Tag Archives: drugs

Biosimilar Drugs: The Roadblocks and the Road Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical based drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologic drugs are developed from living cells and using very complex processes. These groups of drugs could range from simpler insulin to therapy for treating complex ailments like, cancer and almost invariably attract a high price tag, which could run even in thousands of dollars.

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. These drugs are usually much less expensive than the original ones and called ‘Biosimilar Drugs’. It is expected that ‘biosimilar drugs’ will have lesser market competition than the conventional ‘small molecule’ generic drugs, mainly because of complexity and costs involved in their developmental process.

Future growth potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, ‘Biosimilar drugs’ are considered to be a threat to the fast growing global biotech industry. At the same time, it is widely believed that in the rapidly evolving global concern for cheaper and more affordable medicines for patients across the world, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Novartis (Sandoz) – first to launch a ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for some time in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA. The CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”. Despite this event, none at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country.

Merck’s entry was through an acquisition:

Merck announced its entry into the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. Rich pipeline of follow-on biologics of Insmed is expected to help Merck to hasten its entry into global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ markets.

Other recent global initiatives:

  • Merck paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Novartis (Sandoz), Teva and Pfizer are expected to be strong players in the biosimilar market.
  • Reliance Life Science though has faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its copy of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now, is also a potential player in the biosimilar market.

Many other developments are also now taking place in the space of ‘Biosimilar drugs’, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, India has started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

Current status in the US:

President Barak Obama administration of the US has been expressing for quite some time a strong intent to pave the way for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the US. To facilitate this process, a new draft legislation titled, “Promoting Innovation and Access to Life Saving Medicine Act” was introduced by the legislators of the country. This legislation came into force with the announcement by US-FDA the outline of how biopharmaceutical players can submit their application for marketing approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country. Many industry players have since then been gearing up, across the world, to have a share of the potentially large ‘biosimilar drugs’ market in the US.

Challenging clinical data requirements in the US:

According to ‘Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act)’, which was enacted in the US on March 23, 2010, any biological substance to be “biosimilar” will require to be “highly similar to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components”. BPCI also specifies that there should be “no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product”. It is interesting to note that the Act emphasizes on ‘clinical similarity’ rather than ‘biological or structural similarity’ between the original and ‘biosimilar drugs’.

The New England Journal of Medicine dated August 4, 2011 reported that US-FDA is in the process of establishing very challenging clinical requirements from the makers of ‘biosimilar drugs’ for obtaining marketing approval in the country. Such stringent regulatory requirements are expected to push up the cost of development of ‘biosimilar drugs’ significantly, seriously limiting the number of players in the market.

12 years Exclusivity in the US:

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the FDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the FDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

However, the key point to note here is, if the FDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the 12 year period, the innovator companies in that case, will effectively get, at least, one more year of exclusivity over and above  the 12 years period, when the applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ will keep waiting for marketing approval from the FDA.

The market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for ‘biosimilars drugs’ is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of ‘biosimilar drugs’ will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent.

The Indian biotech players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the west is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-Alfa, which are not only being marketed in India but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the Global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations.

Funding by the Government of India:

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for ‘biosimilar drugs’ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same. Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$200 million annually towards biotechnology related initiatives.

Key success factors for rapid acceptance in the developed markets:

According to a new research finding from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new drugs is how quickly the specialists will accept them. So far as biosimilar drugs are concerned they noted a high level of concern, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications.

Conclusion:

With increasing global cost-containment pressures within the healthcare space, the emergence of a lucrative global ‘biosimilar drugs’ market now appears to be inevitable.

In the fast evolving scenario, major research based global bio-pharma and even the pure pharmaceutical companies will have two clear choices. The first choice is the conventional one of competing with ‘biosimilar drugs’ in all important markets of the world. However, the second choice of jumping into the fray, keeping undiluted focus on R&D, appears to be more prudent and perhaps will also make a shrewd horse sense. Only future will tell us, which of these two business senses will prevail, in the run up to success, for the global biotech companies.

With the above background, the report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlighting the fact, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India.

With around 40% cost arbitrage, as indicated above and  without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players  should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for ‘biosimilar drugs’.

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing  high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

In addition to cost efficiency, available skill sets in developing ‘biosimilar drugs’, will offer another critical advantage to the domestic players in reaching out to the international ‘biosimilar drugs’ markets either by themselves or with appropriate collaborative arrangements, just as we have recently witnessed in case of Biocon’s strategic collaboration with Pfizer in this rapidly evolving sector of the world.

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.

State funded ‘Universal Healthcare’ in India: A laudable initiative of the Government

Posted on by
Reply

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’, in the article authored by Prof. K. Srinath Reddy et al titled, “Towards achievement of universal health care in India by 2020: a call to action”, proposed creation of an Integrated National Health System in India through provision of universal health insurance, establishment of autonomous organizations to enable accountable and evidence-based good-quality health-care practices and at the same time reduce the high out-of-pocket expenditure on health care through a well regulated integration of the private sector within the national health-care system of India, by 2020.

About six months later, in its August 16, 2011 issue ‘The Times of India’ reported that the Planning Commission of India is currently framing up the blue print for a universal health insurance scheme which would provide a minimum cover to everyone in the country. It is expected that a surcharge will be levied for this Universal Health Care (UHC) initiative.

Though UHC is indeed a very commendably initiative for India as a nation,  some dubious and self-styled ‘healthcare crusaders’ have already started raising the bogey of ‘the inadequacy’ of the scheme as a diversionary measure to misguide the easily vulnerable common man of the country.

Efforts being made to sensationalize the current status of the Indian healthcare system:

Even in the backdrop of UHC initiative, the following sensational headlines could be fallacious at times, which more often than not are being misused by the vested interests:

  • “About 1.8 million children under age of 5 die in India every year; 68,000 mothers die due to maternal causes, and 52 million children in the country are stunted”.
  • “With 70% people living in more than 600,000 villages across rural India, not more than an estimated 30% have access to modern medicine”.

It is unfortunate that many key stakeholders, interested in improved healthcare system, are continuously engaged in an eternal blame game of ‘it is not my monkey’. At the same time, taking advantage of this confused situation, some other groups plan to facilitate their vested interests by projecting a ‘weaker India’ with contentious planted reports both overtly and covertly.

In this prevailing scenario, which has been continuing since the last several decades, there is no dearth of people who would attempt to hijack the health interest of the nation to harvest mega commercial benefits.

While all concerned should keep a vigil on such sinister design, let me now try to place some hard facts before you on the current healthcare scenario in India in the context of UHC.

The facts on access to ‘round the year’ healthcare facilities in India:

As reported by the Government of India in 2004, access to healthcare infrastructure and services for the rural villages in terms of percentages were as follows (Source: India Health Report 2010) :

  1. Primary Health Centers:  68.3
  2. Sub-Centers:   43.2
  3. Government Dispensaries:  67.9
  4. Government hospitals in urban areas:  79
  5. Private Clinics:  62.7
  6. Private Hospitals:  76.7

I reckon, after implementation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and National Urban Health Mission (NRUM), this situation prevailing in 2004 has improved. However, the scope for further improvement in all these areas still remains very high. UHC could be a key facilitator.

In any case, the shrill voice highlighting around 65% of population of India does not have access to healthcare or medicines seem to be highly misplaced.

‘Access to Modern Medicines’ is improving in India, slowly but surely:

Contrary to the above propaganda, in the real life situation the access to modern medicines by the common man in the country even in the rural India is steadily increasing.

This is evidenced by the facts, CAGR (volume) of the pharmaceutical industry since the last ten years has been around 13%, leaving aside another robust growth factor being contributed through the introduction of newer brands, every year. Encouraging growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, certainly signals towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines in India.

IPM maintained a scorching pace of 16.5% growth in 2010. A recent forecast of IMS highlights near similar growth trend in 2011, as well.

In addition, extension of focus of the Indian pharmaceutical Industry, in general, to the fast growing rural markets, which are currently growing at a much faster pace than ever before, clearly supports the argument of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even in rural India. The improvement in access may not exactly be commensurate to the volume growth of the industry during this period, but a major part of the industry growth could certainly be attributed towards increase in access to modern medicines in India.

For arguments sake, out of this rapid growth of the IPM, year after year consistently, if I attribute just 5% growth per year, for even the last nine years over the base year of 1998 (as reported in 2004 by WHO) to improved access to medicines, it will indicate, at least, 57% of the population of India currently has access to modern medicines and NOT just 35%, as I wrote in my blog earlier, quoting the numbers from the above WHO report of 2004.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend. Official communications of the government still quote the outdated statistics, which states that 65% of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today. No wonder, why many of us still prefer to live on to our past.

Be that as it may, around 43% of the population will perhaps still not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can be resolved with a holistic approach. UHC initiative together with improvement of healthcare infrastructure and delivery systems are the needs of the hour.

So called ‘Diseases of the Poor’ are no longer the ‘Leading Causes of Death’ in India:

As stated above, the disproportionate diversionary focus on the diseases of the poor by the vested interests, being the leading causes of death in India, should be re-validated with the data available with the office of the Registrar General of India (2009). This report highlights a totally different scenario, where the top five leading causes of death in terms of percentage, have been reported as follows:

  1. Cardiovascular diseases:  24.8
  2. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): 10.2
  3. Tuberculosis: 10.1
  4. Cancer: 9.4
  5. Ill-defined conditions: 5.3

Thus the diseases of the developed world, like cardiovascular diseases, COPD and Cancer cause over 45% of the total deaths in India, whereas Tuberculosis, Malaria, Diarrhea and digestive diseases cause around 23% deaths in the country. I reckon, UHC will take care of this emerging disease pattern in India.

The key reasons for not seeking medical treatment are not always poor ‘Access to Healthcare’:

While promoting the UHC, the government should take note of the key reasons for not seeking medical treatment, across socioeconomic milieu in the country. These reasons are not predominantly due to ‘Poor Access to Healthcare ‘. The following data will vindicate this point:

Reason

Rural Poorest 20%

Rural Richest 20%

Urban Poorest 20%

Urban Richest 20%
Financial Reasons

39.7

21.2

37.2

2.3
Ailments not considered serious

27.2

45.6

44.3

84.4
No Medical facilities

12.8

10.0

1.6

_
Others

20.3

23.2

16.9

13.3

Total

100

100

100

100

(Source: India Health Report 2010)

All these are happening probably because we do not have, as yet, any ‘well-structured healthcare financing system’ for all section of the society. The UHC initiative could well be a very significant part to the solution of this long standing problem together with other specific important measures, some of which I have already deliberated above.

While addressing the healthcare financing issue of India, January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented:

“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”

I reiterate in this context, UHC initiative brings a breadth of fresh air to the prevailing rather gloomy healthcare financing scenario in India.

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

Look at it from, any angle, the general population of India is most burdened with high’ out of pocket healthcare expenses’ compared to even all of our neighboring countries:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

This factor itself, in case of just one or couple of serious illnesses, could make a middle class household of India poor and a poor could be pushed even Below the Poverty Line (BPL). UHC initiative of the Government is expected to change this scenario significantly in the years ahead.

The key unresolved issue of ‘affordability’ will get partially unresolved with UHC:

The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also pointed out that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively, are financed by loans and sell off assets.

This critical issue of ‘affordability’ of modern medicines is expected to get, at least partially resolved with the UHC scheme of the Government.

Around 32% of Indian BPL population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the UHC scheme, the government should keep in mind that a population of around 32% in India, still lives below the poverty line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure, however minor it may be, towards medicines. Proper implementation of the RSBY scheme with military precision, will be the right approach to this marginalized section of the society.

National Health Entitlement Card:

According to the Planning Commission, to enable the citizens availing the facilities provided by the ‘Universal Healthcare,’ the government will issue a ‘National Health Entitlement Card’, which will guarantee free access to  relevant healthcare packages designed for the primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare for all. This scheme will be fully funded by the Central Government and cover both inpatient and outpatient services.

Conclusion:

Thus in the current scenario, the initiative of ‘Universal healthcare’ to provide access to healthcare to all citizens of India by addressing the critical issue of high incidence of ‘out of pocket’ expenses towards health care, is indeed a laudable initiative and ushers in a breadth of fresh air, despite all motivated comments against it.

We need also to keep in mind, although the ‘Universal healthcare’ is a fascinating mega initiative by the Planning Commission of India, this may not resolve all health related maladies of the country in one stroke.

Even in the changed scenario, a large section of the population both rich and poor and from both urban as well as rural India, may continue to not seek medical treatment assuming initially many of their ailments are not serious enough. Such a situation will definitely not materially improve the healthcare scenario of India, quite adversely affecting the economic progress of the country.

Such a situation, if continues, will necessitate continuous disease awareness campaigns with active participation of all stakeholders, including the civil society across the country, sooner than later, in tandem with all other measures as may deem necessary from time to time.

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.

NRHM of India: Yet to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’

Posted on by
Reply

‘National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)’, one of the largest and a very ambitious healthcare initiative for the rural population of India, was launched by the Government of India on April 12, 2005.

The primary purpose of NRHM, as announced by the Government, was to ensure universal access to affordable and quality healthcare for the rural poor of 18 states of India, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, to start with.
During the launch of NRHM, the then Health Minister of India announced that the nation would see the results of these efforts in three years’ time.

The key objectives of NRHM:

• Decrease the infant and maternal mortality rate • Provide access to public health services for every citizen • Prevent and control communicable and non-communicable diseases • Control population as well as ensure gender and demographic balance • Encourage a healthy lifestyle and alternative systems of medicine through AYUSH

As announced by the government NRHM envisages achieving its objective by strengthening “Panchayati Raj Institutions” and promoting access to improved healthcare through the “Accredited Social Health Activist” (ASHA). It also plans on strengthening existing Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers and District Health Missions, in addition to making maximum use of Non-Governmental Organizations.

NRHM was to improve access to healthcare by 20 to 25% in 3 years’ time:
To many the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has made a significant difference to the rural health care system in India. It now appears that many more state governments are envisaging to come out with innovative ideas to attract and retain public healthcare professionals in rural areas.
On January 11, 2010, the Health Minister of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, while inaugurating the FDA headquarters of the Western Zone located in Mumbai, clearly articulated that the NRHM initiative will help improving access to affordable healthcare and modern medicines by around 20 to 25 percent during the next three years. This means that during this period access to modern medicines will increase from the current 35 percent to 60 percent of the population.
If this good intention of the minister ultimately gets translated into reality, India will make tremendous progress in the space of healthcare, confirming the remarks made by Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as quoted above.

The Achievements:

More than five years are over now. Let us have a look at the key achievements of this ambitious health scheme as on January 2010, as available from the Ministry of Health:

  • 71.6% (10.86 million) institutional deliveries across India as compared to only 41%
  • 78.8% (19.82 million) children across the country fully immunized
  • A total of 23,458 primary health centers (PHC) have been set up against NRHM goals of 27,000 during the same period.
  • 5,907 community health centers were upgraded against 7,000 as was planned under the NRHM.
  • 462,000 Associated Social Health Activists were trained
  • 177,924 villages have sanitation committees functional
  • 323 district hospitals have been taken for up gradation

Free Care to Mothers and Children: A new initiative

In the recent publication of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) titled, ‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’, the ministry has highlighted another commendable initiative to provide free care to the mothers and children, which includes as follows:

Provision of free drugs,

  • Free Consumables and Diagnostics,
  • Free Diet during stay and
  • Free transport to health facility and drop back home. 

Still to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’:

Despite all these, a recent study done by ‘Chronic Care Foundation’ indicates that in India about 86% of highly populated rural districts still do not have provisions for basic diagnostic tests for chronic ailments.

The study also highlights that in rural areas, as a percentage of total healthcare expenses, out of pocket costs are more than the urban areas, with hospitalization expenses contributing the most to the total costs. In many rural areas the healthcare costs have been reported to be as high as around 80% of the total expenses. Such a high out of pocket expenses have mainly been attributed to the lack of facilities in these rural areas, requiring patients to travel to distant areas for medical treatment. It was also reported that even in rural areas due to inefficient and inadequate services at the Government healthcare units there has been a very high dependence on more expensive private healthcare facilities.

Obvious questions:

Thus even after over five years from the inception of NRHM, the current status of rural public healthcare system, poses the following obvious questions:
• How is the huge money allocated for NRHM being utilized? • Who all are accountable for the current state of affairs of this great scheme?
Even our Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh has admitted recently that “the shortage of human resources was becoming an impediment in strengthening the public health delivery system through the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)”.

Economic Survey 2010 did raise a flag:

The Economic Survey 2010 highlighted that ‘several glitches in the flagship NRHM needed to be ironed out to improve health infrastructure’, some of these are the following:

  • Shortage of over 6,800 more hospitals in rural areas to provide basic health facilities to people
  • Shortage of 4,477 primary healthcare centers and 2,337 community healthcare centers as per the 2001 population norms.
  • Almost 29% of the existing health infrastructure is in rented buildings.
  • Poor upkeep and maintenance, and high absenteeism of manpower in the rural areas are the main problems in the health delivery system.
  • Basic facilities are still absent in many Primary Health Centers (PHCs) and Community Health Centers (CHCs) to provide guaranteed services such as in-patient care, operation theatres, labor rooms, pathological tests, X-ray facilities and emergency care.

The Economic Survey further highlighted that “An assessment of the health related indicators would suggest that significant gains have been made over the years. However, India fares poorly in most of the indicators in comparison to the developing countries like China and Sri Lanka. The progress in health has been quite uneven, across regions, gender, as well as space.”

It now appears that this great initiative of the government of India called the NRHM, has made, if at all, only marginal impact on the healthcare needs and systems of the nation.

Leveraging capacity of the Private Healthcare sector is critical:

Though the private sector contributes over 70% in healthcare space, unfortunately NRHM has not yet been successful to leverage this key strength.  Participation of the private healthcare players through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives could be one of the key determinants of success of NRHM of India. Electronic Media outreach program, though quite sporadic, has started creating some awareness about this project within the general population.

Role of the State Governments:

In the federal governance structure of India, health being a state subject, respective state governments should play more creative and proactive role with requisite allocation of fund, freedom of operation and accountability to make NRHM successful across the country.

Who will bell the cat?

To make NRHM deliver desired results the Government should at the very outset significantly increase in health expenditure to around 3% to 5% of GDP and simultaneously outline, decide and announce the key measurable success parameters for performance evaluation of the scheme. This is to be done by uploading for public scrutiny in the respective Health Ministry websites of both the Central and State Governments the names and designations of the responsible senior Government officials who will be held accountable for the success or failure to deliver the deliverables for NRHM. All these details should be updated at least half yearly.

With tax-payers money being utilized for this important and critical public health arena, no non-performance should escape attention and go unpunished.
Moreover, with the help of experts, the Government should decide which elements of each identified success parameters the Government will be able to deliver better with its own internal resources and what are those areas where the Government should outsource from the private players.
Such an approach when worked out in great details will be able to ensure whether through NHRM the country is making progress to improve access to affordable and quality healthcare for a vast majority of its rural population. Otherwise this scheme may well be treated just as one of those which failed to deliver and over a period of time vanished in the oblivion.

Conclusion:

Thus, in my view, despite publication of all the details done for NRHM by the MoHFW in its latest publication titled, ‘‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’ and witnessing some sporadic flashes of brilliance here or there, I reckon, the overall implementation of this excellent healthcare project called NRHM has failed to tick many of the important boxes as was eagerly expected by the common man 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.

e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of e-healthcare started germinating in India since 1999, when the ‘Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)’ initiated its pioneering step towards telemedicine in the country by deploying a SATCOM-based telemedicine network. This network is currently playing a key role in the evolution and development of e-healthcare in the country. ISRO, with its fine blending of application of world class satellite communication technology with modern medical science and information technology (IT), has engaged itself very seriously to ensure availability of quality and affordable specialty healthcare services right at the doorsteps of a vast majority of population living even in the distant and remote places of the rural India.

However, despite telemedicine gaining slow momentum in India, there is no law in place for ethical, affordable and patient friendly use of e-healthcare facilities in the country.  Considering its vast scope of improving access to healthcare, cost effectiveness and a convenient ways to deliver e-healthcare services to a very large number of patients, especially, located in the distant locations of the country, the law makers should urgently ensure that this important healthcare service is not misused or abused by unscrupulous elements, in any way.

Very recently, taking into consideration this critical legal requirement the Medical Council of India (MCI) has decided to soon forming a panel to address the ethical issues related to e-healthcare in India.

Delivery of e-healthcare through telemedicine:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined telemedicine as follows: “The delivery of healthcare services, where distance is a critical factor, by all healthcare professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for continuing education of healthcare providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities.”

As stated above, telemedicine is gradually gaining popularity in India, like in many other countries of the world. This emerging e- healthcare service has the potential to meet the unmet needs of the patients located in the far flung areas, by providing access to medical specialists for treatment of even tertiary level of their ailments, without requiring traveling outside their villages or small towns where they reside.

The key objectives of e-healthcare:

1. To provide affordable quality healthcare services even to those places where these are not available due to lack of basic healthcare infrastructure and delivery issues.

2. Speedy electronic transmission of clinical information of both synchronous and asynchronous types, involving voice and data transfer of patients to distantly located experts and get their treatment advice online.

3. To effectively train the medics and the paramedics located in distant places and proper management of healthcare delivery/service systems.

4. Disaster management.

The Process:

The process can be: – ‘Real time’ or synchronous when through a telecommunication link real time interaction between the patients and doctors/experts can take place. This technology can be used even for tele-robotic surgery. – ‘Non-real time’ or asynchronous type when through a telecommunication link, stored diagnostics/medical data and other details of the patients are transmitted to the specialists for off-line assessment and advice at a time of convenience of the specialists.

These processes facilitate access to specialists’ healthcare services by the rural patients and the medical practitioners alike by reducing avoidable travel time and related expenses. At the same time, such interaction would help upgrading the knowledge of rural medical practitioners and paramedics to hone their skill sets.

The Promise:

e-healthcare is capable of taking modern healthcare to remote rural areas using Information Technology (IT), as specialists are mostly located in the cities. As majority of the diseases do not require surgery, e-healthcare would prove to be very conducive to such patients and economical too.

Relevance of e-healthcare in India:

With its over 1.2 billion population and equally huge disease burden, spreading across distant semi-urban and rural areas, where over 70 per cent of the population of the country lives, India should focus on e-healthcare to meet unmet healthcare needs of the common man, at least, located in far-flung areas. e-healthcare, therefore, is very relevant for the country, as it faces a scarcity of both hospitals and medical specialists. In India for every 10,000 of the population just 0.6 doctors are available.

According to the Planning Commission, India is short of 600,000 doctors, 1 million nurses and 200,000 dental surgeons. It is interesting to note that 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent of dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals, are situated in urban India.

Progress of e-healthcare in India:

Equitable access to healthcare is the overriding goal of the National Health Policy 2002. e-healthcare has a great potential to ensure that the inequities in the access to healthcare services are adequately addressed by the country.

Very encouragingly, a good number of even super-specialty hospitals like, Apollo Group of Hospitals have unfolded the launch plan of ‘Healthcare India Pharmaceutical Registry (HIPAAR)’, which is an electronic drug database for reference by the doctors and patients.  Apollo Group feels that HIPAAR module will enable the patients to know whether right medications have been used or not to treat the ailment that the concerned patient is suffering from along with the information of possible adverse effects of the medicines prescribed to them.

Currently, in the dedicated e-healthcare centers of ‘Narayana Hrudayalaya group’ pioneered by Dr Devi Shetty, patients from far-flung areas can have consultations with doctors in Bangalore.

Similarly, Asia Heart Foundation (Kolkata) and Regional Institute of Medical Science (Imphal, Manipur) are currently providing multi-specialty e-healthcare through telemedicine to 10 district hospitals, which will be extended to 75 District Hospitals, shortly. At the same time, some Government hospitals also have started extending e-healthcare through telemedicine facilities, which among others will handle e-transfer of medical data of patients like, X-ray, CT scan and MRI for not only diagnosing the disease, but also for treatment and medical consultation. Department of telemedicine of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital of New Delhi is one such example.

Well reputed cancer hospital of India, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) of Mumbai is now well connected with B.Barooah Cancer Institute of Guwahati, Assam and K.L Walawalkar Cancer Center of Chiplun, Maharashtra. Over a short period of time TMH plans to connect with 19 such regional cancer institutes.

Today the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI), a global network of partners that seeks to improve the functioning of health markets in developing countries to deliver better results for the poor, profiles more than 55 telemedicine programs globally including 24 in India.

Public Private Partnership:

As the Ministry of Health and Family welfare has now constituted a ‘National Telemedicine Taskforce’, some private healthcare institutions, as mentioned above, and various State Governments like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal have started taking admirable initiatives to translate the concept of e-healthcare into reality, especially for the rural India. Subsequently, private e-healthcare solution providers have also started coming-up, though in a sporadic manner.  Active participation of the civil society and meaningful Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are essential not only to get engaged in creating awareness for e-healthcare within India, but also to ensure that required blend of a high quality technical and medical manpower that the country currently possesses are effectively utilized to establish India as a pioneering nation and a model to emulate, in the field of e-healthcare.

The market of e-healthcare in India:

Frost & Sullivan (2007) estimated the e-healthcare (telemedicine) market of India at US$3.4 million is expected to record a CAGR of over 21 percent between 2007 and 2014.

More fund required for e-healthcare:

e-healthcare shows an immense potential within the fragile brick and mortar public healthcare infrastructure of India to catapult rural healthcare services, especially secondary and tertiary healthcare, to a different level altogether. Current data indicate that over 278 hospitals in India have already been provided with telemedicine facilities. 235 small hospitals including those in rural areas are now connected to 43 specialty hospitals. ISRO provides the hospitals with telemedicine systems including software, hardware, communication equipment and even satellite bandwidth. The state governments and private hospitals are now required to allocate adequate funds to further develop and improve penetration of Telemedicine facilities in India.

Issues with e-healthcare in India:

– Telemedicine will not be immune to various complicated legal, social, technical and consumer related issues.

- Some government doctors could feel that for e-healthcare they need to work extra hours without commensurate monetary compensation

- The myth created that setting up and running any e-healthcare facility is expensive, needs to be broken, as all the related costs can be easily recovered by a hospital through nominal charges to a large number of patients, who will be willing to avail e-healthcare facilities, especially from distant parts of India.

- Inadequate and uninterrupted availability of power supply could limit proper functioning of the e-healthcare centers.

- High quality of telemedicine related voice and data transfer is of utmost importance. Any compromise in this area could have a significant impact on the treatment outcome of a patient.

- Lack of trained manpower for e-healthcare services needs to be addressed quickly by making it a part of regular medical college curriculum, just as the University of Queensland in Australia has it for their Graduate Certificate in e-Healthcare (GCeH). A pool of competent professionals for e-healthcare services in the country will be a step in the right direction.

- Reimbursement procedure of e-healthcare treatment costs by the medical insurance companies needs to be effectively addressed.

Conclusion:

For an integrated and sustainable healthcare delivery model covering the entire population of the country, a robust e-healthcare strategy is absolutely essential.  Three critical success factors for e-Healthcare initiatives may be considered as follows:

  1. A comprehensive government policy
  2. Increasing level of literacy
  3. Power and telecommunications infrastructure

Unlike common perception, for greater effectiveness and better acceptance of any sustainable e-healthcare service project, the focus should be the same or rather a little more on non-technological areas like consumer mindset and competent healthcare providers than technological factors such as biomedical engineering or information technology.

A very large rural population of India living in remote areas could get access to affordable and quality health related services through e-healthcare facilities, which, I reckon, should be made to play a very special and critical role to address the healthcare needs of the common man. With its gradually increasing coverage, it is imperative that required regulatory standards and guidelines for e-healthcare are put in place across the country, sooner. Technological expertise to make e-healthcare successful is already available in India. The pioneering role that ISRO has been playing in this field is still not known to many.

Thus, to make e-healthcare successful, the country needs to create an appropriate groundswell for the same. All powerful and effective ‘Fourth Estate’ of the country should demonstrate greater interest to initiate a healthy discussion on e-healthcare by all stakeholders and play the role of a facilitator to ensure access to quality and affordable healthcare to all the people 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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs 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, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, 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 diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

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

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

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

Change of appetite:

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

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, 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-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

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.

Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

Posted on by
Reply

Overall growth rate of the global pharmaceutical industry is currently hovering around 5%. Similar situation has been prevailing since last several years. There is no indication of acceleration of growth rate from any of the top 3 regions of the world namely the USA, EU and Japan, at least in the near future.

According to IMS, the global pharmaceutical market is expected to grow around 5%-7% in 2011 to US$ 880 billion, as compared to around 4%-5% of 2010.

The reasons of the slowdown, I have discussed several times in the past through this column and do not intend to dwell on that, at least, in this Article.

The Emerging Markets of the World:

Unlike developed markets, emerging pharmaceuticals market of the world, like, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Korea, are showing a robust growth rate, quite commensurate to the ascending GDP growth trend of these countries.

According to IMS, the projected CAGR trend of the developed and Emerging Markets for the period of 2007–11, are as follows:

Mature Markets

CAGR 2007-11

Emerging Markets

 CAGR 2007-11
USA 4-7% China 13-16%
Canada 6-9% Korea 8-11%
Japan 2-5% Brazil 9-12%
Germany 3-6% Russia 17-20%
France 2-5% Mexico 6-9%
Italy 3-6% India 11-14%
UK 4-7% Turkey 9-12%
Spain 5-8%

(Source IMS)

Branded Generics/Generics are now key growth drivers in the Emerging Markets:

It is worth noting, unlike the developed markets of the world, where high priced branded patented drugs drive the value growth of the industry, in the emerging markets, where investment towards R&D is relatively less, branded generic and the generic products are the key growth drivers.

Such an evolving situation has prompted large global majors like Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi-aventis, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott Laboratories, to name a few, either to acquire large generic or Biosimilar drug companies or ink various interesting and win-win collaborative deals, in these markets, to maintain their respective business growth with the branded generic and generic products in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Will Emerging Markets be lucrative enough only with Generic and Branded Generic products, in the long run?

Some experts do feel that, in the long run, the emerging pharmaceutical markets, like India, may not prove to be as lucrative to the global pharmaceutical majors.

The key reason being, around 80% ‘out of pocket’ expenditure for medicines in India, could be the key impediment to expanded access to higher priced innovative medicines, in general. Such a situation could seriously limit the success of branded patented drugs in India following their global strategy, compared to the developed markets of the world. The issue of affordability of such medicines will continue to be a key factor for their improved access in India, if the ground reality remains unchanged. Top line business growth only with Generics and Branded Generics in the emerging markets may not be sustainable enough, in the long run, for the innovator companies to adequately fund their R&D initiatives to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The other school of thought:

The other school of thought, however, argues that ‘out-of pocket” characteristic of  India is indeed more sustainable in terms of cost containment pressure, than those  markets where the government or health insurance companies cover a large part of the medical expenses for the population.

Every year around 1% of population comes above the poverty line in India together with a growing ‘middle income’ segment with increasing purchasing power. This cycle, in turn, will keep fueling the growth of healthcare space, contributing significantly to the progress of the pharmaceutical industry of the country.

‘One size fits all’ global strategy unlikely to succeed in the ‘Emerging Markets’:

In my view ‘One size fits all’ type of strategy, especially in the area of pricing, is unlikely to succeed in the emerging markets of the world. Pharmaceutical Companies will need to have  different types of ‘tailor made’ strategic approaches for markets like Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Mexico, Korea and Turkey.

Pricing Strategy will be a key determinant to success:

For better access to medicines, ‘differential pricing strategy’ has been the stated policy of large global companies like, GSK and MSD. If this trend continues, a win-win situation could be created, when unmet needs of a large number of patient groups could be met with innovative medicines, paving the way for the innovator companies to register a healthy, both top and bottom line, business growth in these markets to effectively fund their R&D projects, besides others.

The most successful brand launch in India, so far:

The credit for the most successful new patented product launch (launched in 2008) in the recent times, I reckon, should go to Januvia (Sitagliptin), an oral anti-diabetic molecule from the global major MSD. The reported global sales of Januvia in 2008 was US $1.4 billion and the sales reported in India was around Rs. 77 Crore (around US $17 million) in just over two years with around 2.4% market share in the large and fragmented Oral Ant-Diabetic segment (IMS, MAT March 2010). This could happen, in my view, not only due to a brilliant business strategy executed with military precision but also because of a differential pricing strategy adopted by the company for this particular product in India.

In recent times, it has not been difficult to record a turnover of around US $ 20 – 25 million by a large pharmaceutical brand either in India or China.

Conclusion:

If this does not happen, due to one reason or the other, it would arguably be quite challenging for the global innovators to be able to keep engaged in the high-cost and high-risk R&D initiatives, by driving their business growth mainly with generic and branded generic medicines in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Thus the name of the game for the global innovator companies will be to Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

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.

The issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India: An “Ostrich Syndrome’

Posted on by
Reply

Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline, “Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The WHO debate:

‘Intellectual property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported as follows:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told Intellectual Property Watch there is a “hidden agenda” against generics from countries like Brazil.

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generics medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

In response to such allegations the International Federation on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) released a document titled, “ten principles on counterfeit medicines” and categorically stated that “patents have nothing to do with counterfeiting and counterfeiting has nothing to do with patents.”

In this seemingly volatile scenario, the key point to understand is the definition of a ‘Counterfeit Drug’.

The dictionary definition:
The word ‘Counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:
1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud
2. To carry on a deception or dissemble
4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable
5. A fraudulent imitation.
What does the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?
Presumably in the spirit of the above definition, the Drugs and cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:
Section 17: Misbranded drugs
Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs
Section 17-B: Spurious drugs
The question therefore arises, as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why does it fall under D&CA?
This was done in the past by the law makers, as they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even loss of lives.
Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Another argument:

Some voices in India have also expressed that ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ are a Health issue. Why are we then mixing up non-health IPR issues like trademarks and designs along with it?

Should the definition of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ cover all types of medicines, which are not genuine?

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.
At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in any country, unless it has been made available fraudulently. It will be absolutely improper for anyone to term generic drugs as counterfeits, in the same way.

The magnitude of the problem:

International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) reported in 2006 as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4% and 5% annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10% to 20% of the total market.”

CDSCO surveys on ‘Spurious’ and ‘Sub-standard’ drugs in India:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India has released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010.

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

It is indeed very surprising to note from the above CDSCO report that from 2006 to 2010 the number of both arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime in India is abysmally low.

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:
1. Only 0.046% of the drugs in the Indian market were spurious
2. Only 0.1% of drugs are of sub-standard quality in India

Is there really nothing to worry about?

From these reports, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!

It is indeed equally baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.
In my opinion, the above recent survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the international community, also.
The problem of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:
The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.
A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.
The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO)’:
To effectively eliminate this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing menace of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:
All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by counterfeit medicines in India. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

Instead of all these, as we witness today, the country keeps on demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’, shouting from the roof top, as it were, that no health hazards due to prevalence of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ exist in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

EU-FTA, TRIPS-Plus provisions, Data Exclusivity, Public Interest and India

Posted on by
Reply

Business Standard in its January 27, 2011 edition reported, “Data Exclusivity still key hurdle to India-EU FTA”
Before deliberating on this important issue of “Free Trade Agreement (FTA)”, let me touch upon very briefly, for the benefit of all concerned, the pros and cons of the FTAs.
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs):
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), as we know, are treaties signed between the governments of two or more countries, where the countries agree to partially or completely lift the import tariffs, taxes, quotas, special fees, other trade barriers and regulatory issues to allow increased business, benefitting each country.
The Pros and Cons:
Consumers of each country are the key beneficiaries of FTAs with increased supply of various products of wider choices at lesser prices with consequent increase in market competition and market penetration.
The cons of the FTAs are apprehensions that arising out of fierce competition and increasing supply of imported products at lesser prices, the demand for domestic goods decline, leaving an adverse impact on the domestic business performance with consequent job losses, especially, in the manufacturing sector. In addition, because of lower import tariff, revenue collection of the government may also get adversely affected.
The scenario is no different for the pharmaceutical sector of the country.
A recent example:
The most recent example is the FTA between India and Japan. This will include both trade and investments, increasing the bilateral trade and commerce between the two countries to around US$ 11 billion. With this Agreement, Indian pharmaceutical products will be able to get access to the highly regulated and the second largest pharmaceutical market of the world.
The key issues with EU FTA:
1. It wants to include IPR issues like Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity (DE) 2. RDP is a TRIPS-plus provision and its inclusion will delay the launch of generics 3. Delayed launch of generics would adversely impact the ‘public interest’.
A paradigm shift has taken place in India:
As we know, January 1, 1995 ushered in a new era, when the agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), became effective for its member countries. This Agreement significantly changed the international Intellectual Property (IP) regime with the introduction of the principle of minimum intellectual property standards.
This would, therefore, mean that any IP related agreement that will be negotiated subsequent to TRIPS between WTO members can only create higher than the specified minimum standards.
What is ‘TRIPS Plus’?
The ‘TRIPS-plus’ concept usually would encompass all those activities, which are aimed at increasing the level of IP protection for the right holders beyond what is stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement.
Some section of the civil society nurtures a view that ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could significantly jeopardize the ability, especially, of developing countries to protect the ‘public interest’.
Some common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions:
Common examples of ‘TRIPS plus’ provisions could include:
- Extension of the patent term beyond usual twenty-year period – Introduction of provisions, which could restrict the use of Compulsory    Licenses (CL) – Delaying the entry of generics
Is section 39.3 an example of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provision?
The raging debate around Regulatory Data Protection (Data Exclusivity) as indicated under Article 39.3 of TRIPS is perhaps unique in terms of apprehension of the generic pharmaceutical industry on its possible adverse impact on their business and very recently of the Government of India because of the share of voice of the pressure groups following the EU-FTA.
Be that as it may, the moot question is, even if these provisions are ‘TRIPS Plus’, are these good for India?

Key arguments in favor of RDP in India:
1. It will not extend Patent life and promote evergreening:
However, there is hardly any evidence that RDP does not get over well before the patent expires. Thus RDP does extend the patent life of a product and hence is not ‘Evergreening’.
2. It will not delay the launch of generics because of safeguards provided in the Indian Patent Act, just like in the USA:
A robust ‘Data Exclusivity (DE)’ regime is effective in the USA since over decades. Despite DE, the world witnesses quickest launch of generic products in that country without any delay whatsoever. This has been possible in the USA, because of existence of the‘Bolar Provision’, which allows the generic players to prepare themselves and comply with all regulatory requirements, using the innovators data wherever required and keep the generic product ready for launch immediately after the patent of the innovator product expires in the country.
I reckon similar ‘Bolar like provision‘ exists in the section 107A of the Indian Patent Act. This particular section allows, in a similar way that generic entry is not delayed in India after patent expiry of the respective innovator products.
Though the generic players of India, by and large, are up in arms against RDP (protection against disclosure and unfair commercial use of the test data) in India, highest number of ANDAs are being filed by the Indian companies, just next to the USA, despite a stringent DE provisions being in force there.
Moreover, inspite of very stringent IPR regulations, Generic prescriptions are quite popular in the USA. Around 62% of the total prescriptions in that country are for generic pharmaceuticals.
Thus the key apprehension that the RDP provision in the EU-FTA will delay the launch of generic  pharmaceutical products in India and will go against ‘Public Interest’ seems to be unfounded to me.
Government report indicates RDP is good for India:
The Government of India appointed ‘Satwant Reddy Committee’ report (2007) also categorically recommended that RDP is good for the country and should be introduced in a calibrated way.The committee examined two industries:
- Pharmaceuticals – Agrochemicals
Meanwhile, a 3 year RDP for Agrochemicals has been accepted by the Government of India, vindicating the fact that even if section 39.3 is considered as ‘TRIPS Plus’, RDP, as such, is good for the country.
Thus the question whether Section 39.3 is ‘TRIPS Plus’ or not, does not appear to be relevant while discussing EU-FTA, after following the above sequence of events in India.
Conclusion:
The issue of RDP appears to me more a regulatory than an IPR related subject in EU-FTA negotiation process and should be treated as such. It means RDP is more related to the ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’ of India rather than the ‘Patent Act 2005′. The media hype that an IPR issue in the form of RDP is being taken up in the EU-FTA negotiation also seems to be misplaced.
Let me hasten to add that I do not hold any brief directly or indirectly for or against the EU-FTA. Neither do I wish to make any general comment on the EU-FTA as such, because the agreement will deal with various other important issues of our nation’s interest involving intensive negotiations between the sovereign countries, at the government level.
However, even without going into the merits or demerits of the EU-FTA, it appears to me that the arguments put forth by a group of people against RDP related to the EU-FTA are indeed not robust enough and possibly have been prompted more by the vested interest groups rather than the ‘Public Interest’.

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.