Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on August 25, 2014 by Tapan Ray

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs. They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.

Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.

Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.

Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.

In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

- Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

- Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

- Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region	Countries
North America	Canada
Europe	E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific	China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America	Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe	Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

Must be highly similar to the reference product
Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
Must perform the same in any given patient
Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

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.

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Recent price reductions of a number of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs falling outside the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), have attracted fury of the pharma industry . By a notification dated July 10, 2014, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invoked Para 19 of the DPCO 2013 for these price changes, the implications of which would indeed be far reaching.

NPPA has now decided to examine inter-brand price variation for single ingredient formulations in eight therapeutic groups, which, besides cardiovascular and diabetic drugs, would include, anti-cancer, HIV/AIDS, anti-TB, anti-malaria, anti-asthmatic and immunological (sera/vaccines). In these therapy areas, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the brand(s) exceeding 25 per cent of the simple average price of all in the same molecular category having 1 percent or above market share, would be capped at the 25 per cent level.

Pharma industry, in general, feels that this ‘unwelcoming decision’ of the NPPA, which allegedly goes beyond the scope and spirit of DPCO 2013, would invite great uncertainty in its business environment.

On the other hand, many consider this price reduction as a ‘Good Omen’ for millions of patients suffering from related life-long ailments. They argue, the purpose of this ‘Bitter Pill” of the NPPA, is to send a clear message to the pharma industry to shape-up with responsible drug pricing.

The new Minister’s recent statement:

It may not be a bad idea to take into consideration the above notification of the NPPA in the light of what the new minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar said on May 28, 2014. According to media report, the Minister expressed his intent as follows:

“… As far as branded medicines of multinational pharmaceutical companies are concerned, we will talk to all of them and try to bring down prices of essential drugs for poor by 25-40 per cent… The pharmaceutical industry is very important for the health of the country, he added…our main mission will be to ensure the availability of all necessary medicines at affordable prices, especially for poor across the country.”

It is, therefore, quite possible that the NPPA’s decision on price reduction of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs has the Minister’s concurrence.

Industry’s key concern:

This recent decision of the NPPA has reportedly angered the industry, as the Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) clearly articulates two basic criteria for drug price control in India, as follows:

1. Span of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) on the ‘essentiality criteria’ of the drugs, which in turn is based on the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)

2. Methodology of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) with a clear departure from ‘Cost-Based Price Control’ to the ‘Market-Based Price Control’.

The industry alleges violation of these criteria for the recently announced price reduction of a number of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, as those do not fall under NLEM 2011.

Price variation is of no-use to patients for prescription drugs:

As the prices of non-scheduled formulations are not fixed by the NPPA, which can virtually be launched at any price to the market, there has been a huge variation of prices between the branded generics within the same chemical entity/entities. Following is a quick example:

Molecule	Disease	MRP of Lowest Price Brand	MRP of Highest Price Brand
Telmisartan 10’s	Hypertension	Rs. 25	Rs. 385
Glimeperide 10’s	Diabetes	Rs. 40	Rs. 133 (Brand Leader)

From this chart, one may be able to fathom some basis in the NPPA’s argument that similar price variations in many branded-generics are of no-consequence for prescription drugs, as doctors decide the medicines that a patient would take. If doctors were influenced to prescribe high priced medicines, the patients would require paying more for those drugs, further increasing their Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses. It is also not uncommon that highest price brands are category-leaders too, as indicated in the table above.

Key lacunae in DPCO 2013:

As highlighted in my earlier blog post titled “Is The New ’Market Based Pricing Model’ Fundamentally Flawed?”, even besides that specific drawback in the methodology of price control in DPCO 2013, NLEM 2011 does not also cover a wide range of essential drugs.

NLEM 2011 does not cover many combinations of TB drugs, a large number of important drugs for diabetes and hypertension, which I shall deliberate in just a bit.

Many other critical life saving medicines, such as, anti-cancer drugs, expensive antibiotics and products needed for organ transplantation have been left out of price control. In fact, the prices of a number of these drugs have reportedly gone up after the notification of DPCO 2013.

The government has now reportedly admitted in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the market value and share of medicines covered by new DPCO 2013, as ‘Essential Drugs’, is a meager 18 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM).

As a result, DPCO 2013 based on NLEM 2011 undermines the entire objective of making essential drugs affordable to all.

All these lacunae in the current DPCO 2013 calls for a major revision of NLEM 2011. The Union Health Ministry has reportedly initiated steps to revise the list considering the existing market conditions and usage of drugs by the patients.

Invocation of a ‘Safeguard Provision’ in DPCO 2013:

Probably anticipating this scenario, a key safeguard provision was included in Para 19 of DPCO 2013, which reads as follows:

“Fixation of ceiling price of a drug under certain circumstances:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the Government may, in case of extra-ordinary circumstances, if it considers necessary so to do in public interest, fix the ceiling price or retail price of any Drug for such period, as it may deem fit and where the ceiling price or retail price of the drug is already fixed and notified, the Government may allow an increase or decrease in the ceiling price or the retail price, as the case may be, irrespective of annual wholesale price index for that year.”

It now appears, NPPA could realize the key limitations of DPCO 2013, which was put in place rather hastily, in course of its implementation for over one year. Consequently, the patients’ long standing plight with high drug costs for many common life style diseases that are not featuring in NLEM 2011, prompted the the drug regulator in its above notification to bring 108 non-scheduled formulation packs of diabetic, cardiac and other drugs under Para 19 of DPCO 2013, catalyzing an outcry within the pharmaceutical industry in India. Out of these 108 formulation packs, 50 come under anti-diabetic and cardiovascular medicines.

Many important drugs are outside NLEM 2011:

Following is an example of the important cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs, which are not featuring in the NLEM 2011 and have now been brought under Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

Sitagliptin, Voglibose, Acarbose, Metformin hcl, Ambrisentan, Amlodipine, Atenolol, Atorvastatin, Bisoprolol, Bosentan, Gliclazide, Glimepiride, Miglitol, Repaglinide, Pioglitazone, Carvedilol, Clopidogrel, Coumarin, Diltiazem, Dobutamine, Enalapril, Rosuvastatin, Simvastatin, Telmisartan, Terazosin, Torasemide, Trimetazidine and Valsartan, Enoxaparin, Eplerenone, Esatenolol, Fenofibrate, Heparin, Indapamide, Irbesartan, Isosorbide, Ivabradine, Labetalol, Levocarnitine, Lisinopril, Metolazone, Metoprolol, Nebivolol, Nicorandil, Nitroglycerin, Olmesartan, Prasugrel, Prazosin, Propranolol, Ramipril.

More reasons for industry outcry:

As reported in the media, the industry outcry reportedly highlights, besides what I have cited above, the following:

The price control order under Para 19 has been notified without any prior consultation with the industry.

The manner and method in which this unilateral decision has been taken is untenable.

The NPPA’s reasoning, about exploitative pricing by the industry as the reason for such a move, is incorrect given that every product category (in consideration) has approximately 30-70 brand options across price ranges for physicians and patients to choose from. The premise that products are not accessible due to affordability is misplaced. (The above table explains this point).

Disease environment was same when the government had cleared the policy and no “extraordinary circumstance” has emerged since then for the regulator to invoke Para 19 in public interest.

NPPA has exceeded its brief and gone into policy-making.

NPPA’s rationale for invoking Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

On the other hand, following reasons were cited by the NPPA for taking this decision:

The aim of DPCO 2013 is to ensure that essential drugs are available to all at affordable prices. The Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated November 12, 2002 in SLP no. 3668/2003 have directed the Government to ensure that essential and life saving drugs do not fall outside the ambit of price control, which has the force of law.

The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers has delegated the powers in respect of specified paragraphs of the DPCO 2013, including paragraph 19, to be exercised by the NPPA on behalf of the Central Government in public interest.

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure as different brands of the same drug formulation identical to each other vary disproportionately in terms of price.

The different brands of the same drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

The main reason for market failure is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for Government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role that pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, such intervention becomes necessary. This assumes greater significance, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most, putting huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

There is very high incidence of diabetes in the country, which affects around 61 million persons and the figure is expected to cross 100 million by 2030 as per the projection of the International Diabetes Federation; and it is estimated that every year nearly 1 million people in the country die due to diabetes and hypertension.

The drug regulator categorically mentions that In accordance with the guidelines issued by the NPPA, after approval of the ‘Competent Authority’, these price fixations of non-scheduled formulations under Para 19 of DPCO 2013 have been made.

Constituents of the same Ministry with conflicting view points:

Though both NPPA and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) come under Mr. Ananth Kumar, the new Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, both these constituents seem to have conflicting views on this important issue.

The pharma industry reportedly has sought the DoP’s intervention in this matter. The DoP, in turn, is learnt to have requested for the opinion of the Ministry of Law on using ‘Para 19′ provision in favor of public interest by the NPPA, invoking the power assigned to the drug regulator.

Another route for the industry is to legally challenge the said notification of the NPPA. However, one should keep in mind that a PIL is still pending before the Supreme Court questioning the validity DPCO 2013.

The arguments for and against:

Taking all the above points into consideration, the following two important areas of debate have now emerged on this NPPA notification, both in favor and also against:

A. Nothing has materially changed since DPCO 2013 was put in place:

Industry sources highlight that he following two points, that triggered NPPA’s invoking Para 19, have been there for a long time, including the period when the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) was formulated:

- Huge price differences among various branded generics of the same molecule

- Cardiovascular ailments and diabetes have assumed endemic proportion

The other group counters that, if mistakes were made while formulating the NPPP 2012 because of intense pressure from vested interests in the erstwhile regime, why corrective actions can’t be taken now?

B. NPPA has exceeded its brief:

Industry sources question, how could NPPA possibly issue such notification of price reduction for non-scheduled formulations, as it is not a policy maker?

Others counter with equal zest: Of course NPPA is not a policy maker, it is a drug price regulator… And as a price regulator, it has implemented Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in the right earnest with the requisite powers conferred on it.

The impact:

According to published data, after the latest price revisions of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, around 21 per cent of the anti-diabetic drug market faces the ceiling price, while the total market of cardiovascular medicines under price control is now estimated at around 58 per cent, with an overall adverse impact of reportedly Rs 550 Crore on the Indian Pharmaceutical Market. Overall price reduction for these two categories would range between 5 and 35 per cent, the average being around 12 per cent.

MNCs seem to have been hit harder:

An additional bad news for the MNCs is that the scope of Para 19 has now gone beyond the generic space and included even patented product.

For the first time a patented product Sitagliptin has been brought under the purview of Drug price Control order. This decision could give an unprecedented handle to the NPPA to regulate prices of even patented drugs through invocation of Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in future. Moreover, many high-priced branded generics of MNCs are brand leaders too. Thus, in a relative yardstick, invocation of Para 19 would hit the MNCs harder, creating an uncertainty in their business environment.

Conclusion:

Drug prices are cheapest in India in dollar terms, claims the pharma industry. Does this claim hold much water? May be not, because it should be realistically seen in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and Per Capita Income in India. In that sense many would argue that drug prices in India, on the contrary, are not cheaper at all.

Moreover, it is important to take into cognizance the huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics due to a flawed system, as patients have no role to play in choosing a drug (within the same molecule) that they would need to buy. It is the doctor who is the sole prescription decision maker, where price, per se, may not play a very significant role.

In a situation like this, despite the anger of the industry, many would ponder whether or not NPPA’s engagement and reasoning, on behalf of the Government, to bring some sense in the madness of drug pricing in India be just wished away?

Cheaper medicines in general and generic drugs in particular, would always make the patients and the payor happy, leaving the industry mostly angry.

Keenly observing the recent series of events and taking note of a number of highly credible viewpoints, besides a couple of seemingly spoon-fed, ill-informed and run-of-the mill type editorials, this is about time for the stakeholders to judge without any bias what is right for the country, its people and of course the business to work out a win-win solution, dousing the likes of ‘Fire in The Blood‘, once and for all.

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.

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Tapan Ray

June 2014 underscores a significant development for the generic drug exporters of India. Much-delayed and highly expected launch of generic Diovan (Valsartan) is now on its way, as Ranbaxy has reportedly received US-FDA approval to launch the first generic version of this blood pressure drug in the United States.

As deliberated in my earlier blog titled “Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear”, delay in launch of the generic equivalent of Diovan caused a windfall gain for Novartis from US$ 1.7 billion US sales of this drug last year, instead of usual declining turnover of an innovative molecule post patent expiry.

The generic version of Diovan (Valsartan) is estimated to contribute around US$ 200 million to Ranbaxy’s sales and US$ 100 million to its profit after tax, during the exclusive sale period. Against these numbers, delay in the launch of generic Diovan has reportedly cost payers and consumers in America around US$ 900 million in the first 18 months.

Since four Ranbaxy manufacturing facilities in India are now facing US-FDA ‘import bans’ due to violations of ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ of the American regulator, its Ohm Laboratories unit located in New Jersey has been allowed to make generic Valsartan for the US.

Go for gold:

Hopefully, Ranbaxy would soon get similar approvals from the US drug regulator for its ‘first to launch’ generic versions of Nexium (AstraZeneca) and Valcyte (Roche), as well.

It is worth mentioning that around 90 percent price erosion would take place with intense competition, as soon the period of exclusivity for such ‘first to launch’ generics gets over.

Nonetheless, this is indeed a very interesting development, when the global generic pharmaceutical segment is reportedly showing signals of a tough chase for overtaking the branded pharmaceuticals sector in terms of sales turnover too.

India has a huge a stake in this ball game, as it supplies around 30 to 40 percent of the world’s generic medicines and is well poised to improve its pharma exports from around US$ 15 billion per year to US$ 25 billion by 2016. Since 2012, this objective has remained an integral part of the country’s global initiative to position India as the “pharmacy to the world.”

However, considering the recent hiccups of some Indian pharma majors in meeting with the quality requirements of the US-FDA, though this target appears to be a challenging one for now, the domestic pharma players should continue to make all out efforts to go for the gold by moving up the generic pharmaceutical value chain. In this context, it is worth noting that penetration of the generic drugs in the US is expected to increase from the current 83 percent to 86-87 percent very shortly, as the ‘Obamacare’ takes off with full steam.

Moving up the value chain:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with commensurate price erosion, registering mixed figures of growth. Even in a situation like this, some companies are being immensely benefited from moving up the value chain with differentiated generic product launches that offer relatively high margin, such as, specialty dermatologicals, complex injectibles, other products with differentiated drug delivery systems and above all biosimilars.

As a consequence of which, some Indian generic companies have already started focusing on the development of value added, difficult to manufacture and technology intensive generic product portfolios, in various therapy areas. Just to cite an example, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is now reportedly set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Thus, those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom lines.

One such key opportunity area is the development of a portfolio of biosimilar drugs – the large molecule proteins.

Global interest in biosimilars:

According to the June 2014 report of GlobalData, a leading global research and consulting firm, the biosimilars industry is already highly lucrative. More than 100 deals involving companies focused on the development of biosimilars have been completed over the past 7 years, with a total value in excess of US$10.7 billion.

GlobalData further states, there are a number of factors driving the initiative toward global adoption of biosimilars, from austerity measures and slow economic growth in the US, to an aging population and increasing demand for healthcare in countries, such as Japan.

The costs of biosimilars are expected to be, at least, 20 to 30 percent lower than the branded biologic therapies. This still remains a significant reduction, as many biologics command hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1 year’s treatment.

According to another media report, biosimilars are set to replace around 70 percent of global chemical drugs over the next couple of decades on account of ‘safety parameters and a huge portion of biologic products going off patent’.

Biosimilar would improve patient access:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as the time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalents of novel biologics would improve access to such drugs significantly, for the patients across the globe.

Regulatory hurdles easing off:

In the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the US-FDA has already charted the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs, though more clarifications are still required.

Not so long ago, the EU had approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have at least 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Key global players:

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to be heated up and grow at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US would be the key growth driver.

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started warming up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012.

Most recent global development:

A key global development in the biosimilar space has taken place, just this month, in June 2014, when Eli Lilly has reportedly won the recommendation of European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for launch of a biosimilar version (Abasria insulin) of Sanofi’s Lantus insulin. This launch would pave the way for the first biosimilar version of Sanofi’s top-selling drug clocking a turnover of US$7.8 billion in 2013. Eli Lilly developed Abasria with Boehringer Ingelheim of Germany.

In May 2014, Lantus would lose patent protection in Europe. However, biosimilar competition of Lantus in the US could get delayed despite its patent expiry in February, as Sanofi reportedly announced its intention of suing Eli Lilly on this score.

Global Market Potential:

According to a 2011 study, conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory pathways for biosimilars in the US

IMS Health indicates that the US will be the cornerstone of the global biosimilars market, powering a sector worth between US$ 11 billion and US$ 25 billion in 2020, representing a 4 percent and 10 percent share, respectively, of the total biologics market.

The overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market is estimated to reach up to 50 percent by 2020.

Challenges for India:

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologics are developed from living cells using very complex processes. It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise.

According to IMS Health, the following would be the key areas of challenge:

High development costs:

Developing a biosimilar is not a simple process but one that requires significant investment, technical capability and clinical trial expertise. Average cost estimates range from US$ 20-100 million against much lesser cost of developing traditional generics, which are typically around US$ 1-4 million.

Fledgling regulatory framework:

In most markets apart from Europe, but including the United States, the regulatory framework for biosimilars is generally still very new compared to the well-established approval process for NCEs and small-molecule generics.

Intricate manufacturing issues:

The development of biosimilars involves sophisticated technologies and processes, raising the risk of the investment.

Overcoming ‘Branded Mentality’:

Winning the trust of stakeholders would call for honed skills, adequate resources and overcoming the branded mentality, which is especially high for biologics. Thus, initiatives to allay safety concerns among physicians and patients will be particularly important, supported by sales teams with deeper medical and technical knowledge. This will mean significant investment in sales and marketing too.

Indian business potential:

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (Source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies, such as, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies is to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Domestic players on the go:

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) in India has already developed Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. DRL has also developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. DRL has launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa in the world for treating nephrology and oncology indications and Peg-grafeel, an affordable form of Pegfilgrastim, which is used to stimulate the bone marrow to fight infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The company reportedly sold 1.4 million units of its four biosimilars, which have treated almost 97,000 patients across 12 countries. Besides, in June 2012, DRL and Merck Serono, of Germany, announced a partnership deal to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions.

Another Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla, has reportedly invested Rs 300 Crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and announced in June 19, 2014 collaboration with Hetero Drugs to launch a biosimilar drug with Actroise brand name for the treatment of anemia caused due to chronic kidney disease. Actorise is a biosimilar of ‘Darbepoetin alfa’, which is marketed by US-based Amgen under the brand Aranesp.

In 2011, Lupin reportedly signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly would use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology. Again, in April 2014, Lupin entered into a joint venture pact with Japanese company Yoshindo Inc. to form a new entity that will be responsible both for development of biosimilars and obtaining marketing access for products in the Japanese market.

In November 2013, The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) approved a biosimilar version of Roche’s Herceptin developed jointly by Biocon and Mylan.

In June 2014, Ipca Laboratories and Oncobiologics, Inc. of USA reportedly announced the creation of an alliance for the development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar monoclonal antibody products.

Many more such initiatives reportedly are in the offing.

Oncology becoming biosimilar development hot spot:

Many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of around US$ 60 billion growing over 17 percent.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer.

Indian Government support:

In India, the government seems to have recognized that research on biotechnology has a vast commercial potential for products in human health, including biosimilars, diagnostics and immune-biological, among many others.

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT currently spends around US$ 300 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and has been reportedly making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared and put in place ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance with the international quality and patient safety standards. This is a big step forward for India in the arena of biosimilar drugs.

In June 2014, under the advanced technology scheme of Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program (BIPP), the DBT has reportedly invited fresh proposals from biotech companies for providing support on a cost sharing basis targeted at development of novel and high risk futuristic technologies mainly for viability gap funding and enhancing existing R&D capacities of start-ups and SMEs in key areas of national importance and public good.

However, the stakeholders expect much more from the government in this area, which the new Indian government would hopefully address with a sense of urgency.

Conclusion:

According to IMS Health, biosimilar market could well be the fastest-growing biologics segment in the next few years, opening up oncology and autoimmune disease areas to this category of drugs for the first time ever. Moreover, a number of top-selling biologic brands would go off patent over the next five years, offering possibilities of reaping rich harvest for the biosimilars players of the country. Critical therapy areas such as cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis are expected to spearhead the new wave of biosimilars.

While moving up the generic pharma value chain, Indian pharma players desiring to encash on the emerging global biosimilars opportunities would require to do a thorough analysis, well in advance, to understand properly the key success factors, core value propositions, financial upsides and risks attached to investments in this area.

Indian companies would also need to decide whether moving ahead in this space would be through collaborations and alliances or flying solo would be the right answer for them. Thereafter would come the critical market access strategy – one of the toughest mind games in the long-haul pharma marketing warfare.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drugs From The Same Indian Plant: Safe For Europe, Unsafe For America, Why?

Posted on June 9, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Good number of stories on US-FDA banning several drug manufacturing facilities of major domestic players of India over serious quality related issues, have been doing the rounds since about a year and almost at a regular interval.

The quagmire has snowballed into serious apprehensions on the quality of Indian generic drugs, across the globe. Various statements of US-FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, during her much talked about maiden visit to India, in February 2014, added further credence to the issue.

“If you want our market, meet our standards”:

During Hamburg’s India visit, her reported candid warning to the Indian drug exporters to America added further fuel to the above concern in India. She clearly underscored:

“If you want our market, meet our standards.”

Even in the face of this stern warning, when major drug manufacturers of India, such as, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Sun Pharma and some others continued to fail in meeting US-FDA drug quality standards in their respective plants, I wrote the following in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “Does India Believe in Two Different Drug Quality Standards?”:

“In a situation like this, especially when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly failing to meet the American quality standards, the following questions come up:

Is the US-FDA manufacturing requirement too troublesome, if not oppressive?

If not, do the Indian and other patients too deserve to have drugs conforming to the same quality standards?

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital to convince ourselves, why should Indian patients have access to drugs of lower quality standards than Americans, with consequential increase in their health risks?”

The first question on ‘troublesomeness’ now partly answered?

This is because another recent media report brought to the fore that, having completed their assessment of drug manufacturing violations at Ranbaxy’s facility in Toansa, European regulators have said although deficiencies were found, they pose no risk to public health. The regulators said they were satisfied by corrective measures put in place by the company after U.S. regulators found deviations in January.

The report also highlights that this assessment of the European regulators stands in stark contrast to the response of US regulators to the deficiencies found at the same plant.

It is worth noting that US-FDA continues to restrict Ranbaxy from making and selling pharmaceutical ingredients from the Toansa facility “to prevent substandard quality products from reaching US consumers.”

The same plant meets drug safety standards of Europe, but ‘unsafe’ for America!

Quite contrary to the above stern statement of US-FDA, according to the above report from Reuters, European drug regulators commented as follows:

“The inspection team concluded that there was no evidence that any medicines on the EU market that have an active pharmaceutical ingredient manufactured in Toansa were of unacceptable quality or presented a risk to the health of patients taking them.”

The further added, “This conclusion was supported by tests of samples of these medicines, all of which met the correct quality specifications.”

Regulatory audit standards were the same for both EU and US regulators:

It is also interesting to note from the report that according to a statement from the US-FDA:

“EMA and FDA inspected the Toansa facility using similar quality standards and underlying principles of current good manufacturing practices.”

Was the decision of US-FDA ‘import ban’ subjective?

This critical question arises because of another US-FDA statement that states as follows:

“While inspections were similar, the two regulatory authorities applied their own, differing, regulatory and legal standards to address the violations.”

Subjectivity in decision-making could encourage “Conspiracy Theory”:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are now sold in the United States come from India. Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs. Total annual drug export of India, currently at around US$ 15 billion, is more than the domestic turnover of the pharma industry. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this area is indeed mind-boggling.

In a situation like this, the apprehension of subjectivity in the decision making process of US-FDA related to ‘import bans’, if linked with, say for example, even the missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of several patent-expired blockbuster drugs in the United States by Ranbaxy, could lead to much undesirable ‘Conspiracy Theory’, further souring the relationship between India and America.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Loss of Ranbaxy Gain of Big Pharma…And Intriguing Coincidences”, when the emerging dots associated with the missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of drugs like, Lipitor (Pfizer), Diovan (Novartis) and Nexium (AstraZeneca) are connected, an uncomfortable pattern could emerge favoring Big Pharma and obviously adversely affecting Indian companies like Ranbaxy.

The First Dot: Uncertainty over Lipitor generic launch:

Like many other large Indian players, ‘first to launch’ strategy with the new generic drugs has been the key focus of Ranbaxy since long, much before its serious trouble with the US-FDA begun in 2008. ‘Import Bans’ on two of its manufacturing facilities by the US regulator in that year created huge uncertainty in its launch of a generic version of Pfizer’s anti-lipid blockbuster drug Lipitor in 2011. On time launch of a generic version of Lipitor was estimated to have generated a turnover of around US$ 600 million for Ranbaxy in the first six months and commensurate loss to Pfizer for the generic entry.

Despite its neck deep trouble with the US-FDA at that time, Ranbaxy ultimately did somehow manage to launch generic Lipitor, after partnering with Teva Pharmaceutical of Israel.

The Second Dot: Indefinite delay in Diovan generic launch:

Lipitor story was just the beginning of Ranbaxy’s trouble of not being able to translate its ‘first to launch’ advantage of patent-expired blockbuster drugs into commercial success, thus allowing the Big Pharma constituents to enjoy market monopoly with their respective blockbuster drugs even after patent expiry.

Despite Ranbaxy holding the exclusive rights to market the first generic valsartan (Diovan of Novartis and Actos of Takeda) for 180 days, much to its dismay, even after valsartan patent expiry in September 2012, a generic version of the blockbuster antihypertensive is yet to see the light of the day. However, Mylan Inc. has, now launched a generic combination formulation of valsartan with hydrochlorothiazide.

US-FDA drug ‘Import Ban’ from the concerned manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy gave rise to this hurdle favoring the Big Pharma, as discussed above.

As a result, Novartis in July 2013 reportedly raised its guidance announcing that the company now expects full-year sales to grow at a low single-digit rate, where it had earlier predicted net sales to turn up flat. It also guided for core earnings to decline in the low single digits, revising guidance for a mid-single-digit drop.

The Third Dot: Delay in Nexium generic launch:

Ranbaxy had earlier created for itself yet another opportunity to become the first to launch a generic version of the blockbuster anti-peptic ulcerant drug of AstraZeneca – Nexium in the United States, as the drug went off patent on May 27, 2014. However, due to recent US-FDA import ban from its Toansa plant, this opportunity too seems to be fading away for Ranbaxy.

Delay in the launch of generic Nexium, which incidentally is the second-biggest seller of AstraZeneca, would make a big impact on the predator-chased company’s profit.

With the global sales of Nexium at US$ 3.87 billion and US sales at US$ 2.12 billion in 2013, retaining its monopoly status in the all-important US market beyond the end of May would not only limit a forecast decline in AstraZeneca’s 2014 earnings, but would also protect bonuses for top management of the British pharma giant, as the above report says.

Conclusion:

Let me hasten to add yet again, while highlighting the stark differences of interpretations on drug quality standards of the same plant between the European and American regulators and connecting the dots of significant missed opportunities of the Indian drug manufacturers, I do not intend to postulate any ‘Machiavellian Hypothesis’.

I just wanted to establish that both alleged ‘subjective’ decision making process of the US-FDA and coincidences of a series of missed opportunities encountered by the Indian drug manufacturers related to first to launch generics in America are now realities, which if remain unaddressed could germinate into a ‘Conspiracy Theory’, at least in some corners. This could further sour existing Indo-US relationship.

While, I am confident that the new government of India with its, so far, well demonstrated ‘Can Do’ spirit would take these critical issues up in the ensuing bilateral ministerial level meetings, an immediate and in-depth study should also be initiated with valuable inputs from the independent experts to ferret out the real reasons behind these facts, including:

Why are the cGMP related issues in India repeatedly arising mainly with the US-FDA?
Are the requirements of the US-FDA though too onerous for the Indian drug manufacturers, yet reasonable as per global norms?
If so, how come the drugs manufactured in the same Indian plant though declared unsafe by the US-FDA, considered safe by the European regulators?

By: Tapan J. Ray

With Free Medicines In, Would The New Government Revisit ‘Universal Health Coverage’ Soon?

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Friday last, the new Union Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan reportedly announced that the his ministry would soon start work on distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country.

For this purpose the Minister would soon call a meeting of the State Health Ministers to integrate this policy with the National Health Mission (NHM). The said meeting will be held under the framework of the Central Council of Health (CCH), which also includes professional experts.

A commendable beginning:

This decision of Dr. Harsh Vardhan would revive a plan that the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised in his Independence Day speech to the nation in 2012, but could not be implement due to paucity of adequate fund. Implemented effectively, the above scheme has the potential to significantly reduce the Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on healthcare in India.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, expenditure on 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 marginally decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, it is worth noting that still 46 percent of patients seeking healthcare in public channels purchase medicines from private channels for non-availability. The new scheme hopefully would resolve this issue with sincerity, care and a sense of purpose.

For early success in this area, experts recommend that up and running Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan models of this scheme, which are most efficient and cost effective, should be replicated in rest of the states.

Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation with the manufacturers, and distribution of those drugs free of cost from the Government hospitals and health centers to the patients efficiently, could further add value to the process.

The cost and span:

Planning Commission estimated that a countrywide free generic drug program would cost Rs 28,560 Crore (roughly around US$ 5 Billion) during the 12th Five-Year Plan period. The Centre will bear 75 percent of the cost while the states would provide the rest. Under the previous government plan, 348 drugs enlisted in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) were to be provided free at 160,000 sub-centers, 23,000 Primary Health Centers, 5,000 community health centers and 640 district hospitals.

“Universal Health Coverage” – Still remains the holistic approach:

That said, despite its immense importance, “distribution of free medicines” still remains just one of the key elements of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). It is expected that the new government would take a holistic view on the UHC agenda, sooner, to provide comprehensive healthcare services, including preventive care, to all citizens of the country.

According to another recent media report, the new Health Minister has already expressed a different viewpoint on this subject. Dr. Harsh Vardhan has reportedly said:

“I am not in favor of taxpayers’ money being used to push a one-size-fits-all health policy. From this morning itself, I have started contacting public health practitioners to know their minds on what should be the road ahead.”

Without deliberating much on the roll out of UHC as of now, the Minister promised that the government would work to provide ‘health insurance coverage for all’ through a National Insurance Policy for Health.

This statement is significant, because until recently, the ‘high level’ understanding was that the country, at least directionally, is in favor of public funded UHC, which was defined as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

The groundwork started with ‘The HLEG Report‘ :

Just to recapitulate, in October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, President of the ‘Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI)’. The group was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

HLEG in its submission had suggested that the entire scheme would be funded by the taxpayers’ money for specified sets of healthcare services and for additional services commensurate health insurance coverage may be purchased by the individuals. Accordingly, to ensure a modest beginning of the UHC, in the 12^th Five Year Plan Period, public expenditure on health was raised to 2.5 percent of the GDP.

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt from within India, as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

The proposal underscored that UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

UHC provides options to patients:

Under the proposed UHC, all citizens of India would be free to choose between public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services. It was envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes.

What exactly is the new Health Minister mulling?

If the new Health Minister is mulling something different to provide similar healthcare coverage to Indians, let me now explore the other options adopted by various nations in this area.

As we know, UHC is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC may have different system types as follows:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.

Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010 under ‘Obamacare’.

The Global scenario:

As per published reports, all 33 ‘developed nations’ (OECD countries) have UHC in place. America was the only exception, till President Barack Obama administration implemented its ‘path breaking’ healthcare reform policy in 2010 against tough political opposition.

India is already too late in providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in ‘True Cost’, following is the list that states in which countries the UHC is currently in place and from when:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type

Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2010	Insurance Mandate

In-sync with the concept, probably with different means:

From the above statement of the new Health Minister, it appears that to provide healthcare coverage to all citizens of India, his ministry would work towards developing a National Health Insurance Policy. He also expressed that his ministry wants to focus on preventive healthcare.

Preventive healthcare being an integral part of UHC, it could well be that Dr. Harsh Vardhan wants to follow ‘Single Payer’ type of UHC system type.

Another school of thought:

However, another school of thought opines that a government owned efficient public healthcare system with adequate infrastructural facilities provides healthcare to patients almost free of cost as compared to the “insurance mandated” one.

This is mainly because, to address respective healthcare needs currently the patients have either or a mix of the following two choices:

Use public health facilities: Available virtually at free of cost if accessible, but quality is mostly questionable.

Use private health facilities: Virtually unregulated, much better services, though available mostly at high to very high cost.

Thus, these groups of experts believe that provision of universal health insurance for treatment at the expensive private facilities may not be cost effective even for the government, if these are not adequately regulated with appropriate stringent measures.

In absence of all those measures, the new Health Minister could consider taking a decision in favor of tax-funded UHC, with appropriate budgetary provisions and investments towards improving country’s healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism for all.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, there is not even an iota of doubt that India needs ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’, like any OECD or other countries of the world for its citizens, sooner. Just distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country for all, without a holistic approach such as UHC, may not yield desired results.

From the initial deliberations of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, it appears that UHC would soon not just be revisited, but receive a new thrust too, from the no-nonsense minister, probably leaning more towards private participation than with a public funded one, contrary to what was proposed by the HLEG.

Does it matter really? Well…

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

‘Big Pharma’ now seems to be desperately trying to gain the long lost high moral ground by pushing hard its gigantic image makeover juggernaut, maintaining a strong pitch on the relevance of stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the lives of the patients. However, even more alert media, by reporting a number of unethical and fraudulent activities of some of its constituents on the ground, is taking much of the steam out of it. As a result, the pace of erosion of all important pharma credibility is fast accelerating.

Innovation – A critical need for any science-based business:

Innovation, which eventually leads to the issue of IPR, is generally regarded as extremely important to meet the unmet needs of patients in the battle against diseases of all types, especially the dreaded ones. Thus, it has always been considered as the bedrock of the global pharmaceutical industry. As we all know, even the cheaper generic drugs originate from off-patent innovative medicines.

At the same time, it is equally important to realize that just as the pharmaceutical or life-science businesses, innovation is critical for any other science based businesses too, such as IT, Automobile, Aviation, besides many others. Since many centuries, even when there were no ‘Patents Act’ anywhere in the world, leave aside robust ones, pharmaceutical industry has been predominantly growing through innovation and will keep becoming larger and larger through the same process, acrimonious debate over stringent IPR regime not withstanding.

India has also amply demonstrated its belief that innovation needs to be encouraged and protected with a well-balanced Intellectual Property regime in the country, when it became a member of the World Trade Organization and a part of the TRIPS Agreement, as I had discussed in my earlier blog post.

Simultaneously, a recent research report is worth noting, as well. The study reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, since mid 2000, have spent around 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. This is indeed a matter of great concern, just as a very ‘stringent IP regime’ prompts ‘evergreening’ of patents, adversely impacting the patients’ health interest.

Though innovation is much needed, obscene pricing of many patented drugs is limiting their access to majority of the world population. On top of that, business malpractices net of fines, wherever caught, are adding to the cost of medicines significantly.

Key reasons for acceleration of credibility erosion:

I reckon, following are the three main factors accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and Big Pharma in particular:

Large scale reported business malpractices affecting patients’ health interest
Very high prices of patented medicines in general, adversely impacting patients’ access and cost of treatment
Attempts to influence IP laws of many countries for vested interests

1. Accelerating credibility erosion due to business malpractices:

In the pharmaceutical sector across the world, including India, the Marketing and Clinical Trial (CT) practices have still remained very contentious issues, despite many attempts of so called ‘self-regulation’ by the industry associations. Incessant complaints as reported by the media, judicial fines and settlements for fraudulent practices of some important pharma players leave no breather to anyone.

To illustrate the point, let me quote below a few recent examples:

Global:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder. According to the Italian regulator Avastin costs up to 81 euros, against around 900 euros for Lucentis. Out of the total amount, Novartis would require to pay 92 million euros and Roche 90.5 million euros. Roche’s Genentech unit and Novartis had developed Lucentis. Roche markets the drug in the United States, while Novartis sells it in the rest of the world. Quoting the Italian regulator, the report says that the said practices cost Italy’s health system more than 45 million euros in 2012 alone, with possible future costs of more than 600 million euros a year.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges. An investigation of those former employees of Sanofi unearthed that they had made illicit payments to get more orders from pharma dealer.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US$ 3 bn in the United States after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. According to the report, the company encouraged sales reps in the US to ‘mis-sell’ three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Not so long ago, after regulatory authorities in China cracked down on GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly bribing of US$490 million to Chinese doctors through travel agencies, whistleblower accusations reverberated spanning across several pharma MNCs, including Sanofi. The company reportedly paid ¥1.7 million (US$277,000) in bribes to 503 doctors around the country, forking over ¥80 to doctors each time a patient bought its products.

All these are not new phenomena. For example, In the area of Clinical Trial, an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel reportedly uncovered in May, 2013 that erstwhile international conglomerates such as Bayer, Hoechst (now belongs to Sanofi), Roche, Schering (now belongs to Bayer) and Sandoz (now belongs to Novartis) carried out more than 600 tests on over 50,000 patients, mostly without their knowledge, at hospitals and clinics in the former Communist state. The companies were said to have paid the regime the equivalent of €400,000 per test.

India:

Compared to the actions now being taken by the law enforcers overseas, India has shown a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, as on date. It is astonishing that unlike even China, no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by Indian media has now triggered a debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry. The Government, so far, has shown no active interest in this area, either.

In an article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off”, published in a leading business daily of India, states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

In the drug manufacturing quality area, USFDA and MHRA (UK) has recently announced a number of ‘Import Bans’ for drugs manufactured in some facilities of Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, as those medicines could compromise with the drug safety concerns of the patients in the US and UK. Even as recent as in late March 2014, the USFDA has reportedly issued a warning letter to another domestic drug maker USV Ltd on data integrity-related violations in good manufacturing practices occurred at the company’s Mumbai facility. This is indeed a cause of added concern.

Similarly, in the Clinical Trial area of India, responding to a PIL, the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee also had indicted the drug regulator. The Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

2. Accelerating credibility erosion due to high patented drugs pricing:

On this subject, another March 2014 report brings to the fore the problems associated with access to affordable newer medicines, which goes far beyond India, covering even the wealthiest economies of the world.

The report re-emphasizes that the monthly costs of many cancer drugs now exceed US$ 10,000 to even US$ 30,000. Recently Gilead Sciences fixed the price of a breakthrough drug for hepatitis C at US$ 84,000 for a 12- week treatment, inviting the wrath of many, across the world.

Why is the drug price so important?

The issue of pricing of patented drugs is now a cause of concern even in the developed countries of the world, though the subject is more critical in India. According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest component of expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare, as follows:

Items	Outpatient/Outside Hospital (%)	Inpatient/Hospitalization (%)
Medicines	63	43
Consultation/Surgery	-	23
Diagnostics	17	16
Minor surgeries	01	-
Private Consultation	14	-
Room Charge	-	14
Others	05	04

Probably for the same reason, recently German legislators have reportedly voted to continue until the end of 2017 the price freeze on reimbursed drugs, which was introduced in August 2010 and originally set to expire at end of 2013.

However in India, only some sporadic measures, like the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2011), that covers just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market, have been taken. On top of this, unlike many other countries, there is no negotiation on price fixation for high cost patented drugs.

If caught, insignificant fine as compared to total profit accrued, has no impact:

Many stakeholders, therefore, question the business practices of especially those players who get exposed, as they are caught and fined by the judiciary and the regulatory authorities.

Do such companies prioritize high profits ahead of patients’ lives, creating a situation for only those with deep pockets or a good health insurance cover to have access to the patented medicines, and the rest of the world goes without?

It is also no surprise that highly secretive and well hyped so called “Patient Access Programs” of many of these companies, are considered by many no more than a sham and a façade to justify the high prices.

3. Accelerating credibility erosion due to unreasonable IP related demands:

Despite some well-justified measures taken by countries like, India in the IP area, the US and to a great extent extent Europe and Japan, continuously pressured by the powerful pharma lobby groups, are still pushing hard to broaden the IP protections around the globe through various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). At the same time, Big Pharma lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel various governments to enact IP laws, which would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of Big Pharma.

Conclusion:

In the midst of all these, patients are indeed caught in a precarious situation, sandwiched between unethical practices of many large pharma players and very high prices of the available life saving patented medicines, beyond the reach of majority of the global population.

That said, accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and the Big Pharma in particular could possibly lead to a stage, where it will indeed be challenging for them to win hearts and minds of the stakeholders without vulgar display or surreptitious use of the money power.

To avoid all these, saner voices that are now being heard within the Big Pharma constituents should hopefully prevail, creating a win-win situation for all, not by using fear of sanctions as the key in various interactions, not even raising the so called ‘trump card of innovation’ at the drop of a hat and definitely by jettisoning long nurtured repulsive arrogance together with much reported skulduggery, for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Just Born A Pharma Goliath: Would India Be Impacted?

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Just born a potential pharma Goliath, as Actavis – the Dublin-based one of the largest global generic drug makers, in its biggest ever purchase, acquires New York based R&D based pharma major – Forest Laboratories, for a whopping US$ 25 billion.

It is worth noting that as on date Actavis has grown mainly through Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) route. In 2012, the company took over American generic drug major Watson Pharma for €4.5 bn and then Ireland’s Warner Chilcott, marketing patented drugs for gastrointestinal and urological conditions, for US $8.5 bn. Post buy out of Forest Laboratories, Actavis would have annual sales turnover of US$15 bn.

So far, mostly R&D based Pharma players acquired generic drug makers:

This acquisition is interesting. The reason being, since the last few years, mostly research based global pharmaceutical companies are taking over generic pharma players in the emerging markets with a reasonable speed. To cite a few examples:

In June, 2010, British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced acquisition of ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing and marketing of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $253 million. With this acquisition, GSK planned to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly, Paris based Sanofi with the acquisition of Zentiva, became an important player in the European generic drug market. Zentiva, is also a leading generic player in the Czech, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, Slovak and Russian markets, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

In February 2014, the German Drug major Bayer reportedly announced that it would buy Dihon Pharmaceutical Group Co of China, expanding the German company’s footprint in a key growth country. Dihon’s products are also sold in Nigeria, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia. Privately held Dihon specializes in ‘Over-The-Counter (OTC)’ and herbal ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)’ products.

Back home, MNCs acquired the following generic companies from 2006 to 2011:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type of Deal
2006	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
2008	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
2009	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2010	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Acquisition
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Acquisition
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benckiser	726	Acquisition
2011	Universal Medicare	Sanofi	110	Acquisition
2013	Mylan	Agila Specialities	1750	Acquisition

Key drivers for generic acquisition:

From 2012 to 2015 patented drugs with a combined turnover of US$ 183 billion have already faced or would face intense generic competition resulting in, as high as, around 90 percent price erosion for those products. It is not just patent expirations that are exerting pressure on innovator companies. Added to this, a relatively weak R&D pipeline and increasing focus of various governments to reduce healthcare costs, have forced many research based global pharma players to imbibe the inorganic growth strategy in the generic space to quickly grab a sizable share of this large and fast growing market, especially in the emerging economies of the world.

Actavis acquisition is different:

In the above light Actavis’s acquisition of Forest Laboratories is quite different. Here, instead of a predominantly research-based company’s acquiring a generic player, a basically generic drug major has bought a research based global pharmaceutical player.

Interestingly, Forest Laboratories follows a unique R&D model. It is focused on, instead of discovering on its own, identifying strong medically relevant product candidates and guiding them through the complex development lifecycle, from proof-of-concept through post-marketing.

Strong global portfolio of both generic and patented drugs:

Post buy out, Actavis would have a strong combo-portfolio of generic drugs together with a relatively robust line-up of a diverse range of patented products, spanning across therapy areas such as Anti-Infective, Respiratory, Cardiovascular, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal, Obstetrics and Pain Management and that too not just in the emerging markets, but globally, unlike many others.

In addition, acquisition of Forest Laboratories would also provide Actavis access to former’s large US sales teams, transforming the merged entity a formidable force to reckon with in the topmost pharmaceutical market of the world, besides many others.

An intriguing recent decision:

That said, it is interesting to note that in January 2014, Actavis, then the second-biggest generic drug maker by market capitalization, announced that it would quit China as “It is not a business friendly environment… China is just too risky”. This is indeed intriguing, because by 2015, China’s generic market is expected to be close to US$ 82 billion.

Be that as it may, post acquisition Actavis would be in a position to offer all its customers in all the markets of the world a rainbow of products from patented to generics, carving out a critical strategic advantage for itself in the global pharmaceutical market.

Impact in India:

The question now boils down to what would be the impact of the just born Goliath on the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India.

Differentiated generic business:

The generic drugs market is usually classified as simple generics, super-generics and biosimilars. To differentiate, by adding value in the generic medicines, many domestic players are gradually entering into the ‘Super Generic’ and ‘biosimilar’ category of drugs. For example, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories has reportedly chosen to go for a difficult to copy drug formulation with its blood-thinner Fondaparinux. Sun Pharma, on the other hand, is focusing on innovative delivery platforms for its ophthalmic drugs and oral contraceptives. Cadila is looking at newer drug delivery modes for its painkiller Diclofenac. So is Lupin in other areas. In the biosimilar arena, Biocon has already developed Trastuzumab formulation of Roche. Moreover, the biosimilar business of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories continues with its impressive growth trend, besides many other Indian players in the same fray.

Simultaneously, India is improving its effectiveness in ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) space. As we have recently witnessed in India the alliances between Merck & Co and Cipla and earlier with Sun Pharma. Even prior to that, collaborative agreements of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma; GSK with Dr Reddy’s Laboratories; Abbott India with Cadila and many more, would vindicate this point.

Merck Serono of Germany also announced a partnership to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions. Mylan has also signed similar agreement with Biocon.

Glenmark Pharma has chosen yet another route, by entering into collaboration with Forest Laboratories (now Actavis) in 2013, for the development of a novel mPGES-1 inhibitor for chronic inflammatory conditions, including pain management.

Advantage India, provided…

Global generic drugs market would get its next booster dose with reportedly around 46 drugs going off patent opening a market of another US$ 66 billion from monopolistic to intense generic competition in 2015.

Details of ANDA status from the US-FDA source, as I indicated in my earlier blog post, probably indicate that several Indian players have already started moving in that direction at a brisk pace, keeping their eyes well fixed on the crystal ball. Over 30 percent of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and around half of the total Drug Master Filings (DMF) now come from the Indian Companies. In 2013 alone, the US-FDA granted 154 ANDAs and 38 tentative ANDAs to the Indian companies.

Despite all these, a serious apprehension does creep in, which finds its root in much-publicized fraudulent behavior of a few large Indian drug manufacturers, seriously compromising with the cGMP standards of some high profile global drug regulators. This challenge has to be overcome, sooner, to reap rich harvest out of the emerging global opportunities in the space of generic drugs.

Conclusion:

Geographically, North America is the largest consumer of generic drugs followed by Europe and Japan. However, the highest growth of the generic drugs market is observed in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides Actavis, some of the major generic drugs manufacturers of the world are Mylan, Apotex, Hospira, Par Pharmaceutical., Sandoz International and Teva Pharmaceutical.

From India, Ranbaxy Laboratories (before the recent fiasco), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin and Sun Pharma, besides many others, are competing quite well in the global generic drugs market with success.

Though Actavis has its manufacturing operations in India with its registered office located in Mumbai, the company is not yet engaged in serious local marketing operations in the country. In 2006 as Watson Pharma Pvt Ltd., the company acquired Sekhsaria Chemicals in a move to push forward its generic drug agenda globally. In 2005, it acquired a manufacturing facility in Goa from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories to produce solid dosage generic drugs for the US market.

Taking all these into considerations, if much deliberated cGMP issues with the foreign drug regulators are resolved sooner, Actavis is not expected to make any major difference for Indian pharma players either in the domestic market or for that matter globally, any time soon.

Thus Indian pharma players are unlikely to be adversely impacted with the emergence of this new potential Goliath in the global pharmaceutical landscape.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: drugs

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Drugs From The Same Indian Plant: Safe For Europe, Unsafe For America, Why?

With Free Medicines In, Would The New Government Revisit ‘Universal Health Coverage’ Soon?

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Just Born A Pharma Goliath: Would India Be Impacted?

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models