Tag Archives: affordable

US Biosimilar Overhaul: A Breakthrough Moment or a Strategic Test for Indian Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

On 31 October 2025, the Economic Times (ET) headline— “US biosimilar norms to keep local drug cos in good health” - quickly became one of the most discussed topics across India’s biopharmaceutical circles.

For India, which is transitioning from a global generics’ powerhouse to an emerging biologics player, this shift is more than regulatory news. It marks a critical moment that could either accelerate India’s biopharma ambitions or expose deep structural gaps.

What Has the US FDA Changed?

The ET report highlights a few key regulatory shifts:

  • Reduced clinical trial requirements where scientifically justified
  • A more predictable and transparent review pathway
  • Lower development costs for manufacturers
  • Quicker regulatory timelines

These changes significantly lower the barriers for biosimilar entry into the US – the world’s most lucrative biologics market.

For Indian companies, this means faster commercialization of assets previously slowed by cost, litigation, and development complexity.

Why These Norms Matter Deeply for India:

1. The Big Leap Beyond Generics

India’s pharmaceutical success has historically been built on small-molecule generics. Biosimilars represent the next step – complex, high-value biologics requiring advanced R&D, analytics, and precision manufacturing.

A friendlier US regulatory landscape can:

  • Boost Indian biologics capabilities
  • Enhance India’s scientific reputation
  • Accelerate the transition from volume-based to value-based pharma exports

This is not incremental – it is transformational.

2. A Chance to Make Biologics Affordable – Globally and at Home

Indian biosimilars entering the US could push global prices downward, increasing patient access everywhere.

But the unanswered question remains:

Will India ensure the same benefits reach its own patients?

Historically, many biologics approved in India remain unaffordable. This opportunity must change that narrative.

3. Catalyst for Investment and Innovation

Success in the US market – considered the gold standard – often brings:

  • Investor confidence
  • International collaborations
  • High-value licensing deals
  • Technology transfer opportunities

If Indian firms reinvest this momentum into R&D, it can accelerate India’s shift toward a future where ‘innovated-in-India’ becomes as common as ‘made-in-India’.

4. Competitive Pressure on Originator Biologics

Lower-cost Indian biosimilars could challenge multinational biologics giants in their strongest market.

This may result in:

  • Reduced prices
  • Greater insurance coverage
  • Wider patient access

It positions India as a meaningful global competitor – not just a contract manufacturer.

But the Red Flags Are Too Important to Ignore:

A) Biosimilars Are Not Generics – Quality Risks Are Heightened

Biologics demand:

  • High-precision fermentation
  • Immunogenicity evaluation
  • Strong data integrity
  • Robust GMP compliance

Any compliance slip-up in the US biosimilar space could severely damage India’s credibility.

This is a risk India cannot afford.

B) Patent Barriers Will Still Be Tough

Even with simplified norms, US biosimilar entry often faces:

  • Patent thickets
  • Secondary patents
  • Litigation from innovator companies
  • Market-access hurdles

Indian companies will need smarter IP and litigation strategies – not just efficient manufacturing.

C) India’s Own Ecosystem Needs Modernization

India must strengthen:

  • Analytical labs for similarity assessments
  • Biologics manufacturing clusters
  • Cold-chain logistics
  • CDSCO guidelines
  • Pharmacovigilance systems

Without this, Indian biosimilars may flourish abroad while India continues lagging in domestic biologics availability and safety monitoring.

D) The Risk of Mission Drift

If export markets become the primary focus:

  • Domestic patients may remain an afterthought
  • Prices of biologics may not reduce meaningfully within India
  • Public health benefits may fall behind corporate goals

Balancing global ambition with national responsibility is crucial.

What India Should Prioritize Now:

For Indian Pharma Companies

  • Invest heavily in biologics R&D, analytics, and quality systems
  • Strengthen data integrity and regulatory compliance
  • Pursue strategic co-development partnerships
  • Ensure domestic market access for biosimilars – not merely exports

For Indian Policymakers and Regulators

  • Align CDSCO norms with US/EU biosimilar standards
  • Build biotech clusters and offer strategic incentives
  • Strengthen post-marketing surveillance
  • Use public procurement to promote affordable biologics for Indian patients
  • Encourage transparent pricing and competition

For Public Health Stakeholders

  • Monitor domestic pricing of biosimilars
  • Demand safety and immunogenicity transparency
  • Advocate access for oncology, autoimmune, and rare disease treatments

A Defining Moment: Opportunity vs. Responsibility

India stands at a strategic crossroads.

If industry, policymakers, and regulators move in alignment, India can become a global biosimilar powerhouse - known for quality, affordability, and innovation.

If not, this moment may turn into yet another case where India enables global affordability while failing to deliver it domestically.

“The true test of India’s biosimilar advantage will be measured not in US approvals – but in whether Indian patients finally gain access to affordable biologics.”

Quick Takeaways:

  • New US FDA biosimilar norms promise faster, less burdensome approval pathways.
  • Indian companies like Biocon, Intas, and Dr. Reddy’s stand to gain significantly.
  • But quality risks, patent barriers, and domestic-access concerns remain real.
  • India must upgrade its biologics ecosystem—not just chase US profits.
  • The real test: Will Indian patients benefit from this global opportunity?

Conclusion:

Closing Thought

The US FDA may have opened the door.
The world may be watching.
But only India can decide whether this moment becomes a turning point – or a missed opportunity.

— By: Tapan J. Ray

Author, commentator, and observer of life beyond the corporate corridors.

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.

When Patents Meet Patients: Why India Revoked Novartis’ Vymada Patent

Posted on by
Reply

India’s bold move against Novartis’ blockbuster heart drug patent highlights the country’s uncompromising balance between innovation incentives and affordable access to medicines.

The Verdict That Stirred the Industry:

On September 12, 2025, the Indian Patent Office revoked Novartis’ patent on Vymada (internationally known as Entresto - a combination of sacubitril and valsartan). The decision came after post-grant opposition from domestic firms, who argued that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, and failed to meet India’s unique anti-evergreening provisions.

The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, D. Usha Rao, concluded that Novartis had not shown a clear therapeutic advantage for the claimed “supramolecular complex” formulation over existing drugs. Without robust clinical or technical evidence, the patent could not stand.

Why It Matters:

The revocation was more than a legal blow to Novartis; it was a reaffirmation of India’s stance on pharmaceutical patents:

  • Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act continues to be the line of defense against evergreening. Incremental modifications must show substantial enhancement of efficacy to deserve protection.
  • Affordability and access remain cornerstones of Indian policy. By clearing the way for generics, the decision is expected to slash prices for a critical heart-failure treatment.
  • Innovation incentives for multinational drugmakers are under renewed scrutiny. While India welcomes innovation, it demands stronger proof of novelty and efficacy before granting or upholding patents.

A Familiar Pattern:

This is not the first time India has stood firm against a global pharmaceutical giant. In 2013, the Supreme Court’s Glivec ruling denied Novartis a patent extension for its cancer drug, setting a powerful precedent against evergreening. The Vymada case extends that tradition: India’s patent office is willing to revoke rights even after grant, if challenges hold merit.

Implications for Stakeholders:

For Global Pharma

  • Signals that India remains a tough jurisdiction for secondary patents.
  • Requires more robust data, comparative studies, and technical evidence to prove novelty or efficacy.
  • Increases the risk of post-grant challenges, adding uncertainty to long-term exclusivity.

For Indian Generics

  • Creates a clear pathway for companies like Natco, Torrent, MSN, and Eris to launch affordable alternatives.
  • Strengthens India’s role as the pharmacy of the world, delivering low-cost medicines without breaching TRIPS.

For Patients

  • Offers a life-saving affordability boost, especially for millions of Indian patients battling heart disease.
  • Reinforces India’s reputation for prioritizing public health over monopoly pricing.

The Bigger Picture:

India’s approach sits at a crossroads of law, economics, and ethics. While critics argue that strict provisions reduce incentives for pharmaceutical innovation, defenders point out that without access, innovation is meaningless for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

Globally, the Vymada revocation will likely be studied as a case in point — showing how India balances TRIPS compliance with its domestic public-health priorities.

Conclusion:

The revocation of Novartis’ Vymada patent is not an isolated event. It’s a reaffirmation of India’s unique intellectual property environment, where patents must prove their worth beyond doubt, and patients’ right to affordable medicines remains paramount.

Hence, the ‘Key Takeaways’ are as follows:

  • Patent Revoked: India’s Patent Office cancelled Novartis’ Vymada (Entresto) patent on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and evergreening concerns.
  • Section 3(d) in Action: The ruling reinforces India’s strict bar on incremental patents unless they show substantial therapeutic advantage.
  • Generics Open the Door: Indian firms like Natco, Torrent, MSN, and Eris can now launch low-cost alternatives, making treatment more affordable.
  • Global Signal: The case highlights India’s unique IP stance — balancing innovation with access to essential medicines.

As the dust settles, this case will likely serve as a landmark reference in future IP disputes, shaping both corporate strategies and policy discussions. For India, it underlines a central philosophy: when patents meet patients, public health comes first.

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.

 

Robust Patents, Not Tweaked Monopolies: India’s Practical Route to Affordable Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

In April 2025, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual Special 301 Report, once again placing India on its “Priority Watch List” for intellectual property (IP) concerns. The report highlights persistent issues, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, citing challenges such as potential patent revocations, discretionary application of patentability criteria under the Indian Patents Act, and prolonged patent grant processes.

While the USTR acknowledges India’s efforts to modernize its patent system—such as the finalization of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, aimed at reducing burdens on patent applicants—it maintains that significant concerns remain. These include high customs duties on IP-intensive products and inadequate IP enforcement mechanisms.

India, however, defends its stance, emphasizing that its IP regime is fully compliant with the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement and is designed to balance innovation incentives with public health needs. The country asserts that its legal provisions, particularly Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, are crucial in preventing “evergreening” – a practice where pharmaceutical companies make minor modifications to existing drugs to extend patent monopolies without significant therapeutic benefits.

Balancing Innovation and Access:

India’s approach to pharmaceutical patents is rooted in its commitment to public health. The Patents Act, 1970, particularly Section 3(d), prevents the patenting of new forms of known substances unless they result in enhanced efficacy. This provision aims to curb “evergreening,” where minor modifications are used to extend patent monopolies without significant therapeutic benefits.

India’s patent regime also includes mechanisms like pre-grant opposition, allowing stakeholders to challenge patent applications, ensuring that only genuine innovations receive protection.

Some Recent Case Studies: Upholding the Balance:

1. Johnson & Johnson’s Bedaquiline Patent Rejection (2023):
The Indian Patent Office rejected J&J’s attempt to extend its patent on bedaquiline, a critical tuberculosis drug, citing lack of enhanced efficacy. This decision paved the way for generic versions, improving access for patients.

2. Novartis’ Entresto Application Denied (2022):
Novartis’ patent application for the heart failure drug Entresto was denied due to lack of inventive step, preventing potential market monopolization.

3. Roche’s Trastuzumab (Herceptin) Patent Lapse:
Facing legal challenges, Roche allowed its patent on the breast cancer drug Herceptin to lapse in India, enabling the production of affordable biosimilars by Indian companies.

Global Pressures vs. Domestic Realities:

Despite international pressure, India’s IP policies prioritize access to affordable medicines. The country’s stance is not anti-innovation but seeks to prevent monopolistic practices that hinder public health.

India’s role as a major supplier of generic medicines globally underscores the importance of its balanced IP approach. Diluting these safeguards could adversely affect access to essential medicines worldwide.

The Way Forward:

To strengthen its position, India should:

  • Enhance R&D Investment: Boost funding for pharmaceutical research, particularly in neglected diseases.
  • Streamline Patent Processes: Implement measures to reduce patent grant delays while maintaining rigorous examination standards.
  • Maintain Legal Safeguards: Preserve provisions like Section 3(d) to prevent patent evergreening. It ensures that only real therapeutic advances get patents, preserving access to affordable medicines while still rewarding meaningful R&D.
  • Engage Internationally: Continue constructive dialogues with global partners to address IP concerns without compromising public health priorities.

Conclusion:

Let me reemphasize here that Section 3(d) does not prohibit incremental innovation – it simply filters out superficial tweaks that offer no therapeutic benefit and are aimed primarily at extending monopolies and delaying broader patient access to medicines.

Thus, in my view, India’s pharmaceutical IP regime exemplifies a pragmatic approach that balances the protection of genuine innovations with the imperative of public health. By resisting patent abuses and ensuring access to affordable medicines, India sets a precedent for equitable healthcare globally.

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.

Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Posted on by
Reply

Public access to healthcare in India is a complex issue with several challenges. While India has been making progress over the years in improving healthcare access and reducing the burden of disease, there are still significant disparities in healthcare access and outcomes across the country. The three primary barriers continue to remain:

  • Affordable access to quality healthcare: This arises out of the shortage of healthcare infrastructure and resources, more in rural areas. The shortage includes an inadequate number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, as well as inadequate facilities and equipment.
  • Cost of healthcare: While India has a largely publicly funded healthcare system, the quality of care in public hospitals is often poor, and many people are forced to opt for private healthcare, which can be expensive.
  • Access to affordable drugs: Despite India being a major producer of generic drugs, many people in India still lack access to essential medicines. This is due in part to the high cost of branded medicines, which are often out of reach for many people, as well as a lack of availability of certain medicines in some areas.

Undoubtedly, this remains a weak area for the country, till date. Successive Indian governments have taken steps to address these challenges. However, public funding on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and implementation of policies to increase access to medicine, continue to remain below par. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all people have access to quality healthcare and essential medicines.

Amid this situation, especially on the international political front, drug MNCs are continuously blaming India for the fact that the Indian Patents Act is not robust enough to protect their drug patents on NMEs and technologies. For example, in its 2022 Special 301 Report, the USTR designated seven countries on the Priority Watch List. These are Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela. To give some more examples from the available reports:

  • In February 2021, PhRMA, a trade group representing multinational pharmaceutical companies, raised concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. PhRMA argued that India’s policies were undermining innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 
  • In March 2021, Pfizer’s CEO also expressed concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. He said that Pfizer was facing challenges in obtaining patents for its products in India, and that the lack of adequate patent protection was discouraging investment in research and development.
  • In May 2021, Novartis’s CEO criticized India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. HE stated that the lack of adequate patent protection in India was discouraging innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 

Against this backdrop, in today’s article I shall deliberate on this vexing issue – starting from some key grievances of drug MNCs in this regard. Thereafter we will look at the Indian industry response to drug MNCs’ concern about the robustness of the Indian Patents Acts. This could possibly help us to understand the key question – Is it then an attempt to exploit India’s weakness regarding inadequate overall access to medicines for monopolistic gain by the vested interest?

Key grievances of drug MNCs for poor access to medicines in India: 

One can recall that the Patent Act in India was amended in 2005 to comply with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The amendment made it more difficult for multinational pharmaceutical companies to obtain patents for their products in India for the ‘me too’ type of innovation, which has led to lower prices for medicines and increased access to affordable drugs for the Indian population.

However, drug MNCs generally argue that:

  • The lack of adequate patent protection in India discourages innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately limits the availability of new drugs for patients in India.
  • They have also criticized the Indian government’s use of compulsory licensing, which allows the government to authorize a third party to produce a patented drug without the consent of the patent holder. They argue that this undermines their intellectual property rights and discourages investment in research and development, which ultimately limits access to new and innovative drugs for patients in India.

Counter argument by Indian companies:

Indian companies, on the contrary, defend their position and policies related to access to medicines and healthcare in India, and have responded to the accusations made by drug MNCs in the following ways:

  • Provides adequate patent protection: The Indian Patents Act provides adequate IP protection, in accordance with the TRIPS agreement. They have also pointed out that the patent laws in India allow for the grant of patents for genuine inventions, while preventing the grant of frivolous or secondary patents (the me-too types), which can result in excessive monopolies and high prices for medicine. 
  • Encourage innovation: Indian policies have not discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have pointed out that Indian companies invest heavily in research and development and have developed several innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities in India and around the world. 
  • Rare occurrence of Compulsory licensing: The use of compulsory licensing is a legitimate tool under international law and is aimed at promoting public health and ensuring that life-saving drugs are accessible and affordable to patients in India. They have also pointed out that the use of compulsory licensing is a rare occurrence in India and is only used in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, Indian drug companies have emphasized their commitment to improving access to medicines and healthcare in India, while ensuring that their policies are in line with international laws and regulations. They have also emphasized the need for collaboration and dialogue with multinational pharmaceutical companies to find mutually acceptable solutions that benefit patients in India and around the world.

Examples of innovative drugs developed by Indian drug companies:

It’s interesting to note that in the same IP scenario, Indian companies with limited resources, are developing innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities around the world. Here are a few examples, as reported at different times:

  • Lipaglyn: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Lipaglyn is the first-ever drug approved for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. It has been approved in India and several other countries, including the European Union. 
  • Tafinlar: Developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tafinlar is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 
  • Mycapssa: Developed by Sun Pharma, Mycapssa is a novel oral formulation of octreotide, a hormone therapy used to treat acromegaly. It has been approved by the US FDA. 
  • Saroglitazar: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Saroglitazar is a dual PPAR agonist that has been approved in India for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). 
  • Nexavar: This much discussed drug, originally developed by Bayer and by Natco Pharma, is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of liver and kidney cancers.

Conclusion:

The IP issues keep haunting India and are being captured in different Special 301 Reports of the USTR, even after The Indian Patents Act 2005 came into force – till 2022. Any change to this Act seems very unlikely now as this is an important piece of legislation that helps balance the interests of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and access to affordable medicines. Any dilution of this Act could have negative consequences for India and its citizens.

From this perspective, I reckon, any further pressure in this area may be construed as an attempt to exploit India’s weakness of inadequate access to medicines for monopolistic gain by vested interests. 

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.

To Reduce Disease Burden India Launches A New Study On Access to Affordable Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

As India is struggling hard to come out of economic meltdown, and more – while navigating through the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of reducing the National Disease Burden (NDP) with comprehensive measures resurfaces. According to a World Bank study, with ’17.5% of the global population, India bears 20% of the global disease burden.’

It’s also a well-reported fact that one such critical measure in this area is expanding access to affordable medicines to a vast Indian population. This is essential, despite some laudable measures taken by the country in this space. Which is why, it has attracted the government’s focus – yet again, even in the new normal.

This is evident from the Notification of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) dated 13.01.2022. This pertains to the DoP’s request for Proposal (RFP) from reputed companies, “To study the drug pricing policies of different countries/ region and lessons learnt from these countries/ regions in terms of access to medicine at affordable prices.” The selected company will conduct the study, on behalf of the government to understand the drug pricing methodology adopted in at least 10 countries, it said.

According to the RFP document, a minimum of ten countries/regions that should be covered are – Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, EU, UK, Australia, USA, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand. It also mentioned, after selection – the chosen company has to submit its final report in four months, besides quarterly progress report during this period.

This article will focus on the relevance of a renewed government focus on access to affordable medicines, after the third wave of the pandemic, even after various recent measures undertaken by the government in this direction.

What does ‘access’ mean in the healthcare context – a recap:

Although, ‘access’ is a well-used word in the health care scenario, let me recapitulate the same to be on the same page with my readers in this discourse. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Access to health care means having “the timely use of personal health services to achieve the best health outcomes.” It has four components, namely:

  • Coverage: facilitates entry into the health care system. Uninsured people are less likely to receive medical care and more likely to have poor health status.
  • Services: provides a source of care, associated with adults receiving recommended screening and prevention services.
  • Timeliness: ability to provide health care when the need is recognized.
  • Workforce: capable, qualified, culturally competent health care personnel.

Let me emphasize again that the purpose of recapitulating what does healthcare ‘access’ mean, is to give a sense of how are we positioned in India, in this regard.

Key reasons for inadequate access to healthcare, especially in India:

Following are three fundamental reasons for lack, or inadequate access to healthcare, as relevant to India:

  • A large section of the population cannot access healthcare owing its cost relative to their respective income.
  • Many others can’t access, as no quality and affordable facilities are located nearby where they live.
  • Most importantly, a large Indian population can’t have adequate access to quality health care, because they don’t have any healthcare coverage. This point was flagged by the AHRQ, as well.

It is, therefore, noteworthy that to ensure access to quality healthcare, either free or affordable, health coverage for all – public or private, is critical for any nation. Whereas a large Indian population still remains without any health coverage, as the recent government publications vindicate.

Despite high OOPE a large population is still without any health coverage:

On this issue, NITI Aayog report, published in October 2021, shared some important facts. A staggering number of over 400 million Indians, still live without any financial protection for health. This is despite the launch of ‘Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY)’ launched in September 2018, and State Government extension schemes, the paper says. Notably, ‘the actual uncovered population is higher due to existing coverage gaps in PMJAY and overlap between schemes,’ the report added.

Interestingly, the paper acknowledged: “Low Government expenditure on health has constrained the capacity and quality of healthcare services in the public sector. It diverts most individuals – about two-thirds – to seek treatment in the costlier private sector. “As low financial protection leads to high out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). India’s population is vulnerable to catastrophic spending, and impoverishment from expensive trips to hospitals and other health facilities,” it observed.

The government spending on public health at 1.5% of GDP, remains among the lowest in the world impacting reach, capacity, and quality of public healthcare services. It is compelling people to seek treatment in the costlier private sector. Almost 60% of all hospitalizations, and 70% of outpatient services are delivered by the high-cost private sector, NITI Aayog highlighted.

Major part of OOPE goes for buying drugs:

According to the W.H.O’s health financing profile 2017, 67.78% of total expenditure on health in India was paid out of pocket, while the world average is just 18.2%. Moreover, the Union Health ministry had also reported that ‘medicines are the biggest financial burden on Indian households.’ Around 43% of OOPE towards health, reportedly, went for buying medicines and 28% in private hospitals.

Thus: ‘Much of this problem of debt can be solved if medicines are made available to people at affordable prices. The National Health Policy 2017 also highlighted the need for providing free medicines in public health facilities by stepping up funding and improving drug procurement and supply chain mechanisms,” the report added.

Access to affordable drugs continues to remain a top priority today:

The above point was also emphasized in the Annual Report 2020-21 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals. It underscored: ‘The Government is now contemplating to introduce a new National Pharmaceutical Policy, where – ‘Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses,’ featured at the top of the policy objectives, as follows:

  • Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses.
  • Providing a long-term stable policy environment for the pharmaceutical sector.
  • Making India sufficiently self-reliant in end-to-end indigenous drug manufacturing.
  • Ensuring world class quality of drugs for domestic consumption & exports.
  • Creating an environment for R & D to produce innovator drugs;
    Ensuring the growth and development of the Indian Pharma Industry.

What happens when all will come under health coverage, if at all:

Even when, and if, all Indians comes under health coverage – public or private – drug cost will continue to play a major role even to the institutional payers. This is mostly to ensure the cost of health coverage remains reasonable, and affordable to all. This can possibly be done either through:

  • Price negotiation with the manufacturers, or
  • Price control by the government

In any case, there needs to be a transparent mechanism for either of above two, which the government seems to be refocusing on, as it appears today.

Conclusion:

Thus, to reduce the burden of disease in India, especially after going through a harrowing experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, where co-morbidity posed a major threat to life, India is likely to up the ante, as we move into the new normal.

From this viewpoint, a brand-new study, as mentioned above, initiated by the government to facilitate expanded access to affordable medicines, is a laudable initiative for all Indians. It’s a noteworthy point for the drug industry, as well, especially, the research-based pharma and biotech companies. As I wrote before, they should also pick this signal to focus on all 3 areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs, not just on costly patented drugs for only those who can afford.

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.

 

 

Focus On All 3 Areas of Innovation For Affordable Access To Innovative Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Medical treatment has made astonishing advances over the years. But the packaging and delivery of that treatment are often inefficient, ineffective, and consumer unfriendly. This was articulated in an article on innovation in healthcare, published in the Harvard Business Review, way back, in its May 2006 issue.

Highlighting soaring healthcare cost, including ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, and its impact on public health, the paper recommended innovative solutions for every related aspect of health care. These encompass – healthcare delivery, unleashing the power of technology, and customer-centric business models. Interestingly, despite enormous investment in drug innovation, the access to affordable health care for all, continued over the years.

The consequential scenario was well articulated in another paper on rising consumerism among healthcare consumers, published in the Deloitte Review issue 16, 2015. It noted, the existing business models are increasingly being challenged by all concerned. The aim is to find new sources of value – as expected by patients and deliver them effectively with innovative approaches for better outcomes. This has, initiated a recalibration of the healthcare system, as it were, in many parts of the world, including many -both developed and developing countries, across the globe.

In this article, I shall try to explore this area, especially from the perspective of relevance of innovative business models for affordable access to innovative drugs in the new normal. Let me start with three basic innovation needs in the pharma business that may help chart out a meaningful pathway to attain this goal.

3 innovation areas to make health care better and cheaper:

In pharma industry, people mostly talk about product or treatment innovation. Although, this is of paramount importance to make healthcare more and more effective with time, but may not help save or heal more patients, commensurately.

Going by the ‘health care innovation catalog,’ as charted by the above Harvard Business Reviewarticle, ‘three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper.’ These innovations are primarily related to:

  • Use of ‘technology’ to develop new products and treatments or to improve care
  • Bringing in innovative changes the ways ‘consumers’ buy and use healthcare.
  • Generating new ‘business models’, particularly those that involve the horizontal or vertical integration of separate health care organizations or activities.

As I have deliberated in the past, related to the first two areas, this discourse will deliberate on the third type of innovation to explore the above specified area. Let me hasten to add that several studies published in the later dates, echoed similar approach.

Subsequent studies reinforce the point:

One such example, is the paper titled ‘Innovative Approaches to Increase Access to Medicines in Developing Countries’, published in the Frontiers in Medicine on December 07, 2017. This study also captured: ‘Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e., drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries.’

The paper highlighted, several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, can further stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities, significantly. It underscored: ‘No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions.’

Changing business model concept gaining steam during Covid pandemic:

The issue of affordable access to innovative medicines drew attention of all stakeholders, even the common man, during the Covid pandemic – more than ever before. Several publications raised a flag on this barrier to public health, especially amid a pandemic or epidemic like situation.

One of these papers, titled ‘COVID-19 and the global public health: Tiered pricing of pharmaceutical drugs as a price-reducing policy tool’, was published in the Journal of Generic Medicines, on October 07, 2020. The paper emphasized, COVID-19 has raised serious concerns about affordable and equitable access to critically needed innovative medicines and other health technologies. It pointed out: ‘Patent exclusivities add to the cost of healthcare by allowing supra-competitive prices of protected technologies’, it commented. At the same time, ‘the prices and availability of drugs also depend on certain other factors that are not related to IP protection.’

Here comes the concept of ‘differential pricing’ or ‘tiered pricing’. This is a voluntary price-reducing policy option of the innovator to sell innovative drugs at lower prices in developing countries – compared to developed nations. The study articulated, more and more innovators imbibing this option in the future, could be a way forward to address for the future. Could it be a win-win solution for this critical issue?

Is it a win-win solution to this critical issue?

Since, at least, the last decade, the concept of differential pricing or tiered pricing ‘has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to these life-saving products.’ This was also noted in the paper - ‘A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries,’ published in the journal Globalization and Health, on October 12, 2011.

Even at that time, the paper said: ‘International tiered pricing has been proposed as an alternative to high prices when separable high- and low-to-middle-income markets exist for a medicine and when the seller exerts significant power over pricing, such as when there is limited or no competition due to patent protection, data exclusivity, or other market-entry barriers.’

Interestingly, despite above findings, tiered pricing has not been a widely followed concept in the old normal to ensure affordable access to life-saving innovative drugs, for all. One of its reasons could possibly be commercial considerations. Company specific business threshold of tiered pricing may not necessarily be able to offer a price that is equitable or affordable for all. That said, there are a few laudable initiatives of some major innovator companies in the past.

Some laudable past initiatives for affordable access to innovative drugs:

Since the beginning of this millennium, one can witness some laudable pricing initiatives for affordable access to critical, innovative drugs to save lives in developing countries and poorer nations. Let me give a few reported examples below:

  • Abbott Laboratories – the patent holder of lopinavir and ritonavir had initially announced a tiered price of $650 in 2001 for African countries and 16 non-African least developed countries. In 2002, the Company reduced the price to $500 for these countries and in August 2009 dropped it to $440 – slightly below the lowest generic price.
  • In 2001, Novartis offered “at-cost” tiered price of $2.40 per adult treatment course for artemether-lumefantrine FDC to WHO for developing countries After 5 years when a generic version of the same was available, Novartis decreased its tiered price to $1.80, thereafter to $1.50.
  • Eli Lilly’s two key DR-TB drugs, capreomycin and cycloserine were not widely available from other suppliers even after it went off patent. In 2002, Lilly transferred the drug manufacturing technology to several generic drug companies in TB-endemic countries. Eli Lilly’s tiered price has consistently remained below the generic prices for these drugs.

More examples of voluntary licensing during Covid pandemic:

Gilead signed non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Egypt, India and Pakistan to manufacture remdesivir for distribution in 127 countries that face significant obstacles to healthcare access.

Notably, the licenses are royalty-free until the World Health Organization declares the end of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern regarding COVID-19, or until a pharmaceutical product other than remdesivir or a vaccine is approved to treat or prevent COVID-19, whichever is earlier.

On May 11, 2021, several media reports revealed that ‘US pharma giant Eli Lilly has issued royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licenses to three Indian drug makers – Cipla, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Lupin – to manufacture and distribute Baricitinib, which is being used to treat Covid-19.

As announced on October 27, 2021, the global drug major MSD and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) entered into a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including India following appropriate regulatory approvals. The Indian companies, reportedly, include, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure Pharma and Hetero Labs.

On November 16, 2021, Pfizer Press Release stated: Pfizer and MPP has signed a voluntary license agreement for Pfizer’s COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate PF-07321332, which is administered in combination with low dose ritonavir (PF-07321332; ritonavir). Under the terms of the license agreement, qualified generic medicine manufacturers worldwide that are granted sub-licenses, will be able to supply this combination drug to 95 countries, covering up to approximately 53% of the world’s population.

Conclusion:

Covid Pandemic, which apparently, is refusing to vanish anytime soon, makes the issue of making affordable access to critical innovative drugs for all, more intense. Since long, researchers, academicians, practitioners, and the stakeholders involved in addressing this healthcare challenge for the majority of the population have suggested several innovative approaches.

These include, focus on three kinds of innovation simultaneously, and with similar zest, can make health care better and cheaper. One such area is changing pharma business models for critical innovative drugs. The good news is a few pharma players have already charted on this pathway in the past, successfully, by extending royalty-free, voluntary licenses to manufacturers in the developing countries and poorer nations. Some of them even tried to match their tiered pricing with equivalent generic drug prices. But the overall response was rather lukewarm in the old normal. Interestingly, the new normal signals a mindset change in this regard within a larger number of global innovators.

The current trend gives a hope to many that an increasing number of global innovators will sincerely explore – not just one, but all the three areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs. This could possibly reduce, if not eliminate the future need for the grant of compulsory licenses for such drugs, as happened during the peak of Covid pandemic, especially in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Focus More To Create Patient-Perceived Value of Brand Outcomes

Posted on by
Reply

Healthcare providers, including many drug companies aim to create a beneficial effect on patients with their respective products and services. However, and more importantly, these benefits need to be such that recipients are able to sense, feel, and perceive as they expect – or may often go much beyond their expectations.

In this endeavor, when the perceived value of health care offerings exceeds the perceived cost of the products or services, the beneficiaries get naturally delighted. Conversely, when the perceived cost of the product weighs more than the perceived benefits, especially when it is incurred in lieu of some other essential living expenses, the patients accept the benefits grudgingly – without having any choice, or alternatives. The situation often fuels growing healthcare activism, across the globe and more involving expensive patented products.

Such expectations of many customers have increases manifold during Covid-19 pandemic, as many studies highlight. Thus, creating a win-win situation while aiming for a beneficial effect on patients, would call for in-depth understanding of the complex changes in the value delivery process. This is critical for all in the health care environment, and particularly the pharma marketers.

In today’s article, I shall dwell on some recent developments in this area, beginning with the basic need for in-depth understanding of the complex changes in the value delivery process. This process flows from ascertaining what have and have not changed in pharma industry’s new normal. The core intent is to find an answer to the key question: Should markers now need to focus much more on creating patient-perceived value of brand outcomes to business excellence?

Understanding complex changes in the value delivery process:

In today’s scenario – amid expressive customers, to get to know the needs, wants and expectations of the target audience, pharma marketers would need to listen to them carefully, and capture the same as they are – in an organized way. In-depth analysis of the data, thus captured, would help marketers chart a cutting-edge strategic pathway – converting data into actionable insights, in pursuit of excellence.

Covid-19 pandemic expanded digital media use even by older age group: 

Many studies have shown, since the onset of Covid-19 pandemic, the use of digital media for various purposes, including health care products ad services, has increased among older age groups, more than ever before.

One such April 2021 Press Release of AARP Research was captioned, ‘Tech Usage Among Older Adults Skyrockets During Pandemic.’ It reported, technology enabled older adults, to better weather – the isolation of the pandemic, started using digital platforms and social media, from ordering groceries to telehealth visits to connecting with loved ones.

More specifically, in the present context, the study found, among others - ‘50+ use of smartphones increased dramatically. For instance, use for ordering groceries grew from 6% to 24%; use of personal health increased from 28% to 40% for activities like telehealth visits, ordering prescriptions, or making appointments; use of health and fitness information increased 25% to 44%; and use of financial transactions increased 37% to 53%.’

Another AARP publication on September 2021 was captioned: ‘Personal Tech and the Pandemic: Older Adults Are Upgrading for a Better Online Experience.’ It also articulated: ‘Texting, email, social media, and video chatting have become commonplace as the COVID-19 pandemic has forced people to remain home, separated from friends and family. More than 80% of those 50-plus said they use technology in some form to stay connected, many on a daily basis.’

I hasten to add that the above study, although was conducted in the United States, the overall trend is expected to be similar in India – of course, with varying numbers. Be that as it may, the new opportunity of listening to customers from their reach, use, interactions, and conversations through digital channels, and sieving out relevant information from the same, needs to be adequately leveraged.

This space could provide high-quality data, when used in a structured manner, for in-depth understanding of the pandemic-triggered changes in customer dynamics. No wonder, why some major pharma players’ greater focus on listening intently to healthcare customers’ conversation is assuming increasing criticality, today. This process would also help immensely while delivering value of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs.

Increasing criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs:

Alongside the pre-Covid 19 ailments, new disease complications in the pandemic – or, now, in endemic-prone areas, would enhance manifold the criticality of the value of access to innovative drugs – for all to be up and running. This area, was well articulated in a similar context in the article, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on September 20, 2021.

The authors reiterated, ‘Patient affordability and access enablement, along with health system sustainability and affordability, are critical factors that impact current patient access to these innovations as well as sustained future access to new innovations.’

Many pharma companies, who have both resources and knowledge to develop and supply new and innovative medicines at scale, are already talking about it, even in the new normal. But, they would now need to walk the talk with a greater sense of inclusivity that can be seen and felt by all. Let me cite a very recent example in this area from the Covid-19 perspective.

A recent example in this area from Covid-19 perspective:

An encouraging recent development about affordable access to innovative drugs was reported by The New York Times on October 27, 2021. It reported: ‘Merck has granted a royalty-free license for its promising Covid-19 pill to a United Nations-backed nonprofit in a deal that would allow the drug to be manufactured and sold cheaply in the poorest nations, where vaccines for the coronavirus are in devastatingly short supply.’

More, such examples, also involving treatment in other critical disease areas, would have a salutary effect, even on the public image of the concerned pharma innovators. The ball seems to have started rolling in this direction, as evident from the key findings of the ‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’.

‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’ elucidates the point:

The ‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’, published by the Access to Medicine Foundation, on January 26, 2021, reiterates the increasing criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs. It adds, with the resources and the knowledge to develop and supply new medicines at scale, pharma players have a responsibility to ensure these are made available to people regardless of their socioeconomic standing.

The key findings of the report include the following:

  • Eight companies adopt processes to systematically address access to medicine for all new products
  • Less than half of key products are covered by pharma companies’ access strategies in poorer countries.
  • R&D for COVID-19 has increased, yet another pandemic risk goes unaddressed.

In sync with other experts, the report further emphasizes, ‘Pharmaceutical companies have the power to address affordability by refining their access strategies; and the ability to strengthen supply chains and support healthcare infrastructures. Considering their size, resources, pipelines, portfolios and global reach, these companies have a critical role to play in improving access to medicines.’

Why affordable access to innovative drugs is more critical in India:

The much-deliberated issue of why affordable access to innovative drugs is so critical in India, was aptly analyzed in an article, published by Brookings on March 03, 2020. The backdrop of the discussion was the W.H.O data on global health expenditures that compares out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) as a proportion of current health expenditure.

It revealed, India does much worse in comparison to the world average of OOPE. This was 65% for India versus the world average of around 20%, in 2016, with a similar scenario as compared to other Asian countries.  It specified, Thailand and China have reduced the proportion of OOPE over time, while Sri Lanka and Bangladesh witnessed an increase over time.

Conclusion:

The current healthcare spectrum of possibilities to address these issues haven’t changed significantly, since then. Interestingly, this is despite the increasing need of innovative drugs that’s keeping pace with the complexity in the health care environment since the onset of Covid-19 pandemic.

Thus, the criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs in the new normal, deserves an out of the box solution. Even today, OOPE continues to remain very high in India, and mostly for outdoor patient treatments. Thus, it is imperative that pharma marketers should focus more to create greater patient-perceived (not self-perceived) value of brand outcomes, in an innovative way – for business excellence in the new normal.

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 Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Posted on by
Reply

Amid high decibel deliberations on Covid-19 pandemic, something similar to groundbreaking happened – involving Biosimilar drugs, in just a couple of months ago. On July 28, 2021, in the Eldorado of the pharma industry, the US-FDA approved  the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, for wider access to modern and much affordable treatment of diabetes. This is expected to open new vistas of opportunity for biosimilar drugs, in general, across the world.

The development is even more interesting, as the product named Semglee belongs to India’s largest biopharmaceutical company - Biocon Biologic. It’s an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine, referencing Sanofi’s, reportedly  the second best-selling product in 2020 - Lantus. Notably, the Biocon product was launched in 2020 without the ‘interchangeability’ designation.

Although, the patent of this long-acting insulin (glargine) – used to treat diabetes type I and II, expired during 2015, in 2020 also Lantus generated some 2.7 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. Many envisage, the approval of this first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine will foster stronger competition in the insulin market, which is currently dominated by a handful of brands, like Lantus – and characterized by their stubbornly high prices.

In today’s article, I shall focus on what it means to pharma marketers for greater market access to ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs.

What ‘interchangeability’ really means:

As I wrote in my article on July 31,2017, there are two key barriers to improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, and one of which is the issue of their ‘interchangeability’ with original biologic drugs. It means, besides being highly similar, a biosimilar drug would require indisputable clinical evidence – that it gives the same result to patients, just as the original biologic medicine.

Thus, lack of the ‘interchangeability’ designation makes many physicians hesitant to switch, for all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs, to less expensive available biosimilar alternatives. Only new patients in that case, are prescribed biosimilar drugs, sans ‘interchangeability’ label from the drug regulator, especially in the US.

Overcoming a tough barrier to biosimilar market growth:

This was echoed by another article on ‘Interchangeability’ of biosimilars, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal on July 22, 2020. It wrote, ‘One of the hurdles in the adoption of biosimilars is the lack of interchangeability with reference biologics.’ While interchangeability is an important issue for doctors, ‘different definitions and regulatory frameworks that exist in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions add to the complexity.’

What the ‘interchangeable’ designation of Semglee will really mean, in terms of affordability to patients, was lucidly explained in an article, published in the AJMC – the center for Biosimilars – on July 29, 2021. It underscored: ‘An interchangeable designation means that Semglee can be substituted for Lantus automatically by pharmacists without physicians’ permission.’ As reported, Semglee will cost nearly 3 times less than the list price of Sanofi’s Lantus, which in 2019 clocked in at $283.56 for a single vial and $425.31 for a box of five pens, in the US.

Are interchangeable biosimilars superior to other biosimilars?

The ‘interchangeable’ designation is not meant to suggest that such biosimilars are superior to ones without this label. However, to obtain the ‘interchangeable’ designation, biosimilar manufacturers are required to perform ‘switching studies.’ These provide evidence that patients who are using originator’s biologic drug, when switch to a comparable biosimilar, do not experience higher rates of adverse events or decreased efficacy. The same has also been clearly explained in the AJMC article of July 29, 2021, as mentioned above.

But, if marketed well, ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars can provide a cutting edge to encourage consumers to switch to the less-expensive ‘interchangeable’ versions of the original higher priced biologic drugs. Consequently, more economical ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars would carve out a larger market share, creating a win-win situation. For patients, it will expand affordable access to biologic drugs- and for the company increased revenue from the expanding biosimilar market, as several studies point out.

Expanding biosimilar market:

According to the IQVIA report of March 04, 2021, the global biosimilars market currently shows double-digit growth and is expected to maintain a similar level of uptake in the coming years. This will be driven by the rising incidence of chronic diseases and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, especially as more stringent cost-containment measures are likely – post COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper concluded, biosimilars will continue to register impressive growth in their market share, aided by patent expiries and regulatory improvements which will permit easier and more rapid market access. Many pharmaceutical companies – having witnessed this trend, are now preparing to leverage the biosimilar opportunity. However, marketing large molecule biosimilar drugs will not be quite the same as marketing small molecule generics. 

Estimated savings to patients with biosimilars – in Covid-19 context:

As the IQVIA Institute estimates, over the next five years biosimilars could globally contribute a cumulative $285 billions of savings to patients and payers. To put this in context, it says, over the same period, around $150 billion will be spent on COVID-19 vaccines. According to a senior IQVIA official, as quoted by Reuters Events of July 2, 2021: “The five-year savings from biosimilars could almost double the amount of incremental spending that will be going out to get everybody vaccinated around the world.”

Going by the IQVIA data, biosimilars are between 20% and 50% more affordable. And this is especially at a time when affordability drives a lot of healthcare - sustainability that has emerged as a major issue during the pandemic.

Conclusion:

Currently, in many countries of the world, alongside Covid vaccination drive in top gear, creation of a disruptive pandemic-specific – a robust health infrastructure for the future, is yet to be in place. More importantly, public health facilities, especially in India, are still struggling hard to meet affordable health care needs of patients – sans restrictions or apprehensions of getting infected by Covid-19.

Against this backdrop, the very first approval of an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, in the Eldorado of pharma business – the US, brings a new hope to many patients, in 2021. An expectation of reducing their healthcare burden, significantly. This will happen, as the prescribers muster enough confidence to advise patients switching from highly expensive original biologic to more affordable ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, as and when these are launched.

In tandem, with this growing new confidence, others – even ‘non-interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, will be able to deliver more value being, besides greater affordability – wider access to sustainable-treatments for patients.

This comes, possibly with a caveat. Biosimilar drug marketers will need to chart a new marketing frontier, without holding on to their pre-covid strategies – especially for large molecule biosimilar drugs.

From this perspective, the US-FDA’s regulatory approval of the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin to Sanofi’s high-priced Lantus, carries a game-changing potential in the biosimilar drug market, for astute pharma marketers to leverage.

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.