Tag Archives: drugs

Are Indian patients victims of “unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals and irrational use of drugs?” A perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some time, serious concerns have been expressed by the media, government and the civil society at large about the means adopted by the pharmaceutical industry in general to get their respective brands prescribed by the doctors and why do some of the doctors prescribe what they prescribe to the patients out of multiple available choices.
The MCI Guidelines:
Being concerned mainly by the media outcry, the Medical Council of India (MCI), a year ago, amended their related guidelines for the doctor, clearly articulating what they can and cannot do during their interaction and transaction with the pharmaceutical and related industries.
The Ministry of Health believes that these guidelines, if strictly enforced, would severely limit what the doctors can receive from the pharmaceutical companies in terms of free gifts of wide ranging financial values, entertainments, free visits to exotic locations under various commercial reasons, lavish lunch and dinner etc. in exchange of prescribing specific brands of the concerned companies more…more…and more.
“The Lancet” report:
Let me now combine this scenario with a recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which states in a similar, though not the same context, as follows:
1. “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.”
2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.”
3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.”
Considering the above three critical issues of India, as reported by ‘The Lancet’, the need to follow a transparent code of pharmaceutical marketing practices by the entire pharmaceutical industry is of utmost importance. Recently amended MCI guidelines for the doctors are welcome steps in the right direction.
Are patients just the pawns?
In the absence of all these, the patients of all socio-economic strata will continue to be exploited as pawns by some unscrupulous healthcare players to satisfy their raw greed for making fast bucks at the cost of the intense agony of the ailing patients and their near and dear ones.
As stated earlier, this phenomenon is not new at all. Over a period of time, many stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large have been raising the issue of physicians being influenced in their prescription decisions by various types of payments made to them by the pharmaceutical companies. Such types of significant and seemingly avoidable expenditures, presumed to be considered by the respective companies as a part of their ‘marketing costs’, are believed to be included in the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines, making them more expensive to the patients.
On the other hand, most physicians believe that free entertainment, gifts, their travel costs and seminar sponsorships in no way influence their prescription decision for the patients.
This is not a just India specific issue. Some skeptics believe that it has now become an all pervasive global scandal.
Self-regulation by the industry is most desirable:
To address this issue effectively, some national and international pharmaceutical associations have come out with their own codes of ethical marketing practices along with appropriate stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism, effectively.
Despite all these, it is an undeniable fact that overall perceptual image of the pharmaceutical industry in this respect to the stakeholders, in general, is not as good as it should have been.
The Government intervened in India:
Being alarmed by various media reports on the alleged pharmaceutical marketing (mal) practices in the country, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) had advised the pharmaceutical industry to develop an ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’, which will be applicable to the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.
It has been reported that the said UCMP with its stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism in a transparent procedural format, was submitted to the government by the major pharmaceutical industry associations in India. However, because of dissent of some section of the industry, the UCMP has not received the ‘green signal’ of the government, as yet. It was expected that all stakeholders will help maintaining the sanctity of the UCMP to address this sensitive global and local issue, effectively.
An emerging trend of public disclosure:
Around third quarter of 2008, in an industry first step, Eli Lilly announced its intent of full disclosure of payments that the company made to the physicians for various commercial reasons. Eli Lilly indicated disclosure of payments of more than US $500 to the physicians for advice and speaking at the seminars. Over a period of time, the company indicated that it will expand such disclosure to include other forms of payments to the physicians like gifts, various entertainment and travel.
Eli Lilly was soon followed in this direction by global pharmaceutical majors like, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
However, in India, such instances have not been reported, as yet.
Skepticism with voluntary disclosure:
Some are still skeptical about announcements of such ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by the global pharmaceutical majors to bring in better transparency in the functioning of the industry.

This section of people believes, there are hundreds and thousands of other pharmaceutical companies, who will not follow such precedence of voluntary disclosure in the absence of any properly enforced regulation.
Conclusion:
In all the countries and India is no exception, pharmaceutical companies, by and large, try to follow the legal ways and means to maximize turnover of their respective brands. Many follow transparent and admirable stringent self-regulations, stipulated either by themselves or by their industry associations.
‘Self-regulation with pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some leading global pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this vexing issue. However, the moot question still remains, are all these good enough for the entire industry?
It is about time that all players in the healthcare space realize, in case these voluntary measures of the industry and the guidelines of the regulators like MCI, do not work effectively for any reason, there will be no other option but for the government to step in with iron hand and ‘fool proof’ regulations.
The popular dictum, especially, used in the healthcare industry, “all these are for the patients’ interest” should not be allowed to be misused or abused, any further, by some unscrupulous elements and greedy profiteers, to squeeze out even the last drop of financial resource from the long exploited population of ailing patients 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.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) are hitting the poor even harder, economically: a time to ponder and a time to act

Posted on by
Reply

November 11, 2010 edition of ‘The Lancet’ published an article titled, “Raising the priority of preventing chronic diseases: a political process”. The article enumerated the following:

“Chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic obstructive respiratory diseases, are neglected globally despite growing awareness of the serious burden that they cause. Global and national policies have failed to stop, and in many cases have contributed to, the chronic disease pandemic. Low-cost and highly effective solutions for the prevention of chronic diseases are readily available; the failure to respond is now a political, rather than a technical issue.”

The situation is no different in India. The disease pattern in India is also showing a perceptible shift from age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It has been estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade.

As a consequence of such findings healthcare needs and systems of the country should need to undergo a paradigm shift with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ in the country.

It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:
There is a common perception that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently the medical alleviation of the acute symptoms and the disease that a particular patient is suffering from is the key concern of all concerned starting from the doctor to the patient and his/her family. The process of the medical treatment revolves round symptom relief, diagnostic measures and appropriate treatment protocols and procedures conforming to the proper diagnosis of the ailments. While addressing the acute problems of the patients’ ailments is very important, proper assessment of the underlying diseases or evaluation of their risk factors do not get as much or no attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctor properly highlighting its importance is not available to most of the patients.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become the crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should be made mandatory:

The ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn help the population to remain disease free and thereby to improve their respective work productivity in a very significant way.

Taking all these points into consideration, through policy initiative, The Medical Council of India (MCI) should make ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor through appropriate regulations.

Chronic illnesses will significantly increase the disease burden of the country:

Many of the diseases like cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes can be identified with preventable risk factors and. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation.

Role of a medical professional in customized ‘disease prevention plan’:

Role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advice the patients about the ways of specific disease prevention, for which the individual patients have high exposure.

Need to raise general public and political awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general together with healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the Planning Commission, the government of India has reported to have initiated structured measures for the prevention of NCD, the main features of which are as follows:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. Some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

To address this issue ‘The Lancet’ November 11, 2010, in the article, as mentioned above, prescribed three specific strategies as follows:

1. “Reframe the debate to emphasize the societal determinants of disease and the inter-relation between chronic disease, poverty, and development
2. Mobilize resources through a cooperative and inclusive approach to development and by equitably distributing resources on the basis of avoidable mortality
3. Build on emerging strategic and political opportunities, such as the World Health Assembly 2008—13 Action Plan and the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2011 on chronic disease”.

The government should spearhead the paradigm shift towards this direction with appropriate regulation, generating increased societal and political awareness within the country and through mobilization of adequate resources. All these will ultimately help us to translate the well-known dictum into reality, ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Otherwise, especially the poorer section of the society will continue to get caught in the vicious cycle of debt and illness, seriously jeopardizing the economic progress of the country.

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.

 

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry could well be a contender for global supremacy by the next decade, competing effectively with China

Posted on by
Reply

By the next decade of this millennium both India and China are expected to be the top two emerging markets of the world in the pharmaceutical sector, registering a scorching pace of growth all around. The quality of consistency and sustainability of growth, will determine who will be the main contender of supremacy and the ultimate winner in this game of wealth creation for the respective countries and be the ‘Eldorado’ of the global pharmaceutical companies.

The financial reform measures in the run up to the process of globalization started earlier in China, in 1980 as against 1990 in India. In that sense China took a plunge to be an active member of the ‘global village of commerce’ at least a decade earlier than India.

Reform process started earlier in China:

The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centres, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on global ‘economies of scale’, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many other, will vindicate this point. On the other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20% of the global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Moreover, in ANDA and DMF filings, as well, India is currently much ahead of China.

FDI in India and China:

The Pharmaceutical Industry in India has now started attracting increasing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). As per the reply to question No. 615 tabled in the Parliament of India (Rajya Sabha) on November 25, 2009 by Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.30 million for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals with a compounded growth rate of around 60%. USA, Canada, Singapore, UAE and Mauritius contributed 82% to this FDI, which in turn helped significantly to fuel further development and growth of the Industry.

According to ‘The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry’ of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for the three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million, over one third of which coming from Hong Kong and around 11% from the USA.

It is worth noting that the financial and policy reform measures were initiated in China much earlier, as compared to India, which in turn have enabled China to attract more FDIs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus far. In the new paradigm of the post product patent regime both the countries are expected to grow at a scorching pace attracting more and more FDIs for their respective countries.

In this article, I would like to focus on some of these comparisons to assess the progress made so far by both the countries, in a comparative yardstick and the key factors, which will decide the pace-setter.

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India.

Healthcare coverage of population:

China is racing ahead and gradually but surely distancing itself from India, widening the performance gap with rapid increase of domestic consumption of modern medicines. It is worth mentioning that as per WHO, the access to modern medicines in China is around 85% as against just 35% in India. Of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million of Chinese are covered by health insurance, another 250 million partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. In India total number of people who are having some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population.

Currently India is losing grounds to China mainly in healthcare infrastructure development, with inadequate healthcare delivery systems and delay in rolling out a long overdue comprehensive healthcare reform process in the country.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.
Department of Pharmaceuticals recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just through investments of couple of million US $ through Public Private Partnership (PPP). A strong commitment of the Government to hasten regulatory reform processes will be the key factor. The new product patent regime for the pharmaceutical industry has ushered in a new paradigm, with the Government planning to strike a right balance between TRIPs compliant IPR regime and the ‘Public Interest’ and NOT one at the cost of the other.

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

Since last 5 years both India and China have made rapid strides in the space of pharma outsourcing. Today the evolving business model of ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)’, is shaping up quite well. To make India a global hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the pharmaceutical industry of the country has all the ingredients. India has the potential to emerge as a serious contender for global supremacy, in this fast growing sector, especially in ‘contract manufacturing’ area, having largest number of US-FDA approved manufacturing plants, outside the USA.

According to ‘Global Services”, in 2009 Pharmaceutical outsourcing market in China and India was of US $ 1.77 billion and US $ 1.42 billion, respectively with China growing at a faster pace. The future growth potential for both the countries is huge, as each enjoyed just 2% share of this outsourcing market in 2009.

It has been forecasted that China will have more environmental growth accelerators than India due to greater continuing fiscal stimulus and policy support by their Government, which could catapult the country ahead of India, just beyond 2010.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index (CAI)’ for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India.

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing too China seem to be ahead of India. Based on WIPO PCT applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas, as well.

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature arena for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China. Most probably because of this reason, companies like, DRL, Aurigene, Advinus, Glenmark, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term deals with Multinational Companies (MNCs) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

India is currently an attractive pharmaceutical outsourcing destination across the globe. Pharmaceutical exports of India is currently far ahead of China. However, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by the end of 2010, establishing itself as the largest country for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports China has already overtaken India, way back in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. By the end of 2010, China is expected to widen the gap further with API export of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

Korn/Ferry International reports that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Conclusion:

As I said earlier and as has been reported by Korn/Ferry, China’s current overall infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to initiate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country. Government of India seems to be lacking in its commitment to play its role both as a provider and also as an effective enabler in this important space of ‘knowledge economy’ of the world.

India has all the potential to surge ahead with more rapid strides in this ball game. To achieve this cherished goal, the government, other stakeholders and the domestic pharmaceutical Industry should play the ball well, effectively, and in tandem.

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.

India needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be known in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.

Envisaging a paradigm shift in strategic marketing of pharmaceutical in India

Posted on by
Reply

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended, about three years ago, in mid-2007 that for sustainable business performance the research-based global pharmaceutical companies should move a part of their significant expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide.

The report titled ‘Pharma 2020: The Vision’ commented that the business model of the global pharmaceutical companies is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets.”

Undergoing a paradigm shift:

As we witness, the global pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a paradigm shift. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan had gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that low growth trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13.

Global pharmaceutical ‘Marketing Expenditure’ is increasing:

The publication titled “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” co-authored by Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin estimated from the data collected from the industry and doctors during 2004 that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales turnover on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development. This was as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$ 235.4 billion in that year.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year, as this appears to be the latest year in which information was available from both IMS Health and CAM Group, the two international market research companies that provide the marketing and sales data together with those of consulting services. IMS obtains its data from pharmaceutical companies, while CAM obtains its data from the doctors. This study appeared in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

The above findings though highlight that the US pharmaceutical industry is overall marketing-driven, also argues strongly in favor of a shift away from this direction.

Another publication named, the ‘Triangle Business Journal’ reported the findings from another study of ‘Cutting Edge Information’, a pharmaceutical research company based in Durham, North Carolina, USA. This survey reported, “the companies marketing the six blockbuster (turnover US $ 1 billion in the first year) drugs it studied spent an average of $238.5 million to market each product.”

The “Pharmabiz” of April 2, 2007 also reported, “The study of top 15 global pharma giants revealed that the marketing expenditure as percentage of total sales of these companies worked out to 30.5 as against the R&D expenses as a percentage of total sales of 15.1.”

Such high marketing expenditure is not sustainable in the long run – alternatives being explored:

As reported by IMS Health, in 2009 though the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US $ 837 billion with a growth rate of around 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001, the moot question remains, whether such type of marketing expenditure is sustainable during the era when the “patent cliff’ is pushing the global pharmaceutical industry to the brink.

This situation gets further aggravated when IMS Health reports, as the world’s 10 top selling prescription drugs go off patent, it will be difficult to replace them in terms of single-product value turnover. These brands are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (sanofi-aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Pfizer)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

The business focus is now on the emerging markets like, India:

Thus the business focus of the global pharmaceutical majors are now on the key emerging markets, like India not only with their patented products, but more importantly by having a robust fast growing branded generic portfolio to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit from the blockbusters, as they go off patent.

Publicly expressed expectations of some Governments of the emerging markets:

Governments of some of these emerging markets expect local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there could be following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia had commented, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “They can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may ultimately come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, some global companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and MSD have already started implemeting differential pricing strategies for their patented products in the emerging markets like India.

Some visionary global CEOs like, Andrew witty of GSK strongly believes that such differential pricing will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford his company’s products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only offset the sales value loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets, over a period of time.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK had reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets of Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

India has also witnessed such differential pricing strategy by other innovator companies for their patented products in the country.

Prescribing four new key strategic changes in the new paradigm:

In the new paradigm, almost in tandem, four new key strategic changes, in my view, will gradually unfold in the Indian pharmaceutical market. These are as follows:

1. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treating the diseases.

2. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day.

3. Over the counter (OTC) medicines, especially those originated from natural products to treat common and less serious illness, will curve out a sizable share of the market, as appropriate regulations are expected to be put in place adequately supported by AYUSH.

4. Most importantly, the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system, as already articulated just in the last month by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, which will usher in the following changes:

- Doctors will no longer be the sole decision makers for prescribing drugs to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Ministry of Health/ Healthcare providers/ Medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

- For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

- Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will gradually play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

- This could well mean lesser role of the Medical Representatives in the demand generation process for the pharmaceutical products, which could possibly have a positive impact on the cost of marketing and sales promotion, incurred by the respective pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion:

With all these changes within the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to the new paradigm sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing, even in the branded generic space. In my view, those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own right and relatively well versed with the nuances of this new ball game, will have a significant competitive edge over other domestic players. The global-local companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the local-global players, especially, in the branded generic space and at the same time will be able to bring down their marketing expenses significantly.

So far as other domestic players are concerned, the fast changing environment could throw a new challenge to many of them, accelerating the consolidation process within the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

We all should be well aware, just as today’s pharmaceutical business dynamics in India are not replica of what these were in the yesteryears, tomorrow’s pharmaceutical business dynamics of the country will not be a replica of what these are today.

By Tapan 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.

Exploring a new ‘Business Model’ to improve access to healthcare in rural India with the industry participation

Posted on by
Reply

Rural India – the home of around 72% of 1.12 billion population of India is undergoing a metamorphosis, as it were. Disposable income of this population is slowly but steadily rising, as evidenced by rapid market penetration of the ‘Fast Moving Consume Goods (FMCG)’ industry in general and companies like Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Dabur in particular.

Size of the Healthcare Sector in India:

It has been reported that the current size of the healthcare industry in India ia around US $ 23 billion or around 5.2% of the GDP. Though the sector is showing an overall healthy growth of around 13%, public expenditure towards healthcare is just around 0.9% of the GDP of the country. As per WHO (2005) per capita government expenditure on health in India was just around US $7, against US $31 of China, US $24 of Sri Lanka, US $11 of Kenya and US $12 of Indonesia.

Currently the number of Government Hospitals/Healthcare centers in India are grossly inadequate and are as follows:

  • Medical Colleges: 242
  • Community Health centers: 3346
  • District Hospitals: 4400
  • Other Public Hospitals: 1200
  • Primary Health Centers: 23236
  • Subcenters: 146026
  • Number of Hospitals in rural areas: 53400
  • Population to rely on Public Hospitals: 43%

Even with the above network of public healthcare centers in India, overall effectiveness of public healthcare delivery system is very poor in the country. Increasing penetration of Information Technology could perhaps partially address this problem.

Growth drivers of rural India?

I reckon, mainly the following reasons attribute to the growth of the rural economy:

- Gradual increase in procurement prices of food grains by the government and waiver of agricultural loans to the tune of US$13.9 billion

- Growing non-farm income: Currently more than 50% of rural income is through non-farm sources, fuelled by various non-farm activities like food-processing, manufacturing, trading, in addition to the income flow from the rural migrants.

– Increased spending by the Government, which is expected to be around US$ 20 billion by March 2010, in the rural areas through various projects and schemes, like National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), Bharat Nirman Program etc. coupled with easier access to requisite loans and credits, have improved the spending power of rural households significantly.

Though the government is making heavy budgetary allocations in rural India to improve the basic infrastructural facilities, healthcare and education, the implementation of most of these schemes still remains far from satisfactory, as of now.

A gaping hole in the rural healthcare space:
In the healthcare space of rural India there is still a gaping hole in various efforts of both the government and the private players to create a robust primary healthcare infrastructure for the common man. Thus poor access to healthcare services, coupled with lack of ability to pay for such services and medicines round the year, are the key challenges that the country will need to overcome. Lack of disease awareness and poor affordability towards healthcare services, still account for 60% of rural ailments not getting treated at all.

Key shortcomings of the current rural healthcare infrastructure:

Despite the numbers quoted above, following shortcomings continue to exist in the healthcare infrastructure of the country:
- Number of Primary Health Centers (PHC) are far less than the budgetary estimate/allocation
- Inadequate treatment facilities even where the PHCs exist
- Shortage of doctors, nurses and paramedics
- Very high rate of absenteeism

Pharmaceutical companies in India should now explore fortune at the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ to reap a rich harvest, creating a win-win situation:

If the pharmaceutical companies operating within the country, partner with the government and other key stakeholders, as a part of their corporate business strategy, to make a fortune from the ‘bottom of the pyramid’, this critical issue can be effectively resolved, sooner. Novartis India has already ventured into this area and has tasted reasonable success with their ‘Arogya Parivar’ program.

However, in my view additional sets of the following value delivery objectives need to be considered to make this the rural healthcare mission with PPP initiatives successful:

- Affordable medicines of high quality standard
- Increase in health awareness by collaborating with the NGOs and rural institutions for various common diseases.
- Continuing Medical Education (CME) for the rural doctors and para-medics
- Arranging microfinance for the healthcare professionals to create small micro- level healthcare infrastructure and also for the patients to undergo treatment
- Help reducing the transaction cost of medicines and healthcare services through fiscal measures by collaborating with the government
- The product portfolio to be tailor made to address the common healthcare needs of rural India

Private healthcare facilities are preferred to public healthcare facilities even in the rural India:

Irrespective of rich or poor, around 80% of the population in India prefer private domiciliary treatment facilities and 50% of the same prefer private hospital treatment services. However, let me hasten to add that even within the private healthcare space in rural India, a lot needs to be done. Many so called ‘doctors’, who are practicing in rural India, have no formal medical qualifications. Moreover, even such doctors are not available in villages with a population of around 300 to 500 households.

The key success factors of the rural marketing ‘Business Model’:

Urban pharmaceutical marketing model, I reckon, should not be replicated for ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing’, as the success factors required for each of them, is quite different. In rural marketing the stakeholders’ needs and wants are quite different. If these are not properly identified and thereafter adequately addressed, mostly through collaborative initiatives, the rural pharmaceutical marketing ‘Business Model’ may not fly at all.

Partnership with Microfinance Institutions will be a key requirement:

Interested pharmaceutical companies will need to collaborate with the rural microfinance institutions for such business initiatives. This will ensure that appropriate loans can be extended to doctors and retailers, wherever needed, to help them create requisite local healthcare infrastructure to make such projects viable and successful. At the same time, such institutions will also require to help the needy rural population with requisite loans to help meeting their cost of medical treatment.

Conclusion:

From a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ it appears that such projects can definitely be made profitable with a modest gross margin of around 40% – 50% and operating profit of around 6% to 8% . The high volume of turnover from over 650 million population of India, will make these ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing projects’ viable. Simultaneously, such corporate business initiatives will help alleviating pain and suffering from diseases of a vast majority of the rural population of India.

By Tapan 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.

Patients’ Safety, regulatory approval of Biosimilar Drugs in India and WHO Biosimilar guidelines

Posted on by
Reply

Biopharmaceutical drugs are broadly defined as:

”Those medicines produced using a living system or genetically modified organism. These drugs are different from traditional chemical medicines in many ways. Size of the molecule is one of the most obvious distinctions: the molecules of a biopharmaceutical medicine are much larger, have far more complex spatial structures and are much more diverse (“heterogeneous”) than the chemical molecules which make up classical drugs.”

The Biosimilar drugs:

Biosimilar drugs are follow-on versions of original biopharmaceutical medicines. Biosimilar medicines are intended to have the same mechanism of action for the same diseases as the original biopharmaceutical drugs.

The term “bio generic” will be misleading for off patent biopharmaceutical products, as no two biopharmaceutical products could possibly be exactly identical. This is mainly because of the following reason:

“Whereas generics of chemistry based medicines are identical in the molecular structure and therefore copies of the original product, based on a strict definition of “sameness”, a corresponding definition cannot be established for biosimilar medicines because of their nature and the complexity of their manufacturing process. Here post-translational modifications are dependent of the host cell and the process.”

Thus the common terminologies used to describe such products when the original products go off-patent are follow-on biologics and biosimilars.

Manufacturing Conditions of biosimilars ultimately define the final product:

Unlike chemical drugs, the manufacturing conditions and the process followed to produce biopharmaceutical drugs largely define the final product and its quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product. Additionally proteins are relatively unstable. Thus additional measures in their storage, formulation and delivery are very critical.

Key concerns with the existing regulatory approval process for Biosimilar drugs:

• Small changes in the manufacturing process of biosimilar drugs could significantly affect the safety and efficacy of the molecule.

• Due to the very nature of a biologic it is virtually impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceutical drugs. Identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies need to be demonstrated in extensive comparability trials. Thus, as stated above, a ‘bio generic’ cannot exist.

• As against the situation applicable for generics of chemical molecules which can be replicated, biosimilar drugs cannot be replicated. At the most such biopharmaceuticals can be at the most “similar” but not “identical” to the original reference products. To ensure desired efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved after charting out a formal and well validated regulatory pathway for the biosimilar drugs in India.

• Currently biosimilar drugs are given marketing approval by the regulator without such guidelines for large molecule biological and following just the bioequivalence model as specified in the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India for small molecule chemical entities only, as the current Drugs and cosmetics Acts of India, very unfortunately, do not differentiate between large and small molecular drugs. This could, in turn, endanger patients’ safety with serious medical consequences.

Although, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) are responsible for approvals of the new drug applications, health being a state subject, respective state regulatory authorities are responsible for granting manufacturing license to the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers setting up facilities in the states, where regulatory oversight and incidences of weaker enforcement are common, will be able to market their products, including biosimilars, across the country. It is alleged that there are hardly any regulatory control over the mistakes or offences committed by the State Drug authorities who permit manufacture of drugs even unapproved by the DCGI. The existing issue of mushrooming of various irrational Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) products in India will vindicate this point.

The Government’s response to this public health concern:

Express Pharma in its June 30, 2009 edition reported Dr M K Bhan, Secretary, Government of India, DBT, saying, “The first question is do we have written guidelines available to people? Currently, we have a large committee of about 30 people in the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) which frequently discusses the current FDA and EMEA guidelines and makes sure that it is updated as per the guidelines in case by case approvals.”

He acknowledged, to make sure that the product is identical or original is harder for biological than for chemical entities and said, “So the next question is, what is the degree of difficulty you create to be sure that some of the products in the in vitro laboratories and the strength of the biomolecule, are to be characterized in details, and the other side is how expensive should the chemical evaluation be? At this moment, RCGM is seeing the issues and is in touch with both the FDA and the EMEA, and they are taking case by case decisions while trying to standardize the minimum information that is required to show how companies have characterized their products.”

“If we ask a big established company on this issue they will tell us to be strict, whereas a smaller company will suggest otherwise. What we are trying to do is being very scientific and come to a conclusion,” reported Express Pharma quoting Dr. Bhan.

The current practice:

Much water has flown down the bridge since the above interview was published. Nothing much has changed on ground regarding this critical issue, thus far. The industry sources allege that even today regulatory approval of biosimilar drugs (large molecules) are granted based on Phase III clinical trials, as specified in the schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts for the small molecules (chemicals) and that too conducted mostly on just 40 to 45 patients. At times the number of patients studied is even lesser. Immunogenicity study, which is so important for biosimilar drugs is, more often than not, overlooked. This could seriously compromise patients’ safety with such category of drugs.

Conclusion:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in our country there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs even when the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with the same and India had actively participated in that exercise.
The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India would conform to international quality and safety standards, like in the U.K or what has been recently announced in the USA? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients administering these life saving medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drugs regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drug’s manufacturing units in India, in not too distant past and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country. The recent example of WHO cancelling the pre-qualification of ‘Shan 5’ (Shanta Biotech) vaccines for quality related problems, perhaps may help opening the eyes of our regulators, on the related patients’ safety issues arising out of regulatory laxity.

This issue assumes even greater importance considering the very recent development of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) unfolding an interesting scheme to encourage development of biosimialr dugs in India by offering financial support to the domestic pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry.

The proposed new regulatory pathway for the marketing approval of Biosimilar drugs in India will immensely help paving the way for the Biopharmaceuticals drugs manufacturers in India to adequately prepare themselves to grab a significant share of the fast emerging Biosimilar drugs markets, particularly, in Europe and the USA, in the years to come.

The Ministry of Health and the Department of Biotechnology of the Government of India should, therefore, urgently and jointly consider amending the Drugs & Cosmetics Acts of India accordingly and establish robust regulatory guidelines for marketing approval of biosimilar drugs in the country, acknowledging the widespread concern for patients’ safety.

By Tapan 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.

 

85% of the patented new drugs have therapeutic equivalents…they do not increase the cost of treatment for the common man: Points…Counterpoints

Posted on by
Reply

Affordability of patented drugs has become a major controversial and at the same time a very sensitive issue in the healthcare space of India, just as in many other parts of the world. The government, the NGOs and other stakeholders, on the one hand, seem to be quite concerned about it. Innovator companies, on the other hand, also have quite robust arguments in their favor.

Meanwhile, the daily newspaper ‘DNA’ published a report on June 15, 2010 with a headline, “NPPA may cap cancer drug prices via Para 10’.

Let us now try to go through the points and counterpoints of this raging debate.

The basic reasons of concern:

The key points for this concern, I reckon, is based on the following two beliefs:

1. All our citizens should have access to all new drugs
2. All these new drugs are essential to treat most of the related disease conditions

Points in favor of free pricing for patented new drugs:

- Price is a function of the value that a patented new drug will offer to the patients. The price of new drugs will, in addition, include components of the cost incurred by the innovators towards research and development, to offer these products to the patients. This is absolutely essential to ensure continuous investment towards R&D by the innovator companies to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

- It has been reported that currently only 2.3% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will represent drugs, which have no therapeutic equivalent. This means over 97% of the IPM constitutes of medicines, which have one or more therapeutic equivalents.

- So far as the patented products are concerned, over 85% of all those will have therapeutic alternatives. Empirical evidence suggests that just around 15% of the patented molecules have significant therapeutic advantages over existing drugs and cannot be replaced.

- Beta-lactam, Cephalosporin and Quinolone group of antibiotics are still relevant today and will remain for many more years. So are the likes of Beta Blockers, Calcium antagonists, Ace inhibitors, Proton Pump inhibitors and Statins.

- Therefore, all patients with any common disease profile will have adequate and a good number of cheaper treatment options with the generic drugs. As all new drugs are not essential to treat all related disease conditions, generic and patented medicines should co-exist to cater to the healthcare needs of patients of all income groups. Those who can afford to pay extra for the incremental value of such patented drugs should also have an option.

The Counter points:

- The opponents of the above argument raise the counter question, “if 85% of the patented drugs will have appropriate therapeutic equivalents, why then the pharmaceutical companies spend such a huge amount of money and other resources towards R&D to invent molecules, which do not add significant and substantial value to the existing ones to treat patients? Rationalization of such avoidable R&D expenditures will help reducing the price of even path-breaking patented molecules for the treatment of many disease conditions of the ailing patients”

- In this context ‘Australian Prescriber (2004; 27:136-7)’ commented:

“The patent system, which assumes that investment in the development of new drugs, is so important that the principles of the free market should be abrogated to reward pharmaceutical companies with a legally enforced period of protection from competition”.

- NGOs with a differing view point ask, “Many patented products are still not available in India, does the medical profession in the country find themselves seriously handicapped for not having access to these drugs?’

- This group puts forth the counter argument, “patent protection is based on the fundamental belief that for continuing investment to invent newer drugs, innovations must be adequately rewarded through appropriate protection of the patents. Thus patent protection should only be given to those innovations for which no therapeutic equivalents are available.”

Conclusion:

A die-hard protagonist for fostering innovation commented, though the exclusivity for a patented drug given to an innovator would last for 20 years, the real commercial benefits will be available for just around 10 years, that too after spending a fortune towards R&D. Whereas, post patent expiry, the commercial benefits to the generic manufacturers (virtually spending nothing towards R&D) for the same molecule will last in perpetuity…for the patients’ sake!

By Tapan 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.