undertaken by the Governments, like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), about 80% of doctors, 75% dispensaries and 60% of hospitals are located in urban India.

Another recent initiative taken by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) called ‘Jan Aushadhi’ is also orientated towards urban and semi-urban India. Unfortunately even in those areas the scheme has failed to deliver against the objectives set by the department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) themselves.
The net result of such a lack of firm intent to deliver by all concerned denies 65% of Indian population from having access to modern medicines and other basic healthcare services within the country.

Address the issue of ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to medicines and healthcare with a robust ‘Health Insurance’ model for all:
While trying to find out a solution to these critical issues, by restricting the focus only on the ‘prices of medicines’ for several decades from now, the Government is doing a great disservice to the common man.
Let me hasten to add that I am in no way suggesting that the prices of medicines have no bearing on their ‘Affordability’. All I am suggesting here is that the issue of ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to modern medicines could be better and more effectively addressed with a robust ‘Health Insurance’ model for all, in the country.

Sporadic initiatives towards this direction:

We find some sporadic initiatives in this direction for population below the poverty line (BPL) with Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural India. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country. Most of the existing micro health insurance units run their own independent insurance schemes.

Some initiatives by the State Governments:

Following initiatives, though quite limited, are being taken by the state governments:

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has planned to offer health insurance cover under ‘Arogya Sri Health Insurance Scheme’ to 18 million families who are below the poverty line (BPL).

2. The Government of Karnataka has partnered with the private sector to provide low cost health insurance coverage to the farmers who previously had no access to insurance, under “Yeshaswini Insurance scheme”. This scheme covers insurance cover towards major surgery, including pre-existing conditions.

3. Some other state governments have also started offering public health insurance facilities to the rural poor, but not in a very organized manner. In fact, some private health insurers like Reliance General Insurance and ICICI Lombard General Insurance have been reported to have won some projects on health insurance from various state governments.
Covering domiciliary treatment through health insurance is important:

Currently health insurance schemes mostly cover expenses towards hospitalization. However, medical insurance schemes should also cover domiciliary treatment costs and loss of income, along with hospitalization costs.

Government policy reforms towards health insurance are essential:
Currently Indian health insurance segment is growing over 50% and according to PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industries the segment is estimated to grow to US$ 5.75 billion by 2010. Even this number appears to be much less than adequate for a country like India.

It is high time that the Government creates a conducive environment for increased penetration of health insurance within the country through innovative policy measures. One such measure could be by making health insurance cover mandatory for all employers, who provide provident fund facilities to their employees.

Conclusion:
It is a pity that the concept of health insurance has not properly taken off in our country, as yet, though shows immense growth potential in the years to come. Innovative policies of the government towards this direction along with increasing the cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for health insurance will encourage many competent and successful global players to enter into this market.

With the entry of efficient and successful global players in health insurance segment, one can expect to see many innovative insurance products to satisfy the needs of a large section of Indian population. Such an environment will also help increasing the retail distribution network of health insurance with a wider geographic reach, significantly improving the affordability and access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular, of a large number of population of the country.

By Tapan Ray

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

My thoughts on the world IPR day, April 24

Posted on by
Reply

Ushering in the Product Patent Regime in India, effective January 1, 2005, heralds the dawn of a new era… an era that is expected to add speed to the wheels of progress of the nation. The new paradigm vindicates the importance of encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation to meet the unmet needs of the population. At the same time this change instills new hope in our mind that India will now compete with the bests in the world, more innovatively and effectively, to curve out a significant share of the global economy.

Criticism continues, unfortunately though…

However, it is quite unfortunate that the pharmaceutical product patents that protect today’s innovations and drive research and development to create tomorrow’s life-saving treatments, are under criticism from some quarters. India chose to follow an alternative to Product Patent regime for many years. In 1970, the Government of India amended its IP laws with a clear objective in mind to reduce the prices of medicines to improve their access to the ailing population of the country.

A panacea:

As a result, some drugs were made cheaper. However, the moot question that we need to address now: was it a panacea? While looking back, it does not really appear so. On the contrary, the situation remained as gloomy thereafter, so far as the access to medicines is concerned. After almost four decades of continuation with the above policy, around 65% of Indian population still does not have access to cheaper off-patent medicines against comparative figures of 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

Children still go without routine vaccinations, though the Government has made the primary vaccination programs free in our country, for all. Even in a situation like this, where affordability is no issue, only about 44% of infants (12 – 23 months) are fully vaccinated against six major childhood diseases – tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles. Moreover, as we know, despite distribution of cheaper generic HIV AIDS drugs by the Government and others mostly free for years, only 5% cent of India’s AIDS patients were receiving any drugs by the end of 2006.

The above two important examples prove the point very clearly that addressing the issue of price alone will not help our country to solve the issue of poor access to medicines to the ailing population of India. Only a sharp focus on rejuvenation of our fragile healthcare delivery system, healthcare financing and rapid development of healthcare infrastructure of the country by the Government or through Public Private Partnership (PPP), will help address this pressing issue.

 

Paving way for innovation…issues of affordability and access need to be addressed differently :

Indian Patents Act 2005 has paved the way for innovation and hi-tech research and development within the country. Contrary to adverse forecasts from some quarters, prices of medicines have not gone up.

However, while medicines play a relatively small role in rising overall healthcare spending including hospitalization, it is important to ensure that individuals with large healthcare expenses have affordable access to required medicines. Thus a good affordable insurance coverage (both Government and Private) available to all Indians belonging to various socio-economic strata, together with the above measures, will help address the key issues of both access and affordability of medicines to all, in a holistic way.

IPR regime…is it more robust in China?

India is continuously compared with China in various parameters both within and outside the country. It is known to all that China is now attracting more Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), be it Pharmaceutical R&D or Clinical developments of the new drugs. The moot question is why?

India restricts incremental innovation with section 3(d) of the Patents Act, but China has no such restrictive provisions. India does not protect regulatory data of the innovators, but China does. India does not have any patent linkage system with the marketing approval of the generic versions of the patented molecules, but China has put in place such system in their country.

With all these has India been able to improve affordability and access to medicines better than China or as even much as China? No, unfortunately, it has not. In China about 85% of the population has access to medicines, in India the equivalent figure will read as just 35%. Why then are such restrictions in the Patents Act of India? Have the drug prices gone up disproportionately in India post 2005? No… Not really. Unfortunately, the share of voice of the generic industry on these issues being much shriller, the voice of the innovator companies, be it Indian or global, is getting lost in the din, on all these important issues.

Conclusion:

The attack on patents is not a defense of patients or the poor. Such attacks help diverting attention from the core healthcare issues, as mentioned above. Health of our nation will depend on how well these key issues are being addressed by the policy and decision makers. Our country cannot afford to ignore the fact that intellectual property is one of the keys to prosperity of a great nation like India and it should be encouraged, protected and rewarded under a robust patents act of the country for inclusive growth.

By Tapan Ray

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

Challenges for the Pharmaceutical Industry in the new paradigm – there are more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’of U.K recently conducted a study with a sizeable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional areas like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas.
The study indicates that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic approach. Besides this finding, my experience also vindicates that today is not a mega yesterday, just as tomorrow will not be a mega today.
Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Gaining greater market access and increasing pressure of price containment:

The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing pressure. This critical development together with the issues related to gaining greater market access remain a prime concern for the future.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the doctors and patients will increasingly look for beyond the physical pharmaceutical products, will indeed be the cutting edge for the winners, in this new ball game.

Questioning the relevance of the current business model:
Top managements of the pharmaceutical companies have already started evaluating the relevance of the current global pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus. Only treatment of diseases will not be considered just enough with an offering of various type medications. Added value with disease prevention initiatives and appropriately managing quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process.

Greater innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain:
Greater and more frequent incremental innovation across the pharmaceutical Value Chain will be critical success factors. The ability to really harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be an important part of the business strategy of a pharmaceutical company in the new world order.

Well integrated decision making processes:
More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition, especially in the branded generic market, have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Avoiding silos and empire building have long been a significant issue, especially for big pharmaceutical companies. Part of better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient investment decisions and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications and will no longer deliver incremental intrinsic or extrinsic differential value to the stakeholders.

Customer engagement:
Growing complexity of the prevailing business environment, including most recent change in the MCI regulations for the doctors are making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communications channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors and patients and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required.

Let me hasten to add, even in the new paradigm, the fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to address these critical issues over decades, has not changed much. To unleash the future growth potential the pharmaceutical companies are still moving around the same old issues like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, customer focus, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building mega product brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few.

Such responses do ring an alarm bell to me. It is known to many that most of the pharmaceutical companies have been investing in all these areas since long and yet these are the very points being highlighted even in the new paradigm to meet the “Challenge of Change”. The moot question will therefore be, what have all investments in these areas achieved, so far? And why have we not been able to address the needs of the new world order focusing with these tools? More importantly, if we do not address these issues moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’ even now, one can well imagine what could the implications be in the times to come?

The future Business Model will need to different:
I believe, the underlying business model of large global organizations focused primarily on developing New Chemical/Molecular Entities (NCEs/NMEs) from initial product discovery through development and commercialization, is unlikely to continue to yield results in the new era. The issue of ‘Patent Cliff’ has already started haunting the research based companies and assuming larger dimensions day by day.
Global pharmaceutical businesses have started evolving beyond patented drugs and including generics to create more diversified and robust healthcare businesses. It is quite evident from the strategies of many larger global pharmaceutical companies that this process has already begun.

Will R&D be collaborative in nature in future?
Currently R&D cost to launch a new patented drug in the market is reported to be around US$ 1.8 – 2.0 billion with accompanying huge risk factors. Thus there is a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors.
Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the risk and reward of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction.
Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy but they are not uncommon either, as we witness these, especially in areas like IT. So why cost effective collaborative R&D projects be not initiated to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the healthcare space?

Could building pharmaceutical mega brands go beyond just a product for better ROI?
Building brands involve creating equity around an entity that delivers value to the customer, over and above the key functional properties of product. Traditionally, the global pharmaceutical industry has been largely focusing on building mega product brands having specific product life cycle say about ten years, especially for patented products.

Could the core idea of building a mega pharmaceutical brand be substantially different, in future?
I reckon, yes. Instead of investing huge sums in building pharmaceutical product brands with very limited product life cycle (for patented products), a more dynamic, powerful and cost efficient brand building process could well entail focusing on the ‘Corporate franchise’ brands with a mix of both patented and generic products in different price bands for different customer segments within a specific therapy category or disease area.

So instead of consistently creating, building and watching the mega patented pharmaceutical brands grow, mature and die, pharmaceutical companies could well encash the real opportunity to build long term emotional equity into their brands, hopefully without the suffocating NPPA restrictions associated with the current product brands.

Who knows, tomorrow’s list of the world’s top mega brands will not be dominated by the likes of Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix or Advair, but perhaps by quite a different types of mega brands like for example, GSK Vaccines, Sanofi-aventis Endocrinology, Novo-Nordisk Diabetic Care, Abbott Nutrition or Pfizer Cardiac Care.

Serum Institute Vaccines could be considered as one such brand for vaccines as a category, created within the pharmaceutical arena in India, over a long period of time.

Conclusion:
It is indeed quite clear now that the pharmaceutical business models are undergoing a serious re-evaluation in the new paradigm. I get a sense that the change is inevitable due to a variety of trends that are squeezing both sales and margins, posing severe challenges towards R&D, product development, marketing and communications.

As I have deliberated, some kind of solutions are gradually emerging. However, the key questions of how profound will this change be and how well the pharmaceutical companies are prepared to counter these changes, still remain unanswered.

By Tapan Ray

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

Access to affordable healthcare to 65% of Indian population still remains a key issue even after six decades of independence of the country.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines, as compared to just 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore arises, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population of India, even after sixty years of independence of the country?This vindicates the widely held belief that in India no single minister or ministry can be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare in the country. Is it then a ‘system flaw’? May well be so.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India falls far short of its minimum requirements towards basic public healthcare infrastructure. The records indicate, as follows:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% of China and 1.6% of Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good sporadic public healthcare initiatives to improve access:

The government allocation around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure in the country with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India may encourage the skeptics.

PPP to improve access to medicines:

At this stage of progress of India, ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives in the following four critical areas could prove to be very apt to effectively resolve this issue

1. PPP to improve affordability:

It appears that in earlier days, the policy makers envisaged that stringent drug price control mechanism alone will work as a ‘magic wand’ to improve affordability of medicines and consequently their access to a vast majority of Indian population.

When through stricter price control measures the access to medicines did not improve in any significant measure, the industry associations reportedly had jointly suggested to the government for a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model way back in December 2006. The comprehensive submission made to the government also included a proposal of extending ‘concessional price for government procurement’ under certain criteria.

In this submission to the government, the industry did not suggest total price de-regulation for the pharmaceutical industry of India. Instead, it had requested for extension of the price monitoring system of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, which is currently working very effectively for over 80 percent of the total pharmaceutical industry in India. Balance, less than 20 percent of the industry, is currently under cost-based price control.

However, the argument of the NPPA against this suggestion of the pharmaceutical industry is that the market entry price of any formulation under the ‘price monitoring’ mechanism is not decided by the government. Hence without putting in place any proper price control/negotiation system to arrive at the market entry price of the price decontrolled formulations, the existing ‘price monitoring’ mechanism may not be as effective, as in future more and more high price patented non-schedule formulations are expected to be introduced in the market.

However, the government seems to have drafted a different drug policy, which has now been referred to a new Group of Ministers for approval. It is worth noting that to make the PPP proposal of the industry effective, the Ministry of Health, both at the centre and also at the state levels, will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises in the primary and also in the secondary healthcare infrastructural facilities. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds for similar capacity building exercises.

Frugal budgetary allocation towards healthcare could well indicate that the government is gradually shifting its role from public healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to help building the required capacity. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure leave aside other financial incentives, could impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, as well.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the healthcare delivery system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is a well recognized strength that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be leveraged through PPP to improve the process weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

3. PPP in ‘Telemedicine’:

‘‘Telemedicine” is another IT enabled technology that can be widely used across the nation to address rural healthcare issues like, distant learning, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ailments.
Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by properly utilising the Government controlled public distribution outlets like, ration shops and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

4. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

While out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered and the balance 800 million is not covered by any insurance, in India total number of population who have some healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and the penetration of health insurance is just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to their better response to healthcare needs of the country.

As the government has announced ‘Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ for the BPL families, an integrated and robust healthcare financing model for all, is expected to address the affordability issue more effectively.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of population cannot afford to required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

An integrated approach by creating effective healthcare infrastructure across the country, leveraging IT throughout the healthcare space and telemedicine, appropriately structured robust ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society, supported by evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserve consideration of the government to improve access to affordable healthcare to a vast majority of population of the country, significantly.

Well researched PPP models in all these areas, involving the stakeholders, need to be effectively implemented, sooner, to address this pressing issue.

By Tapan Ray

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