Tag Archives: affordable

Health Care in India And ‘Development For All’ Intent

Posted on by
Reply

‘Development for All’ has become a buzzword, especially in the political arena of India, and is being used frequently during all recent elections as no one can deny its crucial importance in a country like ours.

Nonetheless, some do feel that there should be greater clarity on what all it encompasses. There is no scope for assumption, either, that it definitely covers the economic growth of the nation. But, does it include health care for all, as well? This is a relevant question, since health care plays a crucial role in maintaining high growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by any country, over a long period of time.

The ideal answer to this question would, of course, be an emphatic ‘yes’? However, on the ground is it really so? I explored that subject in my article published in this Blog on November 06, 2017 titled, ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’.

In this article, I shall focus on health care and the ‘Development for All’ agenda of the Government, as witnessed by many in recent elections. Let me illustrate the point using one of the most recent state assembly elections as an example – Gujarat Assembly election of December 2017. I am citing this example, because it generated so much excitement among many, across the country, for different reasons, though.

Who is responsible for public health care in India?

A recent submission made on the floor of Parliament by the Government, explains the point unambiguously. It goes, as hereunder:

“Public health is a state subject. Under the National Health Mission, support is being provided to States/UTs to strengthen their health care systems to provide accessible, affordable and quality health care to all the citizens. Moving towards Universal Health Coverage wherein people are able to use quality health services that they need without suffering financial hardship is a key goal of 12th Plan.” This is what the Minister of State, Health and Family Welfare, reiterated in the Lok Sabha, just about a year ago, on November 25, 2016.

Since, public health is predominantly a state subject, and so important for each individual, besides being one of the key indicators for long-term socioeconomic progress of a country and, one expects health care to be a key issue during the state Assembly elections. This is necessary to maintain the pace of development in this area, be it a state or the country.

Intriguingly, it appears to have no more than a ‘me-too’ reference in the election manifestos of political parties.

Does health care scenario in a state matter?

Now, zeroing on to Gujarat election as an example, the media report of March, 2017 highlighted, gradually reducing budget allocation percentage of health care in Gujarat. It elaborated, the State has reduced its budgetary allocation for health care from 5.59 percent of the total budget in 2015-16 to 5.40 percent of the revised budget of 2016-17, and now to 5.06 percent in 2017-18.

Consequently, the health care budget and spending on the proportion to the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) is going down year after year. Whereas, globally, the percentage of GSDP spent on health and education is considered a key parameter of human development, the report states.

According to a report of the Observer Research Foundation dated December 06, 2017, Gujarat still has a high dependency to the private sector for both outpatient (84.9 percent cases) and also the inpatient (73.8 percent cases). As a result, the out of pocket spending on health care of the state stands at 63.7 percent. This makes Gujarat climbing up the ladder of per capita income, while slipping down the slope of health and social indicators,” the article states.

Just as what happens in all other Indian states, the recent state assembly elections offered an opportunity for the political leadership, cutting across the party line, for a significant course correction. Making health and nutrition one of the top priority focus areas, would have also ensured sustain economic development for Gujarat, in a more inclusive manner, for a long time to come.

What we are witnessing, instead:

The ‘best’ intent of a political party on any area of governance, if it comes to power, generally gets reflected in the respective election manifestos. From that perspective, let’s take a quick look at the key promises on health care, made in the respective election manifestos of the two principal political parties, on the eve of December 2017Gujarat election. I found these, as follows:

Key highlights on health care in BJP Manifesto:

  • The party promised to open more generic medicine shops
  • Introduce mobile clinics and laboratories
  • Making Gujarat free of vector-borne diseases.

Key highlights on health care in Congress Manifesto:

  • Universal health care card

That’s all?… Yes, that’s it.

India is ‘developing’, but public health care is not:

‘The Lancet’ editorial titled, ‘Health in India, 2017’, published on January 14, 2017, discussed about the current status of public health care in India. It underscored that the government expenditure on health being one of the lowest in the world at 1·4 percent of GDP, is totally inadequate to train staff, buy necessary equipment, or efficiently run public health facilities.

Corruption and an unregulated private sector usually fill this vacuum, and in so doing, fuel irresponsible prescribing, and global export of antimicrobial resistance, besides misery and medical bankruptcy for those within the country, lacking financial protection.

The editor articulated that the solution of this important issue is clear. Publicly financed Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has not only been deliberated in India since the dawn of the nation, but has also been highly recommended by both the domestic and the external stakeholders.

Nevertheless, successive governments seem to be lacking either the spine or the heart to act. As recently as 2011, progressive universalism was included in the government’s 5-year plan, but was never funded – the editorial commented.

Both the States, and also the national election campaigns, offer an opportunity for the politicians who the prospective lawmakers, to steer the States, and in that process the country as a whole, moving towards the UHC.

Conclusion:

As heath is a state subject, the issue of providing access to high quality and affordable health care to all should ideally become one of the core issues for all voters, at least, in the State Assembly elections. More so when the sound bite on ‘development for all’ reaches a feverish pitch. There can’t be any holistic ‘development for all’, sans health care and education.

Nonetheless, the reality is, unlike the United States, Europe or Japan, besides a few other countries, the voters in India are also not expressing their concerns in this area, meaningfully. In all probability, ‘development for all’ slogan of the politicians doesn’t include health care to all Indians.

This is likely to continue, in the same way, till the awareness of the socioeconomic impact on health care carves out a niche for itself in the popular political agenda for the voters. Just as what happens with many other economic, technological necessities and other aspirations of people. The recent assembly elections are important pointers to this long persisting trend.

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.

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on by
Reply

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the  National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently –  annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

  • UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.
  • On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for the country.

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.

 

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on by
Reply

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

 Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families –  spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

  • Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”
  • Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”
  • However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging.  Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

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.

 

Health Care in India: Disrupt The Status Quo

Posted on by
Reply

Over decades, we have been trying to ferret out the unfeigned reasons of failure for India to provide access to reasonably affordable, quality health care to all its citizens, but in vain. The quest to know its rationale becomes more intense, as we get to know, even some developing countries in Asia, Africa and Middle East are taking rapid strides to catch up with the health care standards of the developed countries of the world.

In the last few years many such countries, such as, Thailand, Turkey, Rwanda and Ghana, besides China, have successfully ensured access to quality and affordable healthcare to their citizens through well-structured national initiatives. Governments of economically poorer countries, such as, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too are making rapid progress in this direction. All these commendable health care initiatives are protecting the most vulnerable populations in their respective countries from getting swept away by extreme poverty.

No more than just assurances:

In India, economic and social costs of public health care infrastructural inadequacy, consequent low access and inefficient delivery mechanism keep going north, unabated, barring a small number of States. Over decades, Union Governments of all political dispensations have been making no more than incoherent promises and that too in bits and pieces on reform in public health care services. As on date, no Union Government has articulated a comprehensive pathway to achieve this goal, in tandem with the States, specifying required time-frames and making commensurate budgetary allocations.

Despite the legacy factor, the incumbent Government as well, has not taken any tangible measure in this direction, just yet, besides giving similar in-coherent assurances. Nor has it clearly articulated that providing access to quality health care for all, at a reasonable cost, is one of its top areas of priority in the widely publicized ‘National Development Agenda’.

Agonizing wait continues:

That the Government is now in the process of drafting a National Health Policy to meet the rising demand for sustainable healthcare across the country, was announced by the Secretary – Health & Family Welfare on September 1, 2014. The first draft of The National Health Policy 2015 was placed in the public domain seeking inputs from the stakeholders in January 2015.

That said, agonizing wait of the patients with unfathomable patience still continues for better days of high quality and affordable health care services in India. Palpable feeling of long standing apathy of the decision makers in this area keep lingering simultaneously.

Two critical admissions:

Besides others, following are the two critical and unambiguous admissions in the draft National Health Policy 2015:

  • “The failure to attain minimum levels of public health expenditure remains the single most important constraint.”
  • “Over 63 million persons are faced with poverty every year due to health care costs alone, it is because there is no financial protection for the vast majority of health care needs.”

In my article of January 12, 2015 published in this Blog, titled “National Health Policy 2015 Needs Wings To Fly ”, I deliberated on the draft National Health Policy 2015.

No commensurate budgetary provisions:

Despite being aware of the above facts, the Union Budget for 2015-16 allocated just below Rs. 30,000 Crore for health care in India, without unveiling any longer term picture in this regard, not even a ‘broad brush’ one.

To give a perspective regarding how meagre is this budgetary allocation on so critical an area, I quickly add that on August 19, 2015, Prime Minister Modi announced an allocation of Rs.1.25 lakh crore for the development of only Bihar, just prior to the state going for the assembly election.

Untenable reason:

The Finance Ministers reasoned in his budget speech that post devolution of resources to the states following the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, the states will address the issue of healthcare in their respective geographical jurisditions.

However, it does not make much sense to me, if at all. This is mainly because, though health is a state subject, it is still a very critical national issue with an overall dismal performance of the country against most of the ‘Millennium Development Goals’.

Only a ‘National Health Plan’ funded jointly and adequately by both the center and the States with clear budgetary provisions and executed immaculately against clearly measurable performance parameters with specifically assigned accountabilities, could salvage the disastrous consequences of further neglect in the health care space of the country.

Not just deployment of financial resources:

The core issue, I reckon, is not just inadequate deployment of financial resources, but continuation of lack of effective governance in the Union Ministry of Health, as well. And, this is indeed a deadly combination. It has been pushing a large number of patients in India embracing abject poverty every year, as admitted in the draft National Health Policy 2015 of the incumbent Government, but with no visible rectifying measures, as on date.

Dangling carrots, as it were, to the patients by different Union Governments in shedloads, such as, ‘free medicines for all’, ‘free health insurance for all’, ‘free diagnostics for all” and what not ‘for all’, has been continuing forever, with patients having no other choices but to have patience in plenty and probably in perpetuity.

When Primary Health Care itself is a critical issue… :

In such deteriorating heath care environment, when primary health care still remains a key issue mostly in rural India, yet another interesting and tentative assurance reportedly comes from no less than the Union Minister of Health himself on August 18, 2015, when he said:

“The government is working both in secondary and tertiary medical sector and I believe that we need to work out a module in PPP mode to lessen the healthcare burden of common man.”

Having said that, when it comes to providing healthcare services to the poor and the needy, the Honorable Minister, expressed his vision in a notably interesting way, which is reportedly as follows:

“How will we be able to give the healthcare facility to helpless is one question that is unanswered…. All stakeholders should answer this question. Enhance the teaching, the training should be at much higher, speed, scale and skill and above all there should be better communication.”

Going beyond just allopathic treatment:

To answer the Health Minister’s above question – “How will we be able to give the healthcare facility to helpless”, one of the many important ways for the Government, I reckon, is to make a decisive and robust move much beyond Allopathic treatment, just as what China has done with its ‘traditional medicines’.

The strengths of traditional Indian medicines need to be properly leveraged with requisite intervention of science and technology and supported by effective awareness building campaigns.

Expand the role of ‘Traditional Medicines’:

Treatment with traditional medicines in India for many well-tried common diseases, has the potential to play an important role in providing access to health care for all, at least in the public health care space of the country, where AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) needs to be promoted and encouraged, actively.

It is expected that the new National Health Policy 2015 would have a much greater focus on the traditional systems of medicine – AYUSH, for the treatment of many common diseases.

It appears from various reports, AYUSH system that calls for not very sophisticated technological inputs for diagnosis of common diseases and preparation of medicinal substances, could be made an integral part of the entire healthcare spectrum, starting from the primary health centers.

As a basic preparatory measure to achieve this goal, the rejuvenated ‘Department of AYUSH’ should work, in consultation with the respective domain experts, to chart out an effective and implementable pathway for the development of education and research in Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy systems.

Need to increase focus on AYUSH:

It has been widely reported that the use of herbs to treat various common ailments is almost universal among many societies, as these are quite often more affordable than buying expensive modern allopathic medicines.

According to the World Health Organization, around 80 per cent of the population of some Asian and African countries currently use traditional medicines to address their health care needs.

I thought the same holds good for India, as well.

However, from a very recent and credible survey report, I find that the above impression is not quite true for India. Penetration of traditional AYUSH systems of treatment, even within the rural population of India, is currently abysmally low.

According to NSSO’s (National Sample Survey Office) Household Expenditures on Health Survey, conducted between January and June 2014, usage of Allopathy for “spells of ailment” is unusually high both in urban and rural India, as follows:

Category Allopathy Treatment %
Rural Males 90.6
Rural Females 88.7
Urban Males 90.4
Urban Female 91.0

(Source: NSSO 2014-15)

In the absence of adequate access to safe and cost-effective treatments through public health care infrastructure and delivery systems, be it Allopathic or AYUSH, more number of patients are compelled to seek expensive private healthcare services for their “spells of ailment”, as follows:

Category Private Doctors Private Hospitals
Male 51.3 24.3
Female 49.7 23.9

(Source: NSSO 2014-15)

AYUSH could play an important role to address such issues, appreciably.

An intriguing recent media report:

On August 19, 2015, I read an intriguing media report that highlights the following two points on apparently a ‘recently overhauled draft’ of the National Health Policy 2015, as follows:

  • “The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government plans to increase public investment in health from 1.04 per cent of GDP (gross domestic product) to 2.5 per cent by 2020, with 70 per cent of this being dedicated to primary health care. This target has been set in the overhauled draft National Health Policy that now emphasizes on substantially ratcheting up government investment in public health care facilities across the country.”
  • “Of the total funds required, the Union government would provide 40 per cent, which could be shored up through a health cess on the lines of an education cess. The cess fund to be used specifically for public health investments could be partly shored up by imposing additional duties on tobacco, alcohol, fatty, salty and sugary products that are considered unhealthy by experts.”

Why is this media report so baffling?

This news really baffled me…a lot, as another more than six month old media report of January 1, 2015 stated just the same on the same two points, exactly quoting the very first draft (not the ‘overhauled’ one) of the National Health Policy 2015 , as follows:

  • “The draft National Health Policy, 2015 has proposed a target of raising public health expenditure to 2.5 % from the present 1.2% of GDP. It also notes that 40% of this would need to come from central expenditure.”
  • “The government is also keen to explore the creation of a health cess on the lines of education cess for raising money needed to fund the expenditure it would entail. Other than general taxation, this cess could mobilize contributions from specific commodity taxes such as the taxes on tobacco, and alcohol, from specific industries and innovative forms of resource mobilization.”

Be that as it may, I would urge you to please read both the old and new original media reports on the same draft National Health Policy 2015 and draw your own conclusions, as you deem appropriate.

No change on the ground:

The media reports, such as above, elaborately detailing a significant increase in the health care expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the so called “overhauled” draft of the National Health Policy 2015, gave me an impression that the status quo, at least, in the public health care expenditure scenario has now been disrupted, which in reality has not, at all.

Such reports make patients continue ‘counting colors in the rainbow’, as it were. They keep expecting that getting access to quality and affordable health care for all would soon become a reality, with the Government thinking afresh to raise the public health care expenditure significantly. In reality, the status quo on the ground continues and it can’t be just wished away.

Deserves ‘Infrastructure Status’:

To achieve the basic health care goals of the nation, the Government would require to set the national priorities right. Health care has to be placed at the top rungs of its ‘National Development Agenda’ just as ‘infrastructure’- disrupting the prevailing status quo.

Considering its critical social and economic impact on the progress of the nation, it is about time that ‘Health Care Sector’ be given the ‘infrastructure status’ in India, not just to give a further boost to the industry, but also to make health care products and services affordable to all.

Conclusion:

Making health a ‘Fundamental Right’ for Indian Citizens, as narrated in the draft National Health Policy (NHP) 2015 of Narendra Modi Government, is indeed profound in its both content and intent. However, inordinate delay in its finalization and commencement of implementation process is rather disturbing.

Overhaul and expansion of public health care infrastructure, services and the effective delivery mechanism, undoubtedly, are very necessary requirements for the length and breadth of the country, excepting a very small number of states, which are doing so well in this area.

That said, the real issue is much more deep seated. As the well-known economist Subir Gokarn wrote in one of his articles that in health care “the consequence of inaction is a vicious circle between morbidity and poverty.”

This ‘vicious circle’ has to be broken, sooner. Many developing countries, including much poorer nations, have successfully demonstrated that access to basic quality healthcare can be provided to all, at an affordable cost.

Well-crafted robust national health care plan and policy, which are integrated with similar initiatives of the States should soon be put in place. Effective implementation of a comprehensive, well-integrated and time-bound health care strategic plan, with requisite budgetary allocations and periodic review, assigning specific accountabilities to individuals, are the needs of the hour. Otherwise, the social and economic consequences of the status quo in the health care space of India, would impede the sustainable growth of the nation, seriously.

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.

Leading Through The Challenge Of Change: Is Pharma Leadership Too Archaic?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent major global survey titled “Testing The Health Of The Pharmaceutical Industry” has revealed that a sizable majority of executives polled, though believe the sector is in good shape, are concerned of its reputation. Interestingly, 73 percent of respondents believe that pharma companies should become “Genuine Healthcare Providers”.

From many other reports, as well, one gets to know that the overall image of the global pharmaceutical industry, despite the high profile personas being on the saddle, is currently as good or as bad as the same of, say, Tobacco or Alcoholic beverages sectors. Lamentably, the common perception is that the industry is hugely self-serving, problem making, largely exploitative and mostly surreptitious in its dealings.

This perception prevails, despite the fact that pharma industry exists to help mankind fighting against diseases continuously, thus improving the quality of life, quite unlike the other two industries, as indicated above.

Media reports on ignoble acts of this otherwise noble industry keep coming in tidal waves regularly and unabated, from many parts of the world, the latest being the alleged mega bribery scandal involving the large global majors in China, besides many others.

While industry leadership is generally smooth articulators, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ slogans in the frontiers of ethics, values and shared goals of many of these much reported companies, are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What then could possibly be the reason of such perception gap that this great industry is allowing to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that pharma collective leadership has not been able to adequately adapt itself with the demands of changing healthcare environment and the needs of various nations in this space, across the globe? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic?

Is Pharma leadership too archaic?

In this context, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published in one of the latest issues of Forbes, though deals with issues pertaining to the ‘Healthcare Industry’ in America, nevertheless makes some interesting observations, which are relevant to India as well, just as many other countries of the world.

It states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn-around an adaptive healthcare business model.

As a result, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities.

Inward looking leadership?

From the available details, it appears that today, mostly inward looking pharma leadership tends to ignore the serious voices demanding access to medicines, especially for dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to unleash yet another barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘Drug Innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. The leaders do it either themselves or mostly through their own funded trade associations.

In tandem and unhesitatingly, the leadership and/or their lobbyists reportedly exert all types of pressures even to get the relevant laws of sovereign countries amended or framed to further their business interests. The leadership continues to demonstrate its insensitivity to the concerns of a vast majority of patients, other stakeholders and their respective governments, further reinforcing its self-serving image.

Does anyone really talk against ‘Drug Innovation’?

The moot question, therefore, is: Why is this hype? Who on earth really talks against drug innovation? None, I reckon. On the contrary, drug innovation is considered by all as absolutely fundamental in the continuous combat of mankind against a galore of ailments. It should certainly be encouraged, protected and rewarded all the way, following a win-win pathway for providing access to these innovative drugs for all. There is no question about and no qualms on it.

Insensitive comments do matter:

Insensitive comments from the leadership further widens the perception gap. Let me give two examples:

I. Recently while justifying the price of US$ 1000/tab of the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi of Gilead, the CEO of Sanofi reportedly highlighted, “Unprecedented innovation comes at a price.” This is of course true, but at what price…US$ 1000/tablet? If this comment is not insensitive and outrageous, does it at least not smack of arrogance?

II. Another such insensitivity was expressed through reported proclamation in public of the Global CEO of Bayer, not so long ago, which clarified that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” Incidentally, the above comment came from the same Bayer whose research chemists synthesized Prontosil, the first antibiotic, in 1932, more than a decade before penicillin became commercially available. Prontosil and subsequent “Sulfa” drugs – the first chemicals used to treat bacterial infections, ushered in a new era for medicine, saving millions of lives of patients globally. At that time, the then Bayer CEO probably did not say that Prontosil was developed “just for the Western Patients that can afford it.”

‘Inclusive Innovation’ for greater access:

Any innovation has to have an impact on life or life-style, depending on its type. Each innovation has a target group and to be meaningful, this group has to have access to the innovative product.

So far as drugs and pharmaceuticals are concerned, the target group for innovation is predominantly the human beings at large. Thus, to make the drug innovation meaningful, the new medicines should be made accessible to all patients across the globe, with social equity, as per the healthcare environment of each country. This underscores the point that drug innovations would have to be inclusive to make meaningful impacts on lives.

New age pharma leadership should find out ways through stakeholder engagement that innovative drugs are made accessible to majority of the patients and not just to a privileged few…fixing a price tag such as US$ 1000/tab for Sovaldi, Sanofi CEO’s above comment notwithstanding.

Leadership lessons to learn from other industries:

Traditional pharma leadership has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. For example, to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated:

“If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a gutsy and exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern on global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world? Besides some tokenisms, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of dreaded and difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few?

Finding cost-effective ways for even ‘Unprecedented’ drug innovation:

Taking a lesson from the Tesla example and also from my earlier blog post, ‘Open Source’ model of drug discovery, would be quite appropriate in the current scenario not just to promote more innovative and intensive approaches in the drug discovery process, but also to improve profit.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘Open Source’ model would be substantial reduction of cost even for ‘Unprecedented’ innovations, besides minimizing the high cost of failures of several R&D projects. These, coupled with significant savings in time, would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines accessible to many more patients and the innovation inclusive.

Indian Pharma – promoter driven leadership:

Back home in India, fast growing India Pharma businesses predominantly consist of generic drugs and are family owned. A 2011 study conducted by ‘ASK Investment Managers’ reported, “Family Owned Businesses (FOB)” account for 60 percent of market cap among the top 500 companies in India and comprise 17 percent of the IT Industry, 10 percent of refineries, 7 percent of automobiles and 6 percent of telecom, in the country. In the domestic pharmaceutical sector, almost hundred percent of the companies are currently family owned and run, barring a few loss making Public Sector Units (PSUs).

As most of these companies started showing significant growth only after 1970, we usually see the first or second-generation entrepreneurs in these family run businesses, where the owners are also the business leaders, irrespective of size and scale of operations.

However, it is unlikely that the pharma business owners in India would be willing, just yet, to go for a regime change by hiring professional leaders at the helm of a business, like what the IT giant Infosys announced the week last or Cipla did sometime back. Nevertheless, they all should, at least, attune themselves with the mindset of the new age pharma leaders to reap a rich harvest out of the opportunities, at times veiled as threats.

New leadership to be ethically grounded and engage everyone:

Unlike what is happening with the current pharma leadership today, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable governance.

Quoting Dr. Michael Soman, President/Chief Medical Executive of Group Health Physicians, the above Forbes article states that in the new age healthcare leadership model, the leader may not have to have all of the answers to all the problems, but he would always have a clear vision of where we wants to lead the company to.

This new leadership should create a glorious future of the pharma industry together with all other stakeholders by asking: “How can we all be part of healthcare solutions?”

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, despite so much of good work done by the pharmaceutical industry in various fields across the world, including in India, the general public perception on the leadership of the pharma world, is still very negative for various reasons. Pharma industry also knows it well.

Thus, around the close of 2007, the Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly said publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

The available statistics also paints a grim picture of the traditional big pharma business model going from blockbuster to bust with the mindset of the leadership, by and large, remaining unchanged, barring some cosmetic touch-ups here or there.

The old business model – sprawling organizations, enormous capital investments, and spiraling costs, underwritten by a steady stream of multibillion blockbuster products – is simply a pipe dream today.

Has anything much changed even thereafter? May be not. Thus, to meet the new challenge of change in the healthcare space, doesn’t the new age pharma leadership still look too archaic, at least, in its mindset and governance pattern?

Is it, therefore, not high time for them to come out of the ‘Ostrich Mode’ collectively, face the demanding environmental needs squarely as they are, try to be a part of healthcare solutions of a nation in a win-win way and avoid being perceived as a part of the problem?

Effective leadership learning process has always been eclectic, borrowing ideas and experiences from other disciplines. In case of pharma, it could well be from other knowledge industries, such as, Information Technology (IT), Telecommunications etc. But change it must. Not just for business growth creating shareholders’ value, but for long-term survival too, basking in glory.

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.

 

 

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models

Posted on by
Reply

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, the key factor of significantly high ‘Out of Pocket (OOP)’ expenditure on healthcare in India is that people are pushed into seeking costlier private care services due to imbalanced infrastructure of healthcare workers, medicines and facilities.

Currently, 74 percent of patients in ‘Out-Patient (OP)’ care and 65 percent in ‘in-Patient (IP)’ care seek healthcare in the private channels. In private inpatient care, the average cost of treatment exceeds the average monthly household income at 121 percent for the affording population and 217 percent for the poor population, forcing many families to borrow money or sell assets.

Thus, the affordability challenges for healthcare of the country, as manifested by high OOP spend, is mostly a consequence of a large patient population using the private healthcare channel due to still inadequate availability of public healthcare services.

The situation is looking up:

According to IMS study 2012, currently, on an average about 54 percent of the patients are receiving free medicines from the Government hospitals. In progressive states like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka this number goes up to 85 percent. At the same time, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for OP care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

Consequently, this increase will also have significant impact in reducing OOP healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Medicines constitute highest component of OOP:

Medicines still constitute the highest component of OOP expenses in OP care, though its percentage share has decreased from 71 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012.  Similarly for IP care, the share of medicines in total OOP has also decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, still 46 percent of the patients seeking healthcare in public channels had to purchase medicines from private channels. Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation and distribution of those drugs free of cost from Government hospitals and health centers, could address this issue effectively.

Further scope to reduce OOP:

The study highlights that OOP spend could be lowered by 22 percent with:

  • Improved availability of healthcare facilities at public hospitals and health centers, which can be achieved through effective implementation of “National Health Mission” with higher budgetary allocation.
  • Improved availability of medicine at the public channels, which is feasible through effective implementation of already announced “Free Medicine” scheme of the Government across the country.

A total reduction of ~40% in overall OOP spend appears to be possible, the study reiterates, when more people would get confidence that public healthcare can meet all their needs.

The roadmap to achieve the goal:

Fundamentally there are five ways to deal with the affordability issue:

1. Reduction in demand: Creating a better health environment,

2. Reduction in costs: Through price control, increased competition, group purchasing power

3. Increase in financial support from government

4. Increased penetration of health insurance programs

5. Increase per-capita income of households

All these five areas, I reckon, would not be difficult to address through well-structured and strategic Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

It is increasingly recognized that there are many other healthcare challenges, which do not fall exclusively under either the public or the private sectors. These challenges need to be addressed with combined efforts… with well structured Public Private Partnership (PPP) models.

Private sector should play its role:

The private sector is already a major provider of health services in India. Hence, it has the wherewithal to support implementation of Government’s flagship healthcare programs, especially in the area of service delivery, to enhance their overall effectiveness.

As the Universal Health Care (UHC) proposal made by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) to the Planning Commission of India highlighted, the government would provide the budget, while the private sector would take the responsibility for delivery of healthcare services.

Accountability for PPP should not fall through the systemic cracks:

The above study indicates, the private parties could include individual physicians, commercial contractors, large private and corporate super-specialty hospitals, not-for-profit agencies (NGOs), pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers. Expertise of all these stakeholders should be appropriately leveraged.

It is absolutely essential to make sure that the accountability of the PPP initiatives does not fall through the cracks now existing in the system.

To control costs and ensure required standards are met, all contractual agreements for PPPs, as recommended, must have adequate built-in monitoring and supervision mechanisms of the highest order, assigning clear roles and responsibilities for each party.

Similarly, NGOs need to be given a larger role of monitoring the activities or services rendered at such facilities to make sure the designated institutions are fulfilling their obligations to the public.

Conclusion:

To make healthcare affordable in India, well-strategized PPP initiatives would have critical roles to play.

Thus, instead of resorting to blame games with Government accusing the private sector to be exploitative and the private sector continuously moaning for ‘unfriendly’ business policies of the government, there is a fundamental need for both the constituents working closely together.

As a result, patients will have greater access to quality healthcare at an affordable price, the industry will grow faster in a sustainable way and the government will have its public healthcare obligations fulfilled to a reasonable extent.

Some of the major sectors in India where PPP has been quite successful are infrastructure, telecom, irrigation, power and airports. So, why should it not work for the healthcare sector of the country, as well?

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.

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000  to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

  • What is then the real issue with pharma innovation? 
  • Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
  • What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

  • First-in-class
  • Advance-in-class
  • Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for  more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags,  creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts: 

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.    

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition  from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now  faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

  • Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.
  • In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.
  • There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related  immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.
  • Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.
  • More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both. 

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs, 

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1.  ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance: 

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types.  In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

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.