Increasing Healthcare Consumption in India with equity

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Along with the economic progress of India, healthcare consumption of the population of the country is also increasing at a reasonably faster pace. According to McKinsey India Report, 2007, the share of average household healthcare consumption has increased from 4 per cent in 1995 to 7 per cent in 2005 and is expected to increase to 13 per cent in 2025 with a CAGR of 9 per cent, as follows:

Share of Average Household Consumption (AHC) (%)


	Household Consumption	1995	2005 E	2015 F	2025 F	CAGR %
1.	Healthcare	4	7	9	13	9
2.	Education & Recreation	3	5	6	9	9
3.	Communication	1	2	3	6	12
4.	Transportation	11	17	19	20	7
5.	Personal Products and Services	4	8	9	11	8
6.	Household Products	2	3	3	3	5
7.	Housing & Utilities	14	12	12	10	5
8.	Apparel	5	6	5	5	5
9.	Food, Beverages & Tobacco	56	42	34	25	3

(Source; McKinsey India Report 2007)

From this study, it appears that among all common household consumption, the CAGR of ‘healthcare’ at 9 percent will be the second highest along with ‘education’ and ‘communication’ topping the growth chart at 12 percent.

As per this McKinsey study, in 2025, in terms of AHC for ‘healthcare’ (13 percent) is expected to rank third after ‘Food & Beverages’ (25 percent) and ‘transportation’ (20 percent).

Thus, over a period of time AHC for ‘healthcare’ shows a very significant growth potential in India. Hence, this important area needs much greater attention of the policymakers to help translate the potential into actual performance with requisite policy and fiscal support/incentives.

Sectoral break-up of the Healthcare Industry:

According to IDFC Securities 2010, the sectoral break-up of the US$ 40 billion healthcare industry is as follows:

Industry	%
Hospitals	50
Pharma	25
Diagnostics	10
Insurance & Medical Equipment	15

(Source: IDFC Securities Hospital Sector, November 2010)

Therefore, as per this above report, the top two sectors of the healthcare industry are hospitals with 50 percent share and pharmaceuticals at 25 percent.

Public sector drives the healthcare expenditure in the developed countries:

Almost all OECD countries now provide universal or near-universal health coverage for a core set of health services, which are primarily funded by the public sector.

The report titled, ‘Health at a Glance 2011’ indicates that adjusted for purchasing power parity United States of America (USA) at US$ 7290 per capita expenditure on health in 2007, which is almost two and a half times more than the OECD average of US$ 2984, towers above other OECD countries. However, the same for Turkey and Mexico was less than one-third of the OECD average.

India and South East Asia are different:

Unlike OECD countries, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), in South East Asia, except Thailand and Indonesia, healthcare is primarily driven by private expenditure, as seen in the following table:

Public and Private Expenditure on Health as % of Total

Country	Public %	Private %
Laos	17.60	82.40
Cambodia	23.80	76.20
India	32.40	67.60
Philippines	34.70	65.30
Vietnam	38.50	61.50
Malaysia	44.10	55.90
Indonesia	54.40	45.60
Thailand	74.30	25.70

Source: World Health Statistics 2011, World Health Organization (WHO)

In India, the critical healthcare industry is heavily dependent on private sector investments, where the total public expenditure on health is just around one third of the country’s total expenditure for the same, though in the 12th Five Year Plan period the the government is likely to increase its health expenditure as a percentage to GDP to 2.5 percent.

Healthcare – a more sensitive sector in India:

According to an article titled, ‘Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities’, published in ‘The Lancet’ dated February 19, 2011 ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health in India (78 per cent) is one of the highest as compared to its neighboring, except Pakistan (82.5 percent). The details are as follows:

	Country	‘Out of Pocket’ expenses (%)
1.	Pakistan	82.5
2.	India	78
3.	China	61
4.	Sri Lanka	53
5.	Thailand	31
6.	Bhutan	29
7.	Maldives	14

Such a high out of pocket expenditure for health in India, makes ‘affordability’ of healthcare products and services so sensitive to all concerned.

Just Hospital oriented health insurance plans are not adequate enough:

The above article from ‘The Lancet ‘also indicates that 74 per cent of the total healthcare expenditure goes for only outpatient or in-clinic treatment of the patients. Only 26 per cent of healthcare expenditure goes for inpatient treatment in the hospitals.

Thus coverage of only expenditure towards hospitalization by the health insurance companies will not be able to provide significant benefits to most of the citizens of India.

Further, the article says that from 1986 to 2004, there has been three times increase in the average real expenditure per hospital admission, both in the government and private hospitals.

Threefold increase in the drug prices from 1993-94 to 2006-07 was mentioned as the key factor for cost escalation in the medical care in India.

Private healthcare sector needs more fiscal incentives and lesser cost of capital:

As indicated above, private healthcare players will increasingly play a very significant role to increase healthcare consumption with equitable span across the population of India. To encourage them to spread their wings in the semi-urban and rural areas of the country effectively, lucrative fiscal/ financial incentives along with the availability of low cost capital, are absolutely necessary.

It is worth mentioning that the growth of rural middle class population is now faster than ever before and much more than their urban counterpart.

Exploitation of the patients must stop:

Unfortunate and deplorable incidences of exploitation of patients, mainly by the private players, are critical impediments to foster growth in quality healthcare consumption within the country.

In this context, ‘The Lancet’, January 11, 2011 highlighted as follows:

“Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.” Prevailing situation like this calls for urgent national regulations for provider-standards and treatment-protocols, at least for the common diseases in India and more importantly their stricter implementation across the country.

UHC will significantly improve healthcare consumption:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

UHC will guarantee access to essential free health services to all. However, because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt not only from within India, but also from other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC is expected to ensure guaranteed access to essential health services to every Indian, 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.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that the 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, as per their individual requirements.

Conclusion:

India has already been globally recognized as one of the fastest growing healthcare markets of the world. All components in the healthcare space of the country including hospital and allied services are registering sustainable decent growth, riding mainly on private investments and now fueled by various government projects, such as:

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
National Urban Health Mission
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
Universal Health Coverage (UHC)
Free Medicine from the Government hospitals
Centralized procurement by both the Central and the State Governments

Supported by newer, both public and private initiatives, like:

Increase in public spending on healthcare from 1.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan period
Increasing participation of the private players in smaller towns and hinterland of the country
Wider coverage of health insurance
Micro-financing
Greater spread of telemedicine
More number of mobile diagnosis and surgical centers

All these interesting developments adequately fueled by rising income levels and improving access to healthcare though albeit slowly at present, equitable consumption of healthcare in India, I reckon, is expected to improve by manifold in the years ahead, despite shrill voices of naysayers of vested interests, orchestrated many a times from beyond the shores of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In not too distant past, the stocks of the global pharmaceutical companies, by and large, used to be categorized as ‘blue-chips’ for their high return to investors, as compared to many other sectors.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly since then. Most of those large players now appear to be under tremendous pressure for excellence in performance.

The issues of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with patent expiries, price and margin pressures from payors’ group in the developed world, have already started haunting the research based pharmaceutical companies and are assuming larger proportions day by day.

The situation continues to be grim:

Collective impact of all the above factors has prompted the major pharma players to resort to huge cost cutting exercises leading to employee layoffs, quite often, in a massive scale.

According to a study done by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., which was also quoted in the Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011, 297,650 employees were laid off by the global pharma industry between the years 2000 and 2011.

Year	Number of Job cuts
2000	2,453
2001	4,736
2002	11,488
2003	28,519
2004	15,640
2005	26,300
2006	15,638
2007	31,732
2008	43,014
2009	61,109
2010	53,636
Total	297,650

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. ©/Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011

Top of the list layoffs:

Forbes, Pharma and Healthcare, June 10, 2011 reported ‘top of the list layoffs’ in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry from 2004 to 2011. This number reported to be comparable to as many people working at the three largest drug companies combined namely, Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline GSK in 2011.

Company	No of layoffs
Pfizer	58,071
Merck	44,400
Johnson & Johnson	9,900
Eli Lilly	5,500
Bristol-Myers Squibb	4,600

More recently ‘Mail online’ dated February 3, 2012 reported that ‘Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announces 7,300 job losses as it pares back staff to save money’. Immediately, thereafter, on February 24, 2012 Reuters reported that ‘German drugs and chemicals group Merck KGaA has announced plans for a cost-cutting program across all its businesses that may include job cuts’.

The old paradigm is no longer relevant:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K had conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional expertise like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas. The report highlighted that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic option.

Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Collaborative Research to overcome R&D productivity crisis: The cost of each new drug approval has now reached a humongous proportion and is still increasing. This spiraling R&D cost does not seem to be sustainable any longer. Thus there emerges a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors. Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the ‘risk and reward’ of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction. Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy and perhaps may also not be acceptable to many large global players as on date, but they are not absolutely uncommon either. The world has already witnessed such collaborative research, especially in the sectors, like Information Technology (IT). Thus, it remains quite possible, as the industry moves on, that the world will have opportunities to take note of initiation of various cost effective collaborative R&D projects to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the global healthcare space. Greater access to fast growing markets: The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government on the ground of ‘affordability of medicines’ in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing/margin pressure for the pharmaceutical players.

These critical emerging developments can be effectively negotiated with significant increase in market access, especially in the emerging economies of the world, with each country specific business strategies. ‘One size fits all’ type of standardized approach, currently adopted by some large global players in the markets like India, may not be able to fetch significant dividend in the years ahead.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the payors, doctors and patients will increasingly look for, much beyond the physical products/brands, would prove to be the cutting edge for the winners for greater market access in the emerging economies.

Current business processes need significant re-engineering: Top management teams of many global pharma companies have already started evaluating the relevance of sole dependance on the current R&D based pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

Only treatment of diseases may no longer be considered enough with an offering of just various types of medications. Added value with effective non-therapeutic/incremental disease management/prevention initiatives and appropriately improving quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process in the emerging markets. Continuous innovation required not just in R&D, but across the value chain: Continuous innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain, beyond pharmaceutical R&D, is the most critical success factor. The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be a critical part of the business strategy of the pharmaceutical companies in the new paradigm. Avoidance of silos, integrating decision making processes: More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Creation of silos, duplication of processes and empire building have long been a significant trend, especially, in the larger pharmaceutical companies. Part of a better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient deployment of investments and other resources for organizational value creation and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications, organizational flab producing and will no longer deliver differential value to the stakeholders. Finding newer ways of customer engagement: Growing complexity of the business environment is making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communication channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors, patients and other stakeholders and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required. Questioning perceived ‘fundamentals’ of the old paradigm:

Despite a paradigm shift in the business environment, fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry appears to have been attempting to address these critical issues over a decade, has not changed much.

In their attempt to unleash the future growth potential, the pharmaceutical players are still moving around the same old dictums like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, satisfying customer needs, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building blockbuster brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few. Unfortunately, despite all such resource intensive initiatives, over a period of time, nothing seems to have changed fundamentally, excepting, probably, some sort of arrest in the rate of declining process.

Conclusion:

Such incremental focus over a long period of time on the same areas, far from being able to ride the tide of change effectively, does ring an alarm bell to some experts. More so, when all these initiatives continue to remain their prime catalysts for change even today to meet new challenges of a different paradigm altogether.

The moot question therefore remains: what are the companies achieving from all heavy investments being continuously made in these areas since long…and why have they not been able to address the needs of the new ball game for business excellence, effectively, thus far?

When results are not forthcoming despite having taken all such measures, many of them have no options but to resort to heavy cost cutting measures including job losses to protect the profit margin, as much as one possibly can.

If the issues related to declining rate of global pharmaceutical business performance is not addressed sooner moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’, one can well imagine what would its implication be, in the endeavor towards arresting continuous job losses through business excellence, in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

The authors mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article comments that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market. Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

By: Tapan J Ray

‘Empowered Patients’: The changing dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In good old days, at the time of someone falling sick in the family, a friendly local general medical practitioner, who was also known as a ‘family doctor’, used to be called to provide relief to the patient from pain and agony of the ailment.

Thorough knowledge of the patient’s medical history gained over a period of time, of these almost vanishing breed of caring doctors, was very common and used to come very handy to them while treating the patients. Their smiling or at times admonishing look at the patients for falling sick due to avoidable reasons, a caring approach – just like or even more than a family member and willingness to answer all questions related to sickness, used to instill a great confidence and hope in the minds of the patients for getting well soon, quite often even before the treatment had started.

Today the situation is very different. The concept of a family doctor mostly does no longer exist, even in the urban families of India. Though the elite groups belonging to the creamy layer of the society still talk in terms of ‘my dentist’ – ‘my cardiologist’ – ‘my physician’, patients by and large have started experiencing that their healthcare needs have been greatly compromised.

However in future, may not exactly be like a ’family doctor’, one can perhaps hope to call a doctor home for treatment in India, which will not cost a bomb as it happens today. ‘Times Of India’’, January 18, 2012 edition reports that “IIM-A student to deliver doctors at your door step.” This service is expected to provide both doctors and medicines at our doorstep at a phone call.”

Changing doctor-patient relationship:

The doctor–patient relationship has undergone a vast change over a period of time. The healthcare environment now very often smacks of commercial gain and loss of the service providers.

In India, even recently the government had to intervene to help restoring the ethical standards of both the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. That said, medical ethics and compliance, for all practical purpose, are still confined mostly in the text books, codes or in the carefully crafted ‘Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)’ as a ‘show piece’, as it were, more for bending them at the least possible opportunity for hard commercial gains, rather than their conformance in terms of both letter and the spirit.

Individual ‘Patient Empowerment’:

Under the prevailing scenario, the civil society should encourage individual ‘Patient Empowerment’ by making him/her understand how the healthcare system is currently working on the ground, what and who are the key obstacles in getting a reasonably decent healthcare support and what should be done to uproot these obstacles in civilized ways.

It started in America:

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

Patients’ choice and lifestyle cannot be dictated by others.
‘Patient empowerment’ is necessary even for preventive medicines to be effective.
Patients, just like any other consumers, have the right to make their own choices.

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

The essence of ‘Patient Empowerment’:

‘Natural Health Perspective’ highlighted ‘Patient Empowerment’ as follows:

Health, as an attitude, can be defined as being successful in coping with pain, sickness, and death. Successful coping always requires being in control of one’s own life.
Health belongs to the individual and the individuals have the prime responsibility for their own health.
The individual’s capacity for growth and self-determination is paramount.
Healthcare professionals cannot empower people; only people can empower themselves.

‘Patient empowerment’ prompts the ‘Patient-Centric’ postures:

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

Other stakeholders will have no other option but to take a ‘Patient-Centric’ posture, under the circumstances, which has already started happening. In India, as ‘out-of-pocket’ healthcare expenses are skyrocketing in the absence of a comprehensive and affordable universal health coverage, ‘Empowered Patients’ will increasingly demand to know more of not only the available treatment choices, but also about the medicine prescription options.

‘Patient empowerment’ as the change agent:

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

The above approach though still working very well in India, is no longer fetching the desired results to the pharmaceutical companies, especially in the developed markets of the world. ‘Empowered Patients’ have already started demanding much more from the pharma players. As a result, many global companies are now cutting down on their sales force size to try to move away from just hard selling by gaining more time from the doctors. They have started taking new initiatives to open up a chain of direct communication with their primary and secondary customers with an objective to know more about them to satisfy them better.

In future with growing ‘Patient Empowerment’ the basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies are expected to undergo a radical change. At that time, so called ‘Patient-Centric’ companies of today will have no choice but to walk the talk. Consequently, they will have to willy-nilly switch from the ‘hard-selling mode’ to a new process of achieving business excellence through constant endeavor to satisfy both the expressed and the un-expressed needs of the patients, not just with innovative products, but more with innovative and caring services.

Role of ‘Empowered Patients’ in healthcare decision making process:

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately in India, the situation has not changed much as on date.

‘Empowered Patients’ can influence even the R&D process:

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

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

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

Meeting the challenge of change:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

Since so many years from now, especially in the developed countries of the world, pharmaceutical companies have been talking about being ‘Patient-Centric’ to ride squarely the increasingly powerful tide of ‘Patient Empowerment’ in their endeavor to satisfy the assertive demands of the new generation of healthcare consumers – the patients or the patient groups.

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within 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 regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

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 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 equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

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 and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company	Location	Biosimilar mAbs	Development Status
BioXpress	Switzerland	16	Preclinical
Gene Techno Science	Japan	6	Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla	India	5	Preclinical
PlantForm	Canada	3	Preclinical
BioCad	Russia	3	Preclinical
Celltrion	South Korea	2	Phase 3
LG Life Sciences	South Korea	2	Preclinical
Gedeon Richter	Hungary	2	Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma	Switzerland	1	Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical	South Korea	1	Preclinical
PharmaPraxis	Brazil	1	Preclinical
Probiomed	Mexico	1	Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics	South Korea	1	Preclinical
Novartis	Switzerland	1	Phase 2
Teva	Israel	1	Phase 2
Zenotech	India	1	Phase 3
Spectrum	US	1	Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan	India/US	1	Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) 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 guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). 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 like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

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

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, 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 over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

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 now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

	Company	Brand
1	Forest Laboratories	Lexapro
2	Takeda Pharmaceuticals	Actos
3	Bristol-Myers Squibb	Plavix
4	AstraZeneca	Seroquel
5	Eli Lilly	Zyprexa
6	Pfizer	Lipitor*
7	Merck	Singulair
8	Novartis	Diovan
9	Teva Pharmaceuticals	Provigil
10	Abbott Laboratories	TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand, has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company	Target company	The deal: $billion	Products
Roche	Genentech	47	Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis	Genzyme	20	Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca	MedImmune	15.6	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Serono	13.5	Biologics
Takeda	Millennium	8.8	Velcade, Oncology
Lilly	ImClone	6.0	Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis	Chiron	5.8	Vaccines
Teva	Cephalon	6.2	Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis	American BioScience	4.2	Oncology
Astellas	OSI Pharma	4.0	Tarceva, oncology
Eisai	MGI Pharma	3.9	Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene	Pharmion	2.9	Oncology
Celgene	Abraxis	2.9	Oncology
Gilead	Myogen	2.5	Biotechnology
BMS	Medarex	2.4	Monoclonal antibodies
J&J	Crucell	2.3	Vaccines
Amgen	Abgenix	2.2	Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim	MacroGenics	2.1	Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead	CV Terapeutics	1.4	Cardiovascular
Genzyme	Osiris	1.4	Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK	ID Biomed	1.3	Biologics
AstraZeneca	Cambridge Antibody Technology	1.3	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Sirna	1.1	RNAi
Amgen	BioVex	1	OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Posted on November 7, 2011 by Tapan Ray

It appears that the government has accepted the submission of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ made to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommending prescription of medicines by their generic names.

It has now been reported that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has already considered the proposal to amend the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India for approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient only in the generic names by the State Licensing Authorities. The proposal to publish the draft rules has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for necessary approval. The Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) will be kept out of the purview of this amendment.

This recommendation of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ appears to be based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, includes ‘very high sales and marketing expenditure’, which can easily be eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

The generics and the branded-generic drugs and their value proposition: As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to a chemical name in their value proposition.

Some other countries are also taking similar steps:

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

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

Quality standards of both generic and branded generic drugs are no different:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic or branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance. Thus when a generic drug is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically accept that it has met the required standards with respect to identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during manufacturing process for both branded generic and generic drugs and for that matter it is applicable to all drugs. However, all formulations of both types of these drugs manufactured by different manufacturers do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, all formulations of both generic and branded drugs must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will be the same.

A recent study:

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

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78% of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Points to ponder and resolve in the current Indian situation:

While the intention of the Government is indeed good, some practical issues must be considered before its implementation, which are as follows:

1. Increased chances of error while dispensing:

Chemical names of medicines are complex. In case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. There could be differences even within single ingredient formulations:

Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Price differences between branded generics and generic generics may not exist:

It is intriguing to fathom, just for a switch over from the brand name to the generic name how will the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a single ingredient formulation, bearing only the generic name, come down. Currently, MRPs printed on the product packs of generic formulations without any brand name, as available in the retail outlets, are similar to comparable branded generic formulations. In that case, what benefits that Government will expect a patient to get out of this well hyped change?

4. Manufacturers may switch from single ingredient formulations to FDCs:

There is a theoretical possibility that to retain brand names, the pharmaceutical companies may be encouraged to change their formulations from single ingredient to FDCs. In that situation, single ingredient formulations may not be available and comparable FDCs could cost more to the patients.

5. The key decision will shift from physicians to retail chemists:

The major issue with prescriptions by the chemical/generic names is that retail chemists will then be the sole decision makers to choose the prescribed product from within a whole lot of over 30 to 40 manufacturers for a particular product.

What then will prompt the retailers to buy, store and sell different generic formulations of various companies and what could possibly be the key selection criteria for such drugs by them?

I reckon, there could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select only those which will give them highest margin of profits.

In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists. This could make the situation far worse for the patients.

In interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks and ensure that patients are not adversely impacted in any way.

Conclusion: Viewing purely from the Indian perspective, while the generic drugs per se are not bad for the patients, weighing all the above issues and possible risk factors against expected benefits, I reckon, without effectively addressing the above issues to start with, if the prescriptions of single ingredient formulations are made mandatory only in generic names, it could seriously jeopardize patients’ safety and interest.

In any case, when single ingredient formulations contribute just around 30% of the total prescriptions in India, how could then prescriptions of all single ingredient formulations only in generic names address the stated concern of the government, in a holistic way?

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.

The domestic API players are fast losing their dominance in the Indian API market

Posted on October 24, 2011 by Tapan Ray

There are two broad categories of markets for the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) across the world namely, highly regulated and semi regulated markets. Countries like, USA, Europe and Japan will fall under highly regulated category with high entry barriers for the global API players like, robust Intellectual Property (IP) regime and stringent regulatory requirements to meet their product quality standards. Such an environment prompts a premium price for the APIs. On the other hand, the semi regulated markets, which offer low entry barriers with not so stringent IP and regulatory requirements, attract more number of API players engaging in cut throat price competition.

The top three markets for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) are the US, Europe and Asia Pacific. According to ‘Business Wire (July 13, 2011), the API market in the Asia-Pacific is expected to grow from 6.7% between 2005 and 2010 to 9.6% between 2010 and 2016.

Currently a perceptible shift in API manufacturing is being noticed from the western markets to the emerging markets like, India and China. In the Asia Pacific region Japan and China enjoy the highest market share for API with 42.8% and 20.8%, respectively. India accounts for 10.3%, while South Korea holds an 8.1% share of the market. To avoid price erosions now seen in the US, Indian manufacturers have started exporting more APIs to Japan.

In 2010, contribution of generic API from the Asia-Pacific market was at 71.5%, with patented APIs contributing for the rest, where Japan enjoys a larger share than India and China. While this is the current scenario, many experts in this field contemplates that important players from the regulated markets will soon start making significant inroads in India.

Current API Market in India:
In 2007 the API output value in India was around US $4.1 billion registering a 5 year CAGR of around 19% and ranking fourth in the world API output. According to the Tata Strategic Management Group, Indian API export value is expected to increase to US $12.75 billion in 2012.

Currently in India about 400 different types of APIs are manufactured in around 3000 plants, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin, Shasun Pharmaceuticals, Orchid Chemicals, Aurobindo Pharma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Ipca Laboratories and USV being the top API manufacturers of the country. Indian domestic companies source almost 50 percent of their API requirements from China, because of lower cost in that country.

In terms of global ranking, India is now the third largest API producers of the world just after China and Italy and by end 2011 is expected to be the second largest producer after China. However, in Drug Master File (DMF) filings India is currently ahead of China.

In addition, India scores over China in ‘documentation’ and ‘Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)’ compliance. All these have contributed to India having around 125 US-FDA approved world class manufacturing facilities, which is considered the largest outside the USA.
Indian API manufacturers are facing a cut throat competition from their Chinese counterparts mainly because of lower costs in China. Considerably higher economies of scale and various types of support that the Chinese API manufacturers receive from their Government are the main reasons for such cost differential.
Growing competition from the regulated markets:
We now observe a new trend within the API space in India. Many of the global innovators and generic companies are keen to enter into the API space of India.

It is known that API manufacturers from the regulated markets are already selling their products in India. However, at present, the numbers of Indian registrations for API applied by some of the large global companies, as reported by ‘Thomson Reuters Newport Horizon Premium’, are quite significant, which are as follows:

1. Novartis, Switzerland: 20 2. Pfizer, USA: 16 3. Sanofi-Aventis, France: 26 4. Teva, Israel: 45 5. MSD, USA: 39 6. BASF: 37 7. DSM: 26 8. EON AG: 16 9. Kyowa Hakko: 23

All these companies, who are entering into the API business space in India, I reckon, have worked out a grand design to compete not only with the low cost domestic API manufacturers, but also with the cheaper imports, particularly from China.

China an emerging global force to reckon with in the API market:

An economy of scale leading to cost leadership is fast establishing China in the global API market as a force to reckon with. Dominant presence of China even in the bulk intermediate category with high level of technical expertise, especially in the fermentation technology, strong manufacturing base, supported by increasing standard of regulatory compliance and better IP protection, as perceived by the global pharmaceutical community, are helping the API manufacturers of China to gradually increase their presence even in the highly regulated markets of the world.

In this emerging scenario, when China throws a tough competition to the API producers of India, developing and manufacturing niche APIs will be the key differentiating factors for the Indian players to maintain their global presence in future, especially with APIs involving non-fermentation technology.

What will then be the competitive edge of these companies in India?
It appears that each of these companies has weighed very carefully the existing strategic opportunities in the API sectors of India, both in terms of technology as well as domestic demand.

Strategic gap in API manufacturing technology:
India, undeniably, is one of the key global hubs in the API space, with competitive edge mainly in ‘non-fermentation technology’ product areas. This leaves a wide and perceptible technological gap in the areas of products requiring ‘fermentation technology‘.

Significant demand from domestic formulations manufacturing:
India is much ahead of China in pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing, especially in the area of exports to the regulated markets like, the USA and EU. Over 25 domestic Indian companies are currently catering to exports demand of the U.S market. However, it is interesting to note that the global manufacturers like Sandoz, Eisai, Watson, Mylan have already set up their formulations manufacturing facilities in India and some more are expected to follow suit over a period of time. Hence, fast growing domestic demand for APIs, especially for exports, will drive the business plan of the global API players for India.

Is the cost arbitrage of India sustainable?
Indian API manufacturers although currently have a cost advantage compared to their counterparts in the regulated market, this advantage is not sustainable over a period of time because of various reasons. The key reason being sharp increase in cost related to more stringent environmental and regulatory compliance, besides spiraling manpower and other overhead costs.

Indian regulatory requirements for the global API players:
To sell their APIs into India, global companies are now required to obtain the following regulatory approvals from the Indian authorities:

1. Foreign manufacturing sites for the concerned products

2. APIs which will be imported in the country

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has stipulated a fee of U.S$1,500 to register the manufacturing premises and U.S$1,000 to register each individual API. Since January 2003, around 1,200 registration certificates have been issued in India. Large number of Indian registrations is attributed by many to the strategic technology gap in India, as stated above, demand of high-quality API for finished formulations required by the regulated markets like the U.S and EU, and relatively cheaper product registration process.

As we see above Teva has gone for maximum number of Indian registrations, so far and most probably selling the APIs to their contract formulations manufacturers in India. Similarly, Schering-Plough and Sanofi, if not Pfizer are perhaps catering to the API demand of their respective formulations manufacturing plants in the country.

Apprehension of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets:

Growing apprehensions of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets like, India and China must also be addressed expeditiously by all concerned.

‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported that APIs from India, China and elsewhere now constitute 80% of the active ingredients in US drugs. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, some key global players mainly China, as mentioned above, are now exporting APIs at a much larger scale to India and in that process have started curving out a niche for themselves in the Indian API market. Impressive growth of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing market fueled by increasing domestic consumption and exports to the regulated markets, coupled with gradual improvement in the regulatory environment of the country and some global collaboration for the pharmaceutical formulations sourcing from India, are expected to drive the growth of API business of the global players in India. However, the moot question still remains: will the Indian API players be able to thrive or even survive the tough competition from the global players, especially China?

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.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: drugs

Increasing Healthcare Consumption in India with equity

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

‘Empowered Patients’: The changing dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

The domestic API players are fast losing their dominance in the Indian API market