Tag Archives: drugs

OTC Drugs in India: ‘Where Art Thou?’

Posted on by
Reply

It is now a widely accepted fact that responsible self-medication plays an important role in health care, facilitating greater access to medicines and reducing overall health care cost. With continued improvement in people’s education, general knowledge and socioeconomic conditions, self-medication has been successfully integrated into many health care systems, throughout the world.This was emphasized in the paper “The benefits and risks of self-medication,” published by the World Health Organization (WHO) based on a presentation of the WHO Coordinator, Quality Assurance and Safety: Medicines, way back in March 2000.

Which is why, calibrated deregulation of prescription drugs for ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ sale, are helping many countries to expand drug access in a cost-effective manner, facilitating overall health care, through responsible self-medication.

In this article, I shall try to explore the OTC drug issue in India, against the backdrop of the veracity of dangerous and virtually uncontrolled self-medication in the country. It will be interesting to recap where India stands in this area, despite the enactment of so many relevant laws and rules to eliminate this menace. In tandem, it will be worthwhile to fathom why is India still keeping away from promoting responsible self-medication through OTC drugs? Even when this is widely considered as one of the effective ways to improve access to drugs for specified common ailments at a reduced treatment cost for patients.

OTC Drug in India: ‘Where Art Thou?’ – becomes a relevant question in this context. Let me pick up the thread of this discussion from the general belief among a large number of domain experts that OTC drugs facilitate responsible self-medication.

OTC drugs facilitate responsible self-medication:

For greater clarity in this area, it will be worthwhile to first recapitulate the definition of self-medication. The W.H.O has defined itas, ‘the practice whereby, individuals treat their ailments and conditions with medicines which are approved and available without prescription, and which are safe and effective when used as directed.’

Whereas, self-medication with prescription drugs is not only an irresponsible act, it can often be dangerous to health for the users. On the other hand, OTC drugs facilitate responsible self-medication, as the drug regulators of respective countries have included under this category, with clear guidelines, only those medicines, which:

  • Are of proven safety, efficacy and quality standard.
  • And indicated only for conditions that are self-recognizable, and some common chronic or recurrent disorders.
  • Should be specifically designed for the purpose, will require appropriate dose and dosage forms and necessarily supported by information, which describes: how to take or use the medicines; effects and possible side-effects; how the effects of the medicine should be monitored; possible interactions; precautions and warnings; duration of use; and when to seek professional advice.

Since, OTC drugs facilitate responsible self-medication, it will be interesting to know how the constituents of Big Pharma, such as Pfizer, view the social impact of legally recognized OTC drugs.

Social impact of self-medication with OTC drugs:

Like many other large global pharma players, Pfizer also believes: “OTC medicines provide easier access to treatment options for common conditions, offering not only convenience, but also timely treatment and relief for sudden symptoms or minor ailments.” The company also acknowledges, OTC medicines, as classified so by the drug regulators of a country, “provide consumers safe and effective treatments for commonly occurring conditions, saving them time and money that might otherwise be invested in other, more expensive health services.”

To substantiate the point, Pfizer communique referred to the U.S. study, which by analyzing the seven most common acute and chronic, self-treatable conditions found that 92 percent of those who use OTC medicines in a given year are likely to seek more expensive treatment elsewhere, if OTCs were not available.

The above may be construed as a generally accepted view of both, the drug regulators and a large number of drug companies, globally. Thus, it won’t be a bad idea to quickly have a glance at the process followed by the drug regulators of the major countries, such as US-FDA, for OTC classification of medicines.

US-FDA classification of OTC medicines:

In most countries of the world, as many of us would know, those who are permitted to sell drugs under a license, can sell two types of drugs, namely: prescription drugs and nonprescription drugs. OTC medicines, obviously, fall under the nonprescription category.

Briefly speaking, US-FDA defines OTC drugs as “drugs that are safe and effective for use by the general public without seeking treatment by a health professional.”The Agency reviews the active ingredients and the labeling of over 80 therapeutic classes of drugs, for example, analgesics or antacids, instead of individual drug products. For each category, an OTC drug monograph is developed and published in the Federal Register. OTC drug monographs are a kind of ‘recipe book’ covering acceptable ingredients, doses, formulations and labeling.

Many of these monographs are found in section 300 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Once a final monograph is implemented, companies can make and market an OTC product without the need for FDA pre-approval. These monographs define the safety, effectiveness and labeling of all marketing OTC active ingredients. While this is the scenario in the United States and a large number of other countries, let’s have also a glimpse of this aspect in India.

‘OTC drugs’ in India:

As on date, legally approved as OTC drugs along with the guidelines, for responsible self-medication during pre-defined common illnesses, doesn’t exist in India. Accordingly, neither drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 nor the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, find any mention of OTC drugs, as yet. While even responsible self-medication is not legally allowed or encouraged in the country, ‘self-medication’ of all kinds and of all nature are rampant in India, possibly due to gross operational inefficiency on the ground.

Several research papers vindicate this point. One such study that was done with 500 participants, reported 93.8 percent self-medication with no gender difference. The most common reasons for self-medication were found to be – 45.84 percent for fever, 18.34 percent for pain, and 10.87 percent of headache, among others. While the common medications used were listed as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 49.4 percent, followed by antibiotics 11.6 percent, besides other drugs.

Among those participants who took self-medication were of the opinion that self-medication resulted in quick cure of illness – 50.75 percent, saved their time – 17.46 percent, and gave them a sense of independence – 17.06 percent. The most common source of information was found to be a local chemist/pharmacy – 39 percent.

Raising a flag of concern that indiscriminate self-medication is dangerous for the population, the study suggested that public health policies need to find a way of reducing unnecessary burden on healthcare services by decreasing the visits for minor ailments. One such way is a well-defined OTC category of medicines, as are being created in many countries, including the United States. However, it appears, the Indian drug regulators are still apprehensive about giving a formal recognition of OTC drugs in the country, to prevent self-medication that is, unfortunately, rampant in the country, even otherwise.

Self-medication rampant, although illegal in India:

Regardless of all drugs laws and rules being in place to prevent self-medication with prescription drugs, these seem to be just on paper, the ground reality is just the opposite in India. In the absence of a clearly defined category of OTC drugs with guidelines, most medicines falling under the drug act, are prescription drugs, except a few drugs on the Schedule K of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Currently, non-pharmacy stores can sell a few Schedule K drugs classified as ‘household remedies’ onlyin villages with less than 1,000 populations, and where there is no licensed dealer under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Primarily to prevent self-medication and also to ensure maintenance of specified storage conditions, among others, the D&C Act requires all other drugs to be sold by a retail drug license holder and sold only against the prescriptions of registered medical practitioners. Such drugs are labeled with a symbol ‘Rx’ on the left-hand corner of the pack and the symbol ‘NRx’, if drugs fall under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

Additionally, these are also labeled with a warning – ‘To be sold on the prescription of a registered medical practitioner only.’ All retailers, pharmacy/medical store are supposed to strictly abide by this directive. But in reality, who cares? One can possibly get most prescription drugs that one wants, without a doctor’s prescription.

The same holds good for virtually unregulated advertising of some self-categorized ‘OTC drugs’, many of which fall under the prescription drug category. I re-emphasize, the terminology of OTC drugs does not exist, at all, in the D&C Act of India, not as yet.

Virtually uncontrolled advertisements of some so called ‘OTC’ drugs: 

Media reports indicate, widespread complaints received in the drug controller general of India (DCGI)’s office that vitamin tablets and capsule formulations are being marketed in the country as dietary/food supplements to circumvent the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO).

Curiously, to resolve this issue – way back on July 24, 2012, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), the highest authority in the union health ministry on technical matters, deliberated on the OTC drug issue in India. After detailed discussion, the DTAB has given its green signal to amend Schedule K of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules in this regard.

But Food safety watchdog Food Safety and Standards Association of India (FSSAI) did act promptly on this matter. On September 24, 2016, FSSAI), reportedly, issued new guidelines clearly specifying that health supplements should not be sold as medicines and also fixed the permissible limits of various ingredients used in the products. It further said: “Every package of health supplement should carry the words health supplement as well as an advisory warning not for medicinal use prominently written.

“The quantity of nutrients added to the articles of food shall not exceed the recommended daily allowance as specified by the Indian Council of Medical Research and in case such standards are not specified, the standards laid down by the international food standards body namely the Codex Alimentarius Commission shall apply,” FSSAI added.

The juggernaut moves on:

The point worth noting here that all laws, rules and regulations are in place to discourage both, self-medication and surreptitious way to sell products sans medicinal values, as medicines. Despite the enacted laws and rules being reasonably robust to achieve the intended objective, inefficient implementation of the same keeps the juggernaut moving, perhaps gaining a momentum.

Is OTC Drug Category coming now or just another good intent?

The good news is: On September 18, 2017, the Drug Consultative Committee (DCC), in principle approved to amend rules on Drugs and Cosmetics Act to include a separate schedule for OTC drugs for minor illnesses like fevers, colds and certain types of allergies. However, in the meeting of February 20, 2019, the DCC constituted another subcommittee under the chairmanship of Drugs Controller, Haryana to examine the report on OTC drugs. The final decision is still awaited without any prescribed timeframe for the same.

Conclusion:

Creation of separate schedule for OTC drugs in India, is still a contentious issue for some. Nonetheless, such a long overdue amendment in the D&C Act, along with well-regulated OTC guideline as and when it comes,I reckon,will expand drug access to patients. Alongside, the drug makers must ensure that these OTC medicines are safe, effective and offering good value for money.

As the author of the above W.H.O articled emphasized: ‘High ethical standards should be applied to the provision of information, promotional practices and advertising. The content and quality of such information and its mode of communication remains a key element in educating consumers in responsible self-medication.’ Thus, in the Indian context, it will be equally essential for drug companies to make sure that OTC medicinesare always accompanied by complete and relevant information that consumers can understand without any ambiguity.

Be that as it may, I agree, even responsible self-medication is not totally risk-free – not even with OTC drugs, just as many other things that we choose to do in life. The risks associated with the use of OTC medicines may include, risks of misdiagnosis, excessive drug consumption and for a prolonged duration, precipitating drug interactions, side-effects and polypharmacy.

This discussion will remain theoretical until the D&C law and rules are appropriately amended to accommodate much awaited OTC category of medicines. Till then one can possibly ask in India: ‘OTC drugs, where art thou?’

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 Challenge of Holistic Value Creation With Pharma M&A

Posted on by
Reply

Two mega deals, right at the dawn of 2019 gave a flying start to Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activities, in search of inorganic growth, by some large pharma companies. The two biggest ones are Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) USD 74 billion buyout of Celgene, and AbbVie’s USD 63 billion purchase of Allergan, as announced on January 03, 2019 and June 25, 2019, respectively. However, overall in the second quarter of 2019, there were, reportedly, only 22 deals – ‘the smallest quarterly deal count for at least a decade.’

As a strategic option for greater value creation to drive growth, M&A is being actively considered over a long period of time. The key focus of such value creation for the company remains primarily on enriching the pipeline of New Chemical or Molecular Entities (NCE/NME) for revenue synergy, besides cost synergy. This is understandable. But, for various reasons, alongside, a key question also comes up for debate – is the core purpose of such value creation to drive companies’ growth, primarily with more number new drugs, sustainable? The query assumes greater relevance in the evolving new paradigm. This is because, a basic shift is taking place in the core organizational purpose of value creation.

Thus, it appears, the nature of value creation through M&A would also matter as much. Can it still remain a drug company’s financial health centric, any longer? Should the M&A initiatives also not take under their wings, the value-offerings expected by patients from a drug company – beyond innovative pills? Would a holistic value creation through M&A would now be the name of the game? If so, how?  The discussion of my today’s article will revolve around these questions. Let me initiate the deliberation by recapitulating the key motivation behind M&A initiatives of the drug industry.

A key motivation behind the M&A initiatives in the drug industry:

While recapitulating one of the key motivations behind pharma M&As, let me refer to some interesting and recent studies, such as, the 2019 paper of McKinsey titled, ‘What’s behind the pharmaceutical sector’s M&A push.’ It also acknowledges, the use of M&A to bolster drug innovation is unlikely to change any time soon.

That many drug companies actively pursue the M&A option as a game changer for inorganic growth, is vindicated by the recent big deals, as quoted above. Since early 2000 and before, the companies that made the biggest deals to create new value synergies with, have been paying heavy deal premium to enrich their new product pipelines. Quite often it includes several new and emerging classes of drugs, as acquisition targets.

This also gets corroborated in the Press Release of the 2019 BMS deal, which says: ‘The transaction will create a leading focused specialty biopharma company well positioned to address the needs of patients with cancer, inflammatory and immunologic disease and cardiovascular disease through high-value innovative medicines and leading scientific capabilities.’

Lesser yield of traditional pharma M&A than the broader market:

This was emphasized in the June 06, 2019 article, published in The Washington Post, titled ‘Big Pharma Has to Bet Big on M&A. Investors Don’t.’ The analysis found, the returns from the big pharma deals ‘don’t look as good compared to the broader market’, although for very patient investors many of these have resulted in longer-term gains. To illustrate this point, the paper pointed out: ‘Of the eight biopharma deals worth more than USD 40 billion that closed in the last 20 years, only one delivered better returns than the S&P 500 five years after it closed.’

Naming Merck & Co..’s USD 47 billion acquisition of Schering-Plough Corp. in 2009, the researcher justified: ‘That deal is arguably something of an accidental winner. Long-term success didn’t come from any of the products that Merck targeted in the merger; instead, an afterthought of an antibody that was initially set to be sold off became Keytruda, a cancer drug that’s projected to generate USD 15 billion in sales in 2021.’

Innovative product launches no longer a holistic value-creation for patients: 

Thus, unlike yesteryears, enriching new and innovative product pipeline through M&A won’t serve the key purpose of value-creation for patients to treat deadly diseases in a holistic way. The primary reason for the same was articulated in the Deloitte Paper titled, ‘Disruptive M&A: Are you ready to define your future?’ The article emphasized: ‘The confluence of technological change, shifting customer preferences, and convergence across sectors is redesigning how products and services are developed, delivered, and consumed.’

Thus, mere acquisitions of innovative product portfolios, intended to provide better treatment choices for patients, may not meet the holistic needs of consumers’ while going through the disease treatment process. In depth understanding of such preferences with all associated nuances, is absolutely essential in today’s complex business scenario. Which is why, it calls for avant-garde type or ‘disruptive M&As’, that can help alter the business growth trajectories, making the disrupted company disrupt the competitive space, being game changers of the industry.

Calls for avant-garde type or disruptive pharma M&As:

Today, it’s crucial for any drug company to create a unique treatment experience for patients. This is emerging as a pivotal factor for the success of a brand.

Even most innovative products will need to be supported by disruptive back-office technology for market success. Thus, acquisition of disruptive technology to effectively augment the brand value delivery process is equally important, in tandem with enrichment of new product pipeline. This is expected to emerge as a critical driver in pharma M&A. Such takeovers, I reckon, may be termed as avant-garde type or disruptive M&As – for holistic value creation for patients.

‘Disruptive M&A’ creates a much broader range of possibilities and targets:

For a holistic value creation through disruptive M&A focus for target selection needs to be significantly different from the standard models of M&As – and not just about the quality of NCE and NME pipeline. The above paper also highlighted: ‘Disruptive M&A opportunities requires evaluating and assessing a much broader range of possibilities and targets than traditional M&A.’

With the right kind of target selection after a thorough analysis of the business model, disruptive M&A may help the acquiring drug companies to go beyond achieving revenue and cost synergies. It can also provide cutting-edge business capabilities, alongside enriching and expanding the talent pool, key business processes, and, of course, the state-of-the-art technology –inorganically.

Initiatives and focus of drug companies of this genre, are expected to be more in the coming years, primarily driven by a new type of value creation to offer a unique disease treatment experience for patients with their respective brands.

A new type of value creation for patients in healthcare space:

It has already started happening in the recent years. For example, Amazon, on January 30, 2018 , announced, it is collaborating with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, and the bank JP Morgan Chase to create an independent, nonprofit health care company ‘with the goal of increasing user satisfaction and reducing costs.’ They also announced the organizational focus on two of the following areas, which are interesting and unconventional:

  • Technology solutions that will provide U.S. employees and their families simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost.
  • Draw on their combined capabilities and resources to take a fresh approach.

As the New York Time (NYT) reported: ‘The alliance was a sign of just how frustrated American businesses are with the state of the nation’s health care system and the rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment.’ The report further added: ‘It also caused further turmoil in an industry reeling from attempts by new players to attack a notoriously inefficient, intractable web of doctors, hospitals, insurers and pharmaceutical companies.’

Although, this has happened in the United States, it sends a strong signal to the state of things to come sooner than expected in the health care space, dominated, so far, by pure pharma and biotech players, across the world.  New types of value creation for patients of similar nature, especially by tech greenhorns in the pharma space, can be wished away at one’s own peril.

Consumer-focused digital companies redefining healthcare value creation:

‘2019 EY M&A Firepower’ report also highlights the innovative efforts of consumer-focused, digital companies to carve out a solid niche for themselves in the pharma dominated health care space. With ‘effective deployment of their ‘connected devices, data analytics skills and deep consumer relationships, these new entrants are positioned to have access to important real-world data that could, in part or in full, determine future product utilization and payment,’ as the report emphasized.

Such fast-evolving development also prompt pharma players to act fast. And the most practical way of doing so, with a high possibility of success, is through disruptive M&A. Ongoing entry of consumer-focused, digital companies in health care increase the urgency for life sciences companies to act, now.

Conclusion:

Thus far, pharma and biotech companies have been engaged in a massive wealth creation for themselves by using their biological and chemical know-how for novel drugs and devices. This ballgame has to change now, ‘as the lines between health and technology continue to blur’, according to the EY Firepower report.

Capabilities of big data and analytics will increasingly be more essential for success, regardless of having a rich pipeline of NCEs and NMEs, even with the potential to achieve blockbuster status in the market. Thus, the ballgame has to change.

Against this backdrop, the key challenge of pharma players for a brighter tomorrow would undoubtedly be ‘holistic value creation.’ Its core purpose should be to deliver a unique patient experience, encompassing the entire disease treatment process – going beyond innovative drugs. One of the quickest routes to create this virtuous cycle, I reckon, is through ‘disruptive M&As – moving away from the traditional model for the same.

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.

Self-made Barriers To Business Transparency Impacting Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

A recently published book on pharma industry tried to expose the deceit behind many generic-drug manufacturing—and the consequent risks to global health. This publication is described as an ‘explosive narrative investigation of the generic drug boom that reveals fraud and life-threatening dangers on a global scale.’ However, I reckon, this is just a part of the story, and its huge adverse impact on public health flows generally from the following facts:

  • Greater use of generic drugs is hailed as one of the most important public-health developments of the twenty-first century.
  • Today, almost 90 percent of global pharma market, in volume terms, is comprised of generics.
  • These are mostly manufactured in China and India.
  • The drug regulators continuously assure patients and doctors that generic drugs are identical to their brand-name counterparts, just less expensive.

No question, such deceit, blatant fraud and data manipulation – seriously affecting drug quality of generic medicines, shake the very purpose of making affordable drugs accessible to many. But, simultaneously, lack of transparency – right across the various functions of a pharma business, is also making a host of modern life-saving drugs unaffordable and inaccessible to even more patients. Although, both are despicable acts, but the latter one is not discussed as much.

Thus, in this article, I shall dwell on the second one – how attempts for pharma business ‘transparency’ for expanded drug access to patients, getting repeatedly foiled, especially in light of what happened on May 28, 2019, in the 72nd World Health Assembly (WHA).

Does pharma want low business transparency to continue?

Despite so many encouraging initiatives being taken in the pharma industry over a period of time, gross lack of transparency in its business continues, since long, despite this is being a raging issue. The obvious question, therefore, remains: Does pharma want low business transparency to continue? Thus, to give a perspective to this pertinent point, I shall quote two important observations, appeared in ‘MIMS Today’ – the first one on April 17, 2017, and the other came a year before that, on November 20, 2016, as follows:

  • “A market cannot function when purchasers have limited information and, in the case of prescription drugs, pricing is a black box. Prices for drugs are clearly rising at rates that far exceed inflation and the level of any rebates or discounts offered by manufacturers,” experts opined. They further said, to hold the industry accountable, Access to Medicine Foundation (AMF)’ regularly compiles an index to rank the progress made by each large drug maker in the area of business transparency. Curiously, they concluded, ‘the number and quality of evaluations for the effectiveness of these programs are lacking.’
  • “Lack of transparency of drug makers was also identified. Their policy positions, political contributions, marketing activities and memberships in associations and the associated financial support provided and board seats held were all analyzed. And only then, the ‘AMF’ reached a consensus that transparency remains low in all areas. The analysts further added, ‘there is a lack of transparency and rigor in monitoring and evaluating the access-to-medicines initiatives as well as the link between prices and development costs. Thus, ‘greater transparency from manufacturers to disclose R&D costs for drugs and evaluation of the initiatives’ is imperative.

Despite key policy makers’ favoring transparency, it remains elusive:

To illustrate this point, let me draw a recent example from the United States.

Alex M. Azar II, who is currently the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States, also served as president of Eli Lilly USA. LLC from 2012 to 2017 supports the need of business transparency in the pharma industry. Last year, he also emphasized:

“Putting patients in charge of this information is a key priority. But if we’re talking about trying to drive not just better outcomes, but lower costs, we also have to do a better job of informing patients about those costs. That is where our emphasis on price transparency comes in.” By naming the key health care product and service providers, Azar added, “So this administration is calling on not just doctors and hospitals, but also drug companies and pharmacies, to become more transparent about pricing and outcomes of their services and products.”

Like Secretary Azar, policy makers in several other countries, including India, are also talking and seemingly in favor of transparency in health care business systems, but it remains elusive, as we shall see below.

Do vested interests create over-powering pressure to maintain status-quo?

The above examples give some idea about the pressure created by vested interested to maintain a status-quo in this important area. Although, business transparency is a must, pharma influence on policy makers is so powerful that even a recent global resolution on the subject, had to dilute its original version in its final avatar, significantly, which I shall now focus on, as yet another vindication on this issue.

The final version of the 2019 WHA resolution made weaker in transparency:

On May 28, 2019, by a News Release in Geneva, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) announced, to help expand access to medicines for all, the72nd World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a significant resolution on improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines and other health products, globally. I repeat, this was a global effort to expand access. The assembly brought together delegates from 194 Member States of the W.H.O, including India – from 20 to 28 May 2019, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Intriguingly, as several reports highlighted, ‘the final resolution is considerably weaker than the original draft.’ Nevertheless, it still provides, at least, some measures, which have potential to make an impact on market access, globally.

What exactly was the 2019 WHA original resolution?

The original WHA draft resolution, titled ‘Roadmap for access 2019-2023 – Comprehensive support for access to medicines and vaccines’, urged the Member states the following:

  • To enhance public sharing of information on actual prices paid by governments and other buyers for health products,
  • Greater transparency on pharmaceutical patents, clinical trial results and other determinants of pricing along the value chain from laboratory to patient.
  • Requests the WHO secretariat to support efforts towards transparency and monitor the impact of transparency on affordability and availability of health products, including the effect of differential pricing.

Highlighting that access to medicines is the key to advancing the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), the resolution aims to help the Member States:

  • To make more informed decisions when purchasing health products,
  • Negotiate more affordable prices
  • And ultimately expand access to health products for the populations.

Palpable discomfort of large pharma associations:

The May 30, 2019 article of the Pharm Exec Magazine on this resolution, carried a headline with a query: Is it ‘A Watershed on Transparency and International Collaboration in Drug Pricing?’ The paper brought out some important points that may help explain why the 2019 original WHA resolution, could not be adopted as such. Apparent discomfort in this regard of some top industry associations, which were created and fully funded by large global drug companies, was palpable, according to this report.

For example, “the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), warned governments ‘to carefully consider potential risks to patients, particularly in less developed countries, of sharing outcomes of confidential price negotiations across countries.’ The implication is that prices in less-affluent countries could rise if the wealthier nations used international transparency to demand lower prices for their markets.”

Why couldn’t the original resolution on business transparency be adopted?

To instantiate the level of discomfort of vested interests, let me highlight some critical changes made in the 2019 in final WHA resolution at the international level, as I get from the above paper. A few of which are as follows:

In the original draft Changes in the final resolution
1. “Undertake measures to publicly share information on prices and reimbursement cost of medicines, vaccines, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies.” Refers to publicly sharing of information only on net prices.
2. “Require the dissemination of results and costs from human subject clinical trials, regardless of outcome or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.” “Take the necessary steps, as appropriate, to support dissemination of and enhanced availability of and access to aggregated results data and, if already publicly-available or voluntarily-provided, costs from human subject clinical trials regardless of outcomes or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.”
3. “Require the publication of annual reports on sales revenue, prices, units sold, and marketing costs for individual products, as well as details of the costs of each trial used to support a marketing authorization application and information on financial support from public sources used in the development of a drug.” Calls on the member states to “work collaboratively to improve the reporting of information by suppliers on registered health products, such as reports on sales revenues, prices, units sold, marketing costs, and subsidies and incentives.”
4. Wanted the WHO Director-General to “propose a model/concept for the possible creation of a web-based tool for national governments to share information, where appropriate, on medicines prices, revenues, units sold, patent landscapes, R&D costs, the public sector investments and subsidies for R&D, marketing costs, and other related information, on a voluntary basis.” Diluted only to “assessing the feasibility and potential value of establishing a web-based tool to share information relevant to the transparency of markets for health products, including investments, incentives, and subsidies.”
5. Proposed the creation of a forum to “develop suitable options for alternative incentive frameworks to patent or regulatory monopolies for new medicines and vaccines” that would both promote universal health coverage and adequately reward innovation. This point doesn’t find any place in the final resolution.

It appears, the final 2019 WHA resolution has been able to remove the key points of discomfort for the drug industry – caused by greater business transparency. It is largely due to the fact that the final pledges ‘consist largely of recommendations for voluntary action rather than the requirements for comprehensive disclosure proposed in the original draft.’

Conclusion:

To arrive at a consensus, especially over promoting transparency in costs incurred towards R&D of drugs and health-related technologies, appeared challenging for the W.H.O Member States, inthe 72nd World Health Assemblythat concluded on May 28, 2019.Overall resolution changed the narrative from a mandatory process to a voluntary initiative. As I said before, it still prescribes several measures, which can help expand access to medicines for all, across the world.

In tandem, it also comes out clearly that barriers to business transparency to ensure better access to drugs for all, across the world, are not easy to uproot, either. Especially, when it comes to fighting against concerted efforts of powerful pharma lobby groups, other vested interests and some looney fringes.

The process of adoption of the May 2019 WHA final resolution of the world’s most relevant public health issues, is just an example.

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.

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on by
Reply

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

  • Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.
  • By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.
  • In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.
  • These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.
  • Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’: 

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

  • Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”
  • In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.
  • Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

  • The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and
  • Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like 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.

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

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.

Access To Comprehensive Healthcare Merits Multipronged Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Since the turn of the new millennium, several high profile and flagship health schemes are being announced in India by the Union successive governments. Some of the important ones will include the National Health Mission, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) - a Health Insurance Scheme for the Below Poverty Line families and now Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Mission - expected to cover over 100 million poor and vulnerable families providing coverage up to 500,000 rupees per family per year for hospitalization related to secondary and tertiary care.

Besides, the Mental Health Care Act 2017 has been operational since last year. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha in August 2016, and the Lok Sabha on March 2017. The right to mental health care is the core of the Act.

Each of these announcements look good on paper and was accompanied with lofty government promises. Riding on the waves of hypes thus created, public expectations increased commensurately for getting easy access to a comprehensive and affordable health care, which now includes ‘Mental Health’ as well. Unfortunately, the Gordian knot in Indian public healthcare space continued to exist. As various reports  indicate, for example, one that appeared on November 27, 2018, – even Ayushman Bharat is apparently moving towards the same detection driven by some critical basic issues.

Consequently, scores of people still do not have adequate and affordable access to basic health care, including essential drugs – clamping price control notwithstanding. The government knows it well, as it increases vigil on drug pricing. Pharma industry also feels its scorching heat. Overall storyline remains mostly unchanged. The vicious cycle continues.

In this article, I shall dwell on a system-approach to delivering comprehensive public health care. The key objective is trying to figure out what is the core problem that most of these schemes are either not addressing or doing it with a ‘band-aid’ approach. One of the key requirements for improving access to health care significantly, I reckon, is a clear understanding on the characterizations of the critical stages of healthcare access and their dimensions, from the patients’ perspective.

However, before doing so, let me glance upon some health care related current and important facts, as uploaded in the government’s National Health Profile 2018.  

National Health Profile 2018:

As available in the National Health Profile (NHP) of India – 2018, following are some of the important facts, which are worth noting:

  • In the current budget year, public (government) spending on health is just 1.3 per cent of the GDP against the global average for the same at 6 percent.
  • Just one doctor serves a population of 11,000 people, which is way below W.H.O recommended a doctor to population ratio of 1:1,000. The scenario is even worse in many states, such asBihar with 1: 28,391, Uttar Pradesh records 1:19,962, Jharkhand with 1:18,518, Madhya Pradesh shows 1:16,996 and Chhattisgarh at 1:15,916.
  • Per capita public expenditure by the government on health, stands at Rs 1,112 that comes to Rs 3 per day. This puts India below other low-income nations like the Maldives (9.4), Bhutan (2.5), Sri Lanka (1.6) and Nepal (1.1).

These numbers provide just a flavor of the Indian healthcare space, as it stands today. Some may of course talk about legacy factor, but to move ahead more important for all is what is happening today in this regard. Yes, one more health mission, as mentioned above, has been launched on September 25, 2018 with similar hype as the past ones, if not more. Only the future will tell us what changed it brings to the ground. That said, I am not very upbeat about it either, as providing a comprehensive health care access has always been multi-factorial and will remain so. Let me now dwell on why I am saying so.

Understanding health care access:

The 2013 research paper on “Improving Healthcare Access in India” by erstwhile IMS Consulting group (now IQVIA), said that ‘health care access characterizes 3 stages,’ which from the patient’s perspective has 4 key dimensions. In the Indian context, these three stages are:

  • Accessing care: Physical reach and location
  • Receiving care: Availability/capacity, Quality/functionality
  • Paying for care: Affordability

Accordingly, healthcare access is a function of 4 key aspects:

  • Physical reaches to health care facility
  • Availability of doctors and medicines in those places
  • Quality of care provided by these centers
  • Affordability of treatment, if available there

Access to healthcare is slowly improving, but far from being enough:

All the above schemes of the government are primarily focused on ‘paying for care’ stage and ‘affordability’ of treatment, including drugs. To a limited extent it makes sense as the above study vindicates that ‘availability’ and ‘affordability’ have good impact on ‘access to health care’.

Since the inception of NHM, this approach, no doubt, has made some improvement in the overall access to health care in the country, as many studies indicate. The IMS Consulting study also observes that compared to 2004, more patients received free medicines in outpatient care in 2013 – over 50 percent of patients going to Government hospitals say that they get free medicines there. However, the outcomes of the same across the Indian states vary quite a lot.

Inadequate healthcare infrastructure and physical reach in rural areas:

Having noted that, grossly inadequate availability of public health care infrastructure – or when available physical access to many of those from remote villages, coupled with lack of availability of required doctors, paramedics, nurses and medicines in those dispensaries – often become major issues. Moreover, their capacity to providing quality care, besides longer waiting time, often pushes many – either to remain virtually untreated or to go to private care centers costing much more.

The study finds that such movement of people from public to private facilities leads to higher health care costs. Consequently, high usage of private channels drives up the out of pocket (oop) cost of treatment. Some of the details are as follows:

  • 74 percent of patients sought private consultation
  • 85 percent of ‘oop’ spending on health care was in the private sector
  • 81percent of patients incurred ‘oop’ expenditure for medicines

Curiously, 35 percent of patients in the study rated public health facilities as – good. Whereas an overwhelming 81 percent said so for private facilities. Nevertheless, associated high ‘oop’ expenditure for the same often becomes an economic burden. The large number of patients with chronic ailments, are the major sufferers.

Application of mobile-health could help improve access:

On improving access to health care in India, an interesting ‘Review Article’ titled, “Applications of m-Health and e-Health in Public Health Sector: The Challenges and Opportunities”, appeared in the International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, April-June, 2018 issue, makes some thought-provoking observations.

It says, while the use of mobile phone (MPs) has become commonplace in many industry sectors, such as banking, railways, airlines – the public health sector has been somewhat slow in adopting MP technologies into routine operations. Its innovative use can benefit patients and providers alike by enhancing access to health care.Smartphones’ usefulness in the treatment of chronic diseases – for example, monitoring of blood pressure, blood sugar, body weight, electro- cardiograph (ECG), has already been established.

The paper also suggests, mobile health (m-H) is more effective when tailored to specific social, ethnic, demographic group using colloquial language. If implemented craftily and systematically, m-H can revolutionize the scenario of the health care delivery system, in many ways. Optimal doctor-patient engagement policy for m-H needs to be formulated, outlining a legal framework and with multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Mental health still largely ignored:

Another important aspect of comprehensive health care is ‘Mental Health’, as more than 60 million Indians suffer from mental disorders, suicides being one of the major killers in India (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend). However, it is disturbing to note that awareness and access to mental health treatment, especially in the hinterland of the country, continue to remain ignored. Increasing incidences of farmers’ suicides, for example, notwithstanding.

This was further elaborated by the IndiaSpend report of January 30, 2018, which underscored:“Allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At Rs 350 million, the program received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.This is despite the fact that an estimated 10-20 million Indians (1-2% of the population) suffer from severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and nearly 50 million (5 percent of the population) – almost equal to the population of South Africa–suffer from common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.”

The report further highlights that, notwithstanding 15 suicides every hour and 133,623 suicides in 2015, India is short of 66,200 psychiatrists and 269,750 psychiatric nurses. It is also noteworthy, while a frugal sum of 0.06 percent of India’s health budget is for mental health care, the same for even Bangladesh stands at 0.44 percent (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend).

Conclusion:

From the above perspective, I reckon, although access to health care in India, except ‘mental health care’, is improving at a modest pace, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near adequate, as on date. A holistic approach for a comprehensive health care access to all, through the public health system, seems to be the need of the hour.

That said, currently India is not meeting the minimum W.H.O recommendations for healthcare workforce and also in bed density. A large section of the population continues to lack affordable access to quality health care. Moreover, the importance of mental health is still unknown to many in the country.

Thus, in tandem with addressing all the three stages and four key dimensions of comprehensive health care access, it is imperative to leverage new technology-based       e-healthcare and digital devices like m-Health. Together, these will help provide and facilitate not just quality care to patients, but also complement the healthcare infrastructure, including doctors and paramedics – making quality and affordable health care accessible to all.

As I said in my article, titled ‘Mental Health Problem: A Growing Concern in The Healthcare Space of India, the ‘Mental Health Care Bill’, which is now an Act, redefines mental illness to better understand various conditions that are persistent among the Indian population.This is a good development, as it aims at protecting the rights of persons with mental illness and promote access to mental health care. Since, the current ground reality in this area is a cause of great concern, when will it be effectively implemented for all, is the all-important question.

It is imperative for all concerned to understand that improving access to comprehensive health care is multi-factorial issue. Therefore, it needs nothing less than a well-thought out multi-pronged approach for an effective solution.

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.

Protect Generic Drug Margin Moving Up The Value Chain

Posted on by
Reply

As an innovative drug molecule goes off-patent, it paves the way for market-entry of cheaper generic equivalents of the same. It benefits not just the patients, but all generic drug players awaiting this opportunity. But, in case of even those generic drugs enjoying 180-day exclusivity in the United States, the price erosion would still be significant, at least, 20 percent to 30 percent. Post 180-day exclusivity, intense competition between different formulations of the same molecule can bring the price down by even 85 percent or more, as compared to the original one.

While looking at the world’s largest pharma market, one sees an interesting scenario unfolding in this area. The Generic Access and Savings Report in the United States 2018 released on July 10, 2018 by the Association for Accessible Medicines, captures it well. Some of the key findings of which on generic drugs are as follows:

  • In 2017, generic medicines account for nine out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the United States.
  • Patients fail to fill their prescriptions for brand-name drugs at a rate 2-3 times higher than for generics.
  • 93 percent of generic prescriptions are filled at $20 or less.
  • Average patient copay for a generic prescription is $6.06.
  • Generic medicines generated a total of $265 billion in savings.

That’s a good story for the patients in general, and specifically for those who are in the United States. That said, there is a business aspect of this story, as well. In this article, I shall focus on that, venturing into the way forward. However, before proceeding further, for the understanding of all, let me briefly explain, what is this 180-day exclusivity period as described by the FDA in the United States (USFDA).

180-day exclusivity period for generic drug:

USFDA may grant some exclusivity to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for generic drugs. For this purpose, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, a company can seek approval from the FDA to market a generic drug before the expiration of a patent relating to the brand name drug upon which the generic is based. The first company to submit an ANDA with the FDA has the exclusive right to market the generic drug for 180 days. This is called 180-day exclusivity and:

  • Provides an incentive of 180 days of market exclusivity to the “first” generic applicant who challenges a listed patent by filing a paragraph IV certification and running the risk of having to defend a patent infringement suit.
  • Begins either from the date the sponsor begins commercial marketing of the generic drug product, or from the date of a court decision finding the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed, whichever is first.
  • In some circumstances, an applicant who obtains 180-day exclusivity may be the sole marketer of a generic competitor to the innovator product for 180 days
  • FDA does not send letters to the sponsor indicating the grant of exclusivity. The Orange Book is the official vehicle for dissemination of this information.

It is worth noting that some drugs have both patent and exclusivity protections while others have just one or none. Patents and exclusivity may or may not run concurrently and may or may not encompass the same claims.

Increasing pressure on margin:

Nevertheless, after 180-day exclusivity period or as in most other cases, cut-throat price competition starts among product proliferation. On the other hand, even after patent expiry, the prices of original brand name drugs keep attracting a substantial premium. According to another study: “Brand-name drugs have been shown to be priced 20 percent higher than generic drugs in the Netherlands, 30 percent higher in Germany, 50 percent higher in Canada, 50–90 percent higher in the US, and 80 percent higher in the UK.”

In today’s environment, generic drugs are under severe cost pressure also because of direct government interventions in many large markets, such as the United States. A couple of other factors also play a major role in squeezing the generic drug margin in several countries, such as:

  • Large wholesalers while fighting with each other to get the pharmacy business, often exert tough pressure on generic manufacturers to lower the price.
  • Other bulk buyers also do the same making the margin wafer-thin.

Its cumulative impact leads to commoditization of generic drugs.

Commoditization of generic drugs:

As is known to many, for a commodity there are many suppliers mostly without any tangible differentiating features and benefits. The same thing happens to generic medicines of the same molecule without any worthwhile difference in efficacy, quality and safety standards. Thus, the price of a generic formulation generally includes its total cost, plus a margin, and depends market demand and supply for products outside any price control. Intense competition within many players with more supply of the same molecule, often squeezes the margin out to a dangerous level.

This scenario was well captured in an 2018 article published in the Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability (volume 10(3): 48-49 (2018) –48). It reiterated, cutthroat competition and public pressure pose challenges for ethical and generic pharma companies. 7 to 10 percent annual price erosion, increased competition coupled with other pressure push margins lower leading to decreased profitability.

Major costs did not change much:

Moreover, the major fixed costs involving raw materials, packing materials, labor and conversion expenditure did not change commensurately. The manufacturing process and yield improvement measures did help. But up to a certain point and not beyond that, to keep the quality of finished formulations within the accepted regulatory requirements of the respective countries, such as the United States.

The trend prevails in 2018: 

The above trend prevails even in 2018, in continuation with the previous year. One may recall that in August 2017, due to serious price erosion, several billion dollars in market value were wiped out for some top generic companies. These names include India’s homegrown Dr. Reddy’s Lab., besides Teva and Mylan.

The article titled, ‘Opportunities and Obstacles for Generic Drugs,’ published in PharmTechalso emphasized: ‘Continued pressure on generic-drug prices may reduce product development and limit manufacturing in the US. Numerous state officials have filed lawsuits against generic-drug makers for alleged price-fixing, and debate continues over brand vs. generic product labeling to warn consumers about safety issues. All these trends will shape generic-drug production and costs in the coming months.’

In this situation, the ability of the generic companies to find ways to increase their margin will be the key to success in this business, if not for a long-term survival too.

Ways to achieve it:

One of the novel ways to achieve this goal is entry into ‘Complex Generics’ business.

According to Market Realist – an independent investment research organization, ‘Complex Generics’ are attractive due to high margins. Unlike, commoditized generic formulations, ‘complex generics’ are not easy to manufacture and are generally used in specialty care, namely for treating serious chronic diseases or several life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, HIV or hepatitis C. To some extent complex generics create a market entry barrier for many generic players, due to higher manufacturing cost and complex processes involved in developing this genre of drugs.Complex generics may be classified into several categories, such as:

  • Complex Active Ingredients: like, peptides
  • Complex Formulations: like, liposomes, iron colloids
  • Complex Delivery System: like, locally acting drugs
  • Complex Drug-Device Combinations: like respiratory metered dose inhalers, transdermal system or a medicated adhesive patch
  • Biosimilar drugs

On October 09, 2018, a statement from USFDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb highlighted a new effort to advance the development of generic copies of complex drugs to improve patient access to medicines. Gottlieb said, complex generics “aredrugs that, by nature of their formulation or delivery systems for example, are harder to ‘genericize’ under our traditional approaches. As a result, these drugs often face less competition. Today, we’re announcing a series of guidance documents that will advance the development of generic transdermal and topical delivery systems (TDS).”

This is an interesting development in the world’s largest pharma market.

Lucrative prices of complex generics:

Prices of complex generics are much higher than conventional generic drugs. According to Market Realist a complex generic could cost around US$ 6,000 per month to patients, but would still remain way below the cost of related original brand. Hence, it is a win-win situation – both for patients and also the generic drug manufacturers. Additionally, alongside benefiting patients in terms of cost, complex generics show potential to fetch higher profitability with a reasonable product differentiation.

The ball has started rolling:

It happened in a big way this year, when due to intense price pressure on generics, Sandoz division of Novartis took a major step. On September 6, 2018 - Novartis announced that it has agreed to sell selected portions of its Sandoz US portfolio, specifically the Sandoz US dermatology business and generic US oral solid portfolio, to Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. It also said, ‘this transaction supports the Sandoz strategy of focusing on complex-generics, value-added medicines and biosimilars to achieve sustainable and profitable growth in the US over the long-term.’

Indian generic drug manufacturers have also sniffed this opportunity. Several Indian players, such as Sun Pharma, Cipla, Lupin, Reliance Life Science, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Glenmark, Biocon and Aurobindo Pharma, to name a few, have made forays into complex generics, including biosimilars. All put together Indian companies have filed around 50 ANDAs in the United States. This number is good, but may not guarantee success for all the applicants. Only the quality of these ANDAs will determine how soon, or how late, or how expensive would be the process of getting marketing approval for complex generics in the United States.

Conclusion:

As ‘The Lancet Oncology’ editorial of June 2015 noted: ‘In recent years, generics manufacturers have increased investment in the development of complex generics.” I reckon, this won’t include a large number of drug exporters from India – not just yet.

The development process of complex generics isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. Thus, venturing into this area by any generic player of all sizes and scale, would call for greater commitment from the company concerned. This path is arduous as compared to conventional generics. If not navigated properly, cost may also be high in certain circumstances. For example, if and when the regulator asks more elaborate trial, or repeat trials, or even the marketing approval process itself could be tough to conform with. That said, complex generics are expected to eventually contribute a significant percentage of the generic market, as their approval challenges are overcome.

Be that as it may, to improve, if not for protecting the profitability of the generic drug business, transacted especially in the developed world, there doesn’t seem to be much option left now, but to move up the value chain.

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.

 

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

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.