Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Posted on November 27, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Close to half a century ago, Peter Drucker – the Management Guru wrote: As the purpose of business is to create customers, any business enterprise has two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Drucker’s concept is so fundamental in nature that it will possibly never change, ever.

That innovation is the lifeblood of pharma industry is well-accepted by most people, if not all. However, when similar discussion focuses on pharma marketing, the industry virtually exposes itself in the line of fire, apparently from all directions. This trend, coupled with a few more in other areas, is making a significant dent in the reputation of the pharma industry, triggering a chain of events that create a strong headwind for business growth.

The consequences of such dent in pharma reputation get well-reflected in an article titled “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,” published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 3, 2017. The author observed:

“This worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation is the main explanation for why investors are increasingly interested in how pharma companies manage access-to-medicine opportunities and risks, which range from developing new treatments for neglected populations and pricing existing products at affordable levels to avoiding corruption and price collusion.”

On the above backdrop, this article will try to explore the relevance of Drucker’s ‘marketing’ concept in the pharma business – dispassionately. Alongside, I shall also deliberate on the possibility of a general misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of facts related to ‘pharma marketing’ activities, as these are today.

Communicating the intrinsic value of medications:

Moving in this direction, let me recapitulate what ‘pharma marketing’ generally does for the patients – through the doctors.

Despite being lifeblood that carries the intrinsic value of a medication from research lab to manufacturing plants and finally to patients, ‘pharma marketing’ is, unfortunately under incessant public criticism. It continues to happen, regardless of the fact that one of the key responsibilities of pharma players is to disseminate information on their drugs to the doctors, for the benefits of patients.

One may justifiably question any ‘marketing practice’ that is not patient-friendly. However, the importance of ‘marketing’ in the pharma business can’t just be wished away – for patients’ sake.

Way back in 1994, the article titled, “The role and value of pharmaceutical marketing” captured its relevance, aptly articulated:

“Pharmaceutical marketing is the last element of an information continuum, where research concepts are transformed into practical therapeutic tools and where information is progressively layered and made more useful to the health care system. Thus, transfer of information to physicians through marketing is a crucial element of pharmaceutical innovation. By providing an informed choice of carefully characterized agents, marketing assists physicians in matching drug therapy to individual patient needs. Pharmaceutical marketing is presently the most organized and comprehensive information system for updating physicians about the availability, safety, efficacy, hazards, and techniques of using medicines.”

The above relevance of ‘pharma marketing’, whether globally or locally, remains unchanged, even today, and would remain so, at least, in the foreseeable future.

It’s a serious business:

As many would know, in many respect ‘pharma marketing’, especially of complex small and large molecules, is quite a different ball game, altogether. It’s markedly different from marketing activities in most other industries, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), where customers and consumers are generally the same.

In contrast, in prescription drug market customers are not the consumers. In fact, most consumers of any prescription medicine don’t really know much, either about the drugs or their prices. They get to know about their costs while actually paying for those directly or indirectly. Healthcare providers, mostly in those countries that provide Universal Healthcare (UHC) in any form, may also be customers for the drug manufacturers. Even Direct to Consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as in the United States, can’t result into a direct choice for self-medication, other than Over the Counter (OTC) drugs.

Additionally, pharma market is highly regulated with a plethora of Do’s and Don’ts, unlike most other industries. Thus, for the drug manufacturers, medical professionals are the real customers, whereas patients are the consumers of medicines, as and when prescribed by doctors.

With this perspective, ‘Pharma marketing’ assumes a critical importance. It is too serious a strategic business process to be jettisoned by any. There exists a fundamental responsibility for the drug manufacturers to communicate important information on various aspects of drugs to individual physicians, in the interest of patients. This has to happen, regardless of any controversy in this regard, though the type of communication platforms, contents used and the degree of leveraging technology in this process may widely vary from company to company.

Assuming that the marketing practices followed by the industry players would be ethical and the regulators keep a strict vigil on the same, effective marketing of a large number of competing molecules or similar brand increases competition, significantly. In that process, it should ultimately enable physicians to prescribe drugs that will suit each patient the most, in every way. There can’t possibly be any other alternative to this concept.

A common allegation:

Despite these, a common allegation against ‘pharma marketing’ keeps gathering momentum. Reports continue pouring in that pharma companies spend far more on marketing drugs than on developing them. One such example is a stinging article, published by the BBC News on November 6, 2014.

Quoting various published reports as evidence, this article highlighted that – 9 out of 10 large pharma players spend more on marketing than R&D. These examples are generally construed as testimony for the profiteering motive of the pharma companies.

Is the reason necessarily so?

As any other knowledge-based industry, effective communication process of complex product information with precision, to highly knowledgeable medical professionals individually, obviously makes pharma marketing cost commensurately high. If the entire process of marketing remains fair, ethical and patient centric, such costs may get well-neutralized by the benefits accrued from the medicines, including lesser cost of drugs driven by high competition.

Further, a successful pharma marketing campaign is the ultimate tool that ensures a reasonable return on investments for further fund allocation, although in varying degree, to offer more new drugs to patients – both innovative and generics.

Marketing decision-support data generation is also cost-intensive:

Achieving short, medium and long-term growth objectives are as fundamental in pharma as in any other business. This prompts that investments made on ‘pharma marketing’, fetch commensurate returns, year after year. To succeed in this report, one of the prime requirements is to ensure that the content, platform and ultimate delivery of the product communication is based on current and credible research data having statistical significance.

With increasing brand proliferation, especially in competing molecules or branded generic market, arriving at cutting-edge brand differentiation has also become more challenging than ever before. Nevertheless, identification of well-differentiated patient-centric product value offerings will always remain ‘a must’ for any persuasive brand communication to be effective.

It calls for generating a vast amount of custom made decision-support data on each aspect of ‘pharma marketing’, such as target market, target patients, target doctors, competitive environment, differential value offering, and scores of others. The key to success in this effort is to come out with that ‘rare commodity’ that separates men from the boys. This is cost intensive.

What ails pharma marketing, then?

So far so good – the real issue is not, therefore, whether ‘pharma marketing’ deserves to be in the line of fire. The raging debate on what ails ‘pharma marketing’ should primarily focus on – how to ensure that this process remains ethical and fair, for all.

Thus, when criticism mounts on related issues, it may not necessarily mean that ‘marketing’ is avoidable in the pharma business. Quite often, critics do mix-up between the crucial ‘importance of pharma marketing’ and ‘malpractices in pharma marketing.’ Consequently, public impressions take shape, believing that the pharma marketing expenses are generally higher due to malpractices with profiteering motives.

As a result, we come across reports that draw public attention with conclusions like: “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

A similar article published ‘Forbes’ on February 18, 2015 also reiterates: “The deterioration of pharma’s reputation comes from several sources, not the least of which is the staggering amount of criminal behavior that has resulted in billions of dollars’ worth of fines levied against the industry.”

One cannot deny these reports – lock, stock and barrel, either. Several such articles named many large pharma players, both global and local.

Conclusion:

In my view, only pharma marketers with a ‘can do’ resolve will be able to initiate a change in this avoidable perception. No-one else possibly can do so with a total success in the foreseeable future – not even the requirement of a strict compliance with any mandatory code having legal teeth, such as mandatory compliance of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) that the Indian Government is currently mulling.

I guess so because, after a strong deterrent like mandatory UCPMP is put in place, if reports on marketing malpractices continue to surface, it will invite more intense public criticism against ‘pharma marketing’ – pushing the industry’s reputation further downhill, much faster.

Be that as it may, it’s high time for all to realize, just because some pharma players resort to malpractices, the ‘pharma marketing’ process, as such, doesn’t deserve to be in the line of fire – in any way.

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.

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on September 18, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families – spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”

Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”

However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging. Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

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.

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 Ticks The Right Boxes: A Challenge Still Remains

Posted on September 4, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Pharma policy is not a panacea to address all related issues, neither for the patients nor the industry, in general. As I see it, it’s no more than a critical cog in the wheel of the overall macro and the micro health care environment in India. Regardless of this fact, and notwithstanding virtually inept handling of previous pharma policies in many critical areas, each time a new policy surfaces, it generates enough heat for discussion.

Interestingly, that happens even without taking stock in detail of the success or failure of the previous one. A similar raging debate maintaining the same old tradition, has begun yet again with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017. This debate predominantly revolves around the direct or indirect interests of the industry, and its host of other associates of various hues and scale.

Having said that, the broad outline of the 18-page draft policy 2017 appears bolder than previous ones in several areas, and has ticked mostly the right boxes, deserving immediate attention of the Government. One such aspect I discussed in my previous article, titled “Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics,” published in this blog on August 28, 2017.

There are obviously some loose knots in this draft policy, a few are contentious too, such as the changing role of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), which apparently is doing a reasonably good job. I also find its link with several important national initiatives, especially ‘Make in India’, ‘Digital India’ and ‘Skill development’. Above all, the draft policy reflects an unambiguous intent to stop several widely-alleged business malpractices – deeply ingrained in various common, but important industry processes and practices that include, pharma sales and marketing, serious quality concern with many loan licensing manufacturers, and even in the issues related to ‘Product to Product (P2P) manufacturing.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) reportedly commenced the preliminary rounds of discussion on August 30, 2017, where the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Commerce also participated in the deliberation. In this article, I shall not go into the speculative areas of what ought to or ought not to come finally, instead focus on the key challenges in making the pharma policy meaningful, especially for the patients, besides the industry.

Policy implementation capability:

Whatever may be the net outcome of these discussions, and the final contours of the National Pharma Policy 2017, the implementation capability of the DoP calls for a thorough overhaul, being the primary challenge in its effective implementation. Since 2008, several illustrious bureaucrats have been at the helm of this important department, but nothing substantial seems to have changed in the comprehensive implementation of pharma policies, just yet. Concerned stakeholders continue to wait for a robust patented drug pricing policy, or for that matter even making the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory, which, going by what the DoP officials had reportedly hinted at many times, should have been in place by now.

The core reason for the same could well be due to a structural flaw in the constitution of DoP under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, instead of making it a part of the Ministry of Health. The reason being to create a greater synergy in the implementation of both the Pharma and Health Policies, in a more meaningful way. But, that could be a topic of a separate discussion, altogether.

Initial adverse impact on the pharma industry:

Some of the following proposals, as articulated in the draft pharma policy 2017, are likely to cause initial adverse impact on the performance of the industry, especially considering the way the industry, in general, has been operating over a long time:

No brand names for single molecule drugs
Mandatory UCPMP with heavy penal provisions
e-prescriptions facilitating greater usage of less expensive high quality drugs with only generic names
Mandatory BE/BA studies for all generic drug approvals
GMP and GLP requirements in all manufacturing facilities
Restrictions on loan-licensing and P2P manufacturing.

Initial retarding impact, out of the above measures, may be felt on pharma revenue and profit growth, increase in overall manufacturing cost, and more importantly on the long term strategic game plans of most pharma players, in one way or the other.

The Government is aware of it:

Nevertheless, to make a significant course correction through policy interventions, in curbing widely reported alleged marketing and other malpractices, dubious quality standards of many drugs, and sufferings of many patients with high out of pocket drug expenditure, the Government apparently firmly believes that such an outcome is unavoidable, although need to be minimized. The following paragraph detailed in the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, vindicates the point:

“The domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable. The impact of this can be seen in the industry’s financials as well. The drugs & pharmaceuticals industry reported poor sales performance for two consecutive quarters ended September 2016. Sales grew by a mere 2.9 per cent in the September 2016 quarter, after a sluggish 2.5 per cent growth registered in the June 2016 quarter. The industry’s operating expenses rose by 5.4 per cent during the September 2016 quarter, much faster than the growth in sales. As a result, the industry’s operating profit declined by 5.4 per cent. Operating margin contracted by 185 basis points to 21.1 per cent. A 3.4 per cent decline in the industry’s post-operating expenses restricted the decline in its net profit to 0.8 percent. The industry’s net profit margin contracted by 160 basis points to 13.7 per cent during the quarter.”

Just the pharma policy won’t increase access to health care or drugs:

Just a pharma policy, irrespective of its robustness, is unlikely to increase access to health care or even medicines, significantly, despite one of the key objectives of the draft pharma policy 2017 being: “Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses.” This articulation is nothing new, either. It has been there in all pharma policies, since the last four decades, but has not been able to give the desired relief to patients, till date.

Pharma and Health Policies need to work in tandem:

To be successful in this direction, both the Pharma and the Health Policies should be made to work in unison – for a synergistic outcome. This is like an individual musician creating his or her own soothing music, following the exact notations as scripted by the conductor of a grand symphony orchestra. The orchestrated music, thus created is something that is much more than what a solo musical player will be able to create.

This is exactly what is not happening in the health care ecosystem of India, over decades, and continues even today. Each of the Pharma and Health policies are implemented, if at all, separately, apparently in isolation to each other, while the holistic picture of health care remains scary, still progressing at a snail’s speed in the country!

The predicament of the same gets well reflected in a World Bank article that states:

“In India, where most people have dug deep into their pockets to pay doctors, pharmacies and diagnostic centers (or ‘out-of-pocket spending’) as the norm for a long time, vulnerability to impoverishment caused by medical expenses remains high. Though government health spending is estimated to have steadily risen to 30% of the country’s total health expenditure – up from about 20% in 2005 – and out-of-pocket payments have fallen to about 58%, dropping from 69% a decade ago, these levels are still high and not commensurate with India’s level of socioeconomic development. In fact, the average for public spending on health in other lower middle-income countries is more than 38%, while in China, government spending accounts for 56% of total health expenditure.”

Affordable drug – just one parameter to improve its access :

While ‘making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses’ is one of the top objectives of the draft pharma policy. The degree of its success is intimately linked with what the National Health Policy 2017 wants to achieve. It promises ‘improved access and affordability, of quality secondary and tertiary care services through a combination of public hospitals and well measured strategic purchasing of services in health care deficit areas, from private care providers, especially the not-for profit providers.’

The Health Policy 2017 also states: ‘Achieving a significant reduction in out of pocket expenditure due to health care costs and achieving reduction in proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures and consequent impoverishment.’ It is no-brainer to make out that reducing out of expenses on drugs is just one element of reducing overall out of pocket expenditure on overall health care. When there is no, or very poor access to health care for many people in India, improving access to affordable drugs may mean little to them.

A major reason of the ongoing ‘Gorakhpur Hospital’ tragedy, is not related to access to affordable drugs, but access to affordable and a functioning public health care system nearby. In the absence of any adjacent and functioning Government health facilities, the villagers had to commute even 150 to 200 kilometers, carrying their sick children in critical conditions to Gorakhpur. The question of access to affordable drugs could have arisen, at least, for them, if the country would not have lost those innocent children due to gross negligence of all those who are responsible for such frequent tragedies.

Thus, improving access to affordable essential drugs, as enunciated in the pharma policy, depends largely on improving access to affordable and quality public health care services. Both are intertwined, and require to be implemented in unison. Without the availability of affordable health care services, the question of affordable essential drugs would possibly be akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Conclusion:

The degree of resistance, presumably from the industry and its associates, to have a new and robust National Pharma Policy that meets the related needs and aspirations of the nation, in an inclusive manner, is generally much more than any National Health Policy, for obvious reasons.

As several proposed changes in the draft pharma policy 2017 appear radical in nature, its grand finale, I reckon, will be more interesting. At the same time, navigating through the waves of tough resistance, coming both from within and outside, will possibly not be a piece of cake, either, for the policy makers achieve the stated goals. Nevertheless, in that process, one will get to watch where the final decision makers give-in or dilute the proposals, and where they hold the ground, supported by a solid rationale for each.

Thus, the bottom line is: Where exactly does the challenge lie? In my view, both the National Health Policy 2017, and the Draft Pharma Policy 2017 mostly tick all the right boxes, especially in ‘making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses’.

However, the fundamental challenge that still lies ahead, is to effectively translate this noble intent into reality. It would call for making both these policies work in tandem, creating a synergy in pursuit of meeting the nation’s health and socioeconomic needs on access to affordable health care for all, including medicines.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on August 28, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding. Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’. Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) - have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.

The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In November 2016, while hearing a related case, the Delhi High Court reportedly directed the Union Government to finalize and implement a policy on rare diseases, with a provision for free treatment with the expensive medications, as will be required by patients.

Earlier in 2014, while passing the judgement in response to a petition filed by a seven-year-old son of a rickshaw puller seeking affordable treatment for the rare disease that he is suffering from, the Delhi High Court concluded that, “every person has a fundamental right to quality health care that is affordable, accessible and compassionate.”

Currently, the treatment for rare diseases costs the patients an arm and a leg, ranging between Rs. 40 lakhs (US$ 62,000 approx.) to Rs 1.70 crores (US$ 267,000 approx.), which is way beyond the reach of most Indians.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit before the honorable Court, submitting a copy of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017, stating that it will aim to facilitate effective diagnosis and affordable treatment. This development is indeed good news, especially considering around 6 to 8 percent of the world population suffer from ‘rare diseases’, and India is no exception.

The key highlights of the new policy:

As per available information, following are the 10 major highlights of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017:

The Union Government to create a corpus with an initial funding of Rs 100 crores (US$ 16 million). The State Governments would also provide for a similar fund with a 60 percent contribution from the Centre. This corpus is primarily for the treatment of genetic disorders, excluding rare blood diseases, such as, thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.

For the sustainability of the corpus, Public Sector Units and Corporates will be encouraged for the contribution in these earmarked funds, as part of their corporate social responsibility.

Appropriate institutions will be accredited by the government for diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases.

To ensure adequate availability and reasonable affordability of the drugs for rare diseases, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) will consider amending the Drug and Cosmetics Act with requisite provisions to make clinical trials and import of ERTs possible.

The Department of Financial Services to ensure coverage of rare diseases under insurance schemes.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) will explore whether the ceiling limit of funding the treatments for rare diseases can be increased through suitable amendments.

The policy recognizes that rare diseases are, in most cases, serious, chronic, debilitating and life-threatening, often requiring long – specialized treatments, and may also lead to some form of handicap, at times extremely severe in nature.

About 50 percent of new cases of rare diseases are in children and responsible for 35 percent of deaths before the age of one, 10 percent between the ages of one, and five years and 12 percent between five and 15 years.

As a preventive measure, the policy may consider the feasibility of providing pre-conception and ante-natal genetic counselling and screening programs for diagnosing genetic disorders, which would provide a choice to parents about giving birth to children with genetic disorders, especially for families that have a diagnosed genetic disorder, or a high risk profile for it.

The policy gives Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) the responsibility of creating a patient registry, as India has no epidemiological data on rare diseases.

Rare diseases – definition:

There is no universal definition of rare diseases. For example, while the US defines a rare disease as one that affects less than 200,000 people nationwide, in China, this number changes to 1 in 500,000 people (or neonatal morbidity of less than 1 in 10,000). India doesn’t yet have a clear definition for the same – not even in its new policy for rare diseases.

However, according to Rare Diseases India (RDI) – a foundation for research on rare diseases and disorders, any disease having fewer than 100 patients per 100,000 population fall into this category. Whereas, those ones affecting 2 patients per 100,000 population are described as ultra-rare diseases.

Rare Diseases in India:

The Organization for Rare Diseases in India (ORD), states that 1 in 20 Indians is affected by such diseases. About 6000 to 8000 rare diseases, mostly genetic in nature, have been identified in India. It was initially estimated that over 31 million Indians are suffering from such disorders in the country, many of which still do not have any cure. Moreover, epidemiological data for most of these ailments is hardly available.

To increase awareness for rare diseases, Rare Diseases Day was observed for the first time in India (New Delhi) on February 28, 2010.

Orphan diseases and orphan drugs:

According to RDI, rare diseases are often referred to as ‘orphan’ diseases. Consequently, the drugs that are specifically developed to treat ‘orphan’ or ‘rare disease conditions’ are called ‘orphan drugs’. The reason being, pharma companies do not generally take such drugs through further stages of development for market launch, or in other words, these are orphaned for economic considerations, though are important to save many precious lives.

Need to encourage orphan drug development in India:

According to SanOrphan SA, Geneva, Switzerland, around 65 percent of rare diseases is serious and disabling. Interestingly, about 250 new rare diseases are discovered each year, corresponding to five new rare diseases per week. As the scenario is no different in India, it prompts the need to encourage development of effective and affordable orphan drugs in the country.

However, without appropriate ecosystem being in place, developing an orphan drug in India, specifically to treat a very small number of such patient populations, through a cost intensive R&D initiative with a low potential of return on investments, is indeed a challenging proposition for many pharma players. Although, in the western world, this trend has started changing now, driven by various other commercial reasons.

Why should ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ follow the National Policy on rare diseases?

National Policy for Rare Diseases is undoubtedly a good beginning, though was brought under the directive of Delhi High Court. Nevertheless, to encourage ‘Orphan Drugs’ development within the country, a robust ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ should now logically follow.

One may well ask, why is this Act is so necessary in India? This is because, the new ‘National Policy for Rare Diseases’ charts just the pathway of a course of action that the Government is planning to take in this area. Policies, as we know, though, are a set of well-articulated intents, do not guarantee that these will be successfully followed to achieve the pre-set long-term goals. Whereas, all legislative Acts or duly enacted laws, are legally enforceable. It is worth noting, while the national policies can be formulated by the government, an Act must be passed by the lawmakers in the Parliament.

Consequently, it is now a well-accepted fact that ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages development of drugs for rare diseases. In an article titled, “What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis”, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S, National Library of Medicine, the authors highlighted that in the U.S. 1138 orphan drugs were designated and 148 received marketing approval, of which 38 (26 percent) were for pediatric diseases, from 2000 to 2009. The percentage of approvals for pediatric products increased from 17.5 (10 of 57) in the first half of the decade, as compared to 30.8 (28 of 91) in the second half. Based on these data, the paper concluded that the incentives provided in the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ of the United States of America, have led to increased availability of specific drugs for the treatment of ‘Rare Diseases’ in the country.

Other countries did – why not India?

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

Following similar footsteps, India should also encourage its domestic pharmaceutical industry to get engaged in research to discover drugs for rare diseases by putting an ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ in place, extending financial support, tax exemptions and regulatory concessions like smaller and shorter clinical trials, among several other areas, without delay.

Opportunities galore:

The above constraints in the development of orphan drugs have now been turned into an opportunity galore by the global pharma industry, where the domestic players should not lag much behind. Orphan drugs, backed by adequate financial incentives provided by laws in different countries, are now seen as a research and development priority to significantly boost the top and the bottom-line of pharma business.

As IgeaHub has highlighted, orphan drugs, though, cater to a small patient pool, the remunerative price of these drugs offsets the commercial challenges, as mentioned earlier. For example, in 2010, Soliris, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) that affects 1 out of 500,000, was considered as the industry’s most expensive drug amounting to US$ 409,000 per year of treatment, which generated a total of US$ 541 million revenue for Alexion Pharmaceuticals in that year. In 2012, Soliris recorded a sales turnover of US$ 1.13 billion, which is expected to cross the mark of US$ 3.40 billion in 2018. Further, in 2012, the top selling orphan drug in the USA – Rituxan of Roche – used for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, generated US$ 7.15 billion in total sales. Post patent expiry, in 2018, the same drug is expected to yield a revenue of US$ 6.99 billion.

The market:

Evaluate Pharma’s Orphan Drug Report 2017 estimates the worldwide Orphan Drug Sales of total US$ 209 billion, with CAGR of +11 percent for 2017 to 2022 period, which is double of the overall prescription Market Growth. Excluding generics orphan drugs are set to contribute 21.4 percent of Worldwide Prescription Sales by 2022.

Big pharma dominates this segment. Seven of the top 10 companies’ orphan drug sales are from global industry players, who have won approval for their biggest products in various niche indications.

Other commercial benefits:

Thomson Reuters reported additional commercial opportunities with an appropriate ODA, which in the United States are as follows:

15 percent of the ‘Orphan Drugs’ analyzed by them had subsequent launches for other rare illnesses.

6 out of the top 10 ‘Orphan Drugs’ had more than one rare disease indication, with an average peak sales of US$ 34.3 billion in overall sales potential, against around US$ 8.1 billion of the same for drugs with single indication.

Time taken for Clinical Trials (CT) focused on orphan drugs is significantly shorter with much quicker review time than trials involving non-orphan drugs.

Conclusion:

Some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed also in India, and with precision. As the nation takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such rare diseases are likely to be diagnosed in our country. The global pharma industry has already started taking rapid strides in this area, supported by ODA in various countries. Similar opportunities, both for the patients, as well as, for the industry, need to be made available in India too.

One of the ways to encourage the orphan drug development in India is to follow the model of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD)’ with both global and local partnerships and collaboration.

However, speedy enactment of an appropriate ODA for the country, providing adequate financial incentives to the pharma players, for developing and marketing such drugs, both in the local and global markets, at a reasonably affordable price, would go a long way, and be a win-win situation for all.

Alongside, leveraging the knowledge of OSDD acquired by the CSIR, and framing a robust win-win Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to discover and commercialize the orphan drugs, India could well demonstrate the zeal of the country to move beyond the National Policy for Rare Diseases. In that process, it would be able to offer more meaningful and sustainable benefits, both to the domestic pharma industry and the patients, alike, for a long time to come.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah

Posted on May 8, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In the ongoing debate between branded-generics and generic drugs without brand names, the concern about drug quality is occupying the center stage, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between. Interestingly, many large domestic companies manufacture and sell both these genres of generic medicines, and the marketing approval process of both is no different, in a relative yardstick. The degree of difficulty in testing their quality standards, across the country, is no different, either.

On February 25, 2017, even the USFDA, reportedly, raised concerns, for the first time, on the quality and efficacy of medicines, in general, being sold within India. The news report further highlighted: ‘Over the past two years, many domestic majors, including Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Cipla and Zydus Cadila have faced regulatory ire over quality of medicines exported from here and sold in the US and other overseas markets’.

It is undeniable, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory, there could be direct job losses within the industry, just as loss of significant business clientele of many professional service providers for branded generic business, directly or indirectly. Its net impact needs to be factored-in too, while taking a final decision on this subject.

Lack of enough credible scientific data establishing superiority of branded-generics over their non-branded equivalents are also striking, so are few instances of doctors filing Pharmacovigilance reports with the DCGI on the inferior quality of non-branded generic drugs. Neither is the most competent body in this area – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), has concurred with any such claims, so far. Without these, the whole debate based on seemingly over the top claims of superiority of branded generics as a class, is based no more than a matter of conjecture.

I discussed most of these points in one of my earlier articles published in this blog on April 24, 2017. Thus, in this article, I shall focus mostly on an important generic-drug-quality related amendment, very recently made in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, which hasn’t received as much attention as it deserves. This finer note in the drug regulatory playbook, in fact, got nearly masked in the high-decibel cacophony of arguments and counterarguments on Prime Minister Modi’s recent hint on making prescriptions in generic drug names mandatory.

The core issue remains the same, both for non-branded and branded generics:

In the marketing approval process of any branded generic or a non-branded generic drug, Bioequivalence (BE) studies hold immense scientific importance. It ascertains whether the generic equivalent possesses similar efficacy and safety profile as the original molecule for interchangeability. Which is why, in most countries, including Europe and the United States, BE testing is mandatory for approval of any generic drug. Even the large buyers of these drugs, such as the World Health Organization, buy only those generics with proven BE.

Nonetheless, like many other nations, in India, as well, the marketing approval standards for all generic drugs, with or without a brand name, are exactly the same. However, this approval process gets alarmingly relaxed, for both these generic types, with the passage of time, which is the core issue.

New drug definition in India:

According to section 122-E of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (D&C Rules) new drugs will include unapproved drugs, modified or new claims, such as, indications, dosage forms (including sustained release dosage form) and route of administration of already approved drugs and combination of two or more drugs. A new drug shall continue to be considered as new for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

BE studies necessary only for ‘New Drugs’:

For all such new drugs and their Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC), including those which are not covered by a patent, if introduced for the first time in India, would necessarily require its applicant to submit the marketing approval documents well-supported by phase III clinical trial data, which includes BE studies against the original molecules. BE of a drug product is achieved if its extent and rate of absorption do not show statistically significant differences from those of the reference product when administered at the same molar dose.

After the 4-year period BE tests not necessary:

Interestingly, after the 4-year period, D&C rules allow subsequent manufacturers of similar drugs to generally rely on the data generated by other pharma companies to obtain marketing approvals for their drugs. In other words, after this 4-year period, manufacturers of branded or non-branded generic drugs are not required to establish comparable safety and efficacy of their formulations with the original molecule through BE and other studies. It is worth noting here, unlike India, BE tests are mandatory for approval of all generic drugs at any time, in most countries across the world.

How would a doctor select only those branded-generics with BE studies?

As there isn’t any easy way to know and identify, both by the doctors and also the patients, which branded or non-branded generics were introduced without BE studies, both these categories pose equal risks to patients – not just the cheaper generic drugs sans brand names.

Changes recommended:

This laxity in the regulatory framework in India did create a lot of uneasiness about the quality of branded and non-branded generic medicines approved by the drug regulators and sold in the country. Responding to this issue, Professor Ranjit Roy Chowdhury Committee Report recommended in July 2013 to make BE and bioavailability studies mandatory for all types of generic drugs, even after the 4-year period.

Cacophony masks an important note:

The good news is, on April 3, 2017, by a Gazette Notification, Indian Government enacted amendments to the Drug and Cosmetics Act (1940) requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs even beyond the 4-year period of the ‘new drug’ definition. It says, “The applicant shall submit the result of bioequivalence study referred to in Schedule Y, along with the application for the grant of a license of the oral dosage form of drugs specified under category II and category IV of the biopharmaceutical classification system.”

Biopharmaceutics Classification System:

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) is a scientific framework to differentiate the drug formulations based on their aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, and mainly depends on two factors:

How well the drug dissolves in the stomach and intestinal fluids (drug solubility)
How readily the drug passes through the intestinal wall into the blood flow (drug permeability)

The BCS was introduced by Gordon L. Amidon in 1995 to classify drugs into the four categories based on these parameters, as follows:

Class I: High Solubility – High Permeability
Class II: Low Solubility – High Permeability
Class III: High Solubility – Low Permeability
Class IV: Low Solubility – Low Permeability

CDSCO still needs to find the right answer to a key question:

Interestingly, this so important note in the regulatory playbook of India got masked in the high-voltage cacophony on branded and non-branded-generics. However, CDSCO would still require finding out the right answer to a key question: how would a doctor or a patient possibly know on which branded and non-branded generic drugs BE tests were not carried out, before the above amendment came into force.

Reported data on substandard drugs in India:

Quoting CDSCO data, the September-October 2015 issue of the ‘Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism’ summarized that ‘during the years 2011-2014, the regional laboratories tested samples at 91 percent of the installed capacity, but their overall detection rate of sub-standard drugs were only 3.6 percent’. Many have expressed doubts about these numbers though, nevertheless, these are Government data, and don’t fall in the realm of any conjecture.

In any case, the Union Ministry of Health doesn’t seem to concur that the issue of substandard drugs in India, that includes both the branded and non-branded generics, has assumed a public health menace in India or even alarming.

No qualms on value added branding of generic drugs, but fix the loophole for all:

It is understandable, when generic drugs are branded for tangible value-added product differentiation even within the identical or the same drug molecules. There are no qualms on such branding per se, though it comes at a high cost.

Marketing approval requirements being the same for all branded and non-branded generic drugs with the same pitfalls of no mandatory BE-testing requirement after the 4-year period, branding should add commensurate tangible value. Otherwise, why should most patients pay a significantly extra amount for heavily promoted branded-generics? Is it to help the pharma companies fighting with each other to increase their respective pies of revenue and profit on an essential commodity? Instead, stakeholders should now focus on easy detection of all those branded and non-branded generic drug formulations that avoided mandatory BE studies, prior to April 3, 2017.

In conclusion:

Despite CDSCO’s statistical data on substandard drugs, the general concern regarding the efficacy and safety of medicines manufactured in India is often raised both inside the country, as well as by some well-respected overseas drug regulators. Curiously, when raising the same concern CDSCO banned hundreds of branded FDCs, as these drugs came to the market without carrying out required scientific tests due to some major lacunae in the regulatory system, there was a huge protest in the country raised by almost the same people, as business interests prevailed over patients’ health interest.

Interestingly, displaying a sharp contradiction in today’s cacophony, patients’ health interest has been put in the forefront to protect business interests, especially when the CDSCO has raised no such concern, whatsoever.

The reverberating claims on superior drug quality for branded-generics as a class, over their cheaper non-branded equivalents, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between, as I said before, is based mostly on conjecture rather than enough hard facts. Thus, the question comes up, who is responsible for ensuring drug efficacy and safety for the patients in India – CDSCO or non-fact based claims being raised mostly by those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in branded-generic business?

Keeping this in perspective, it is indeed intriguing, why such an important regulatory step of April 3, 2017 requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs, even after the 4-year period, is getting masked in the cacophony, mostly favoring the branded-generics as a category. However, it’s no-brainer to understand that this din would continue, projecting all generic drugs sans brand names – a pariah!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?

Posted on April 24, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Would prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India?

Yes, that’s what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted at on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. To facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, the PM assured without any ambiguity whatsoever.

“In our country doctors are less, hospitals are less and medicines are expensive. If one person falls ill in a middle-class family, then the financial health of the family gets wrecked. He cannot buy a house, cannot conduct the marriage of a daughter,” he reiterated.

“It is the government’s responsibility that everybody should get health services at a minimal price,” the Prime Minister further reinforced, as he referred to the National Health Policy 2017. His clear assurance on this much-debated issue is indeed music to many ears.

Some eyebrows have already been raised on this decision of the Prime Minister, which primarily include the pharma industry, and its traditional torch bearers. Understandably, a distinct echo of the same one can also be sensed in some English business dailies. Keeping aside these expected naysayers, in this article, after giving a brief backdrop on the subject, I shall argue for the relevance of this critical issue, in today’s perspective.

Anything wrong with generic drugs sans brand names?

At the very outset, let me submit, there aren’t enough credible data to claim so. On the contrary, there are enough reports vindicating that generic drugs without brand names are generally as good as their branded equivalents. For example, a 2017 study on this subject and also in the Indian context reported, ‘93 percent of generic and 87 percent branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments.’

Thus, in my view, all generic medicines without any brand names, approved by the drug regulatory authorities can’t be inferred as inferior to equivalent branded generics – formulated with the same molecules, in the same strength and in the same dosage form; and vice versa. Both these varieties have undergone similar efficacy, safety and quality checks, if either of these are not spurious. There isn’t enough evidence either that more of generic drugs sans brand names are spurious.

However, turning the point that generic drugs without brand name cost much less to patients than their branded generic equivalents on its head, an ongoing concerted effort of vested interests is systematically trying to malign the minds of many, projecting that those cheaper drugs are inferior in quality. Many medical practitioners are also not excluded from nurturing this possible spoon-fed and make-believe perception, including a section of the media. This reminds me of the famous quote of Joseph Goebbels – the German politician and Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany till 1945: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The lower prices of generic drugs without brand names are primarily because their manufacturers don’t need to incur huge expenditure towards marketing and sales promotion, including contentious activities, such as, so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ for the doctors in exotic locales, and several others of its ilk.

Thus, Prime Minister Modi’s concern, I reckon, is genuine to the core. If any doctor prescribes an expensive branded generic medicine, the concerned patient should have the legal option available to ask the retailer for its substitution with a less expensive generic or even any other branded generic equivalent, which is supposed to work just as well as the prescribed branded generic. For this drug prescriptions in INN is critical.

Provide Unique Identification Code to all drug manufacturers:

When in India, we can have a digitally coded unique identification number, issued by the Government for every individual resident, in the form of ‘Aadhaar’, why can’t each drug manufacturer be also provided with a similar digitally coded number for their easy traceability and also to decipher the trail of manufacturing and sales transactions. If it’s not possible, any other effective digital ‘track and trace’ mechanism for all drugs would help bringing the wrongdoers, including those manufacturing and selling spurious and substandard drugs to justice, sooner. In case a GST system can help ferret out these details, then nothing else in this regard may probably be necessary.

Past initiatives:

In India, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure’ as a percentage of total health care expenses being around 70 percent, is one of the highest in the world. A study by the World Bank conducted in May 2001 titled, “India – Raising the Sights: Better Health Systems for India’s Poor” indicates that out-of-pocket medical costs alone may push 2.2 percent of the population below the poverty line in one year. This situation hasn’t improved much even today, as the Prime Minister said.

Although, ‘prescribe drugs by generic names’ initiative was reported in July 2015, in the current context, I shall focus only on the recent past. Just in the last year, several initiatives were taken by the current Government to help patients reduce the OoP expenses on medicines, which constitute over 60 percent of around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. Regrettably, none of these steps have been working effectively. I shall cite hereunder, just three examples:

On February 29, 2016, during the Union Budget presentation for the financial year 2016-17 before the Parliament, the Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’ to open 3,000 Stores under PMJAY during 2016-17.

On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported that a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, would be launched on August 29, 2016. According to NPPA, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price.”

In October 2016, a circular of the Medical Council of India (MCI), clearly directed the medical practitioners that: “Every physician should prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”

A critical hurdle to overcome:

Besides, stark inefficiency of the MCI to implement its own directive for generic prescriptions, there is a key legal hurdle too, as I see it.

For example, in the current situation, the only way the JAS can sell more of essential generic drugs for greater patient access, is by allowing the store pharmacists substituting high price branded generics with their exact generic equivalents available in the JAS. However, such substitution would be grossly illegal in India, because the section 65 (11) (c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20 [(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21 [Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]”

A move that faltered:

To address this legal issue, the Ministry of Health reportedly had submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration. In the proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

The focus should now move beyond affordability:

In my view, the Government focus now should move beyond just drug affordability, because affordability is a highly relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines or health care, in general.

Moreover, affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even easy access to medicines. Thus, in my view, there are five key factors, which could ensure smooth access to medicines to the common man, across the country; affordable price being one of these factors:

1. A robust healthcare infrastructure
2. Affordable health care costs, including, doctors’ fees, drugs and diagnostics
3. Rational selection and usage of drugs by all concerned
4. Availability of health care financing system like, health insurance
5. Efficient logistics and supply chain support throughout the country

In this scenario, just putting in place a legal framework for drug prescription in generic names, as the Prime Minister has articulated, may bring some temporary relief, but won’t be a long-term solution for public health care needs. There arises a crying need to put in place an appropriate Universal Health Care (UHC) model in India, soon, as detailed in the National Health Policy 2017.

Brand names aren’t going to disappear:

Prime Minister Modi’s assertion to bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, probably will also legally empower the retailers for substitution of high priced branded generics with low priced generic or branded generic equivalents.

This promise of the Prime Minister, when fulfilled, will facilitate making a larger quantum of lower price and high quality generic drugs available to patients, improving overall access to essential medicines. Hopefully, similar substitution will be authorized not just for the JAS outlets, but by all retail drug stores, as well.

Brand names for generic drugs will continue to exist, but with much lesser relevance. the Drugs & Cosmetic Rules of India has already made it mandatory to mention the ‘generic names or INN’ of Drugs on all packing labels in a more conspicuous manner than the trade (brand) name, if any. Hence, if a doctor prescribes in generic names, it will be easier for all retail pharmacists and even the patients, to choose cheaper alternatives from different available price-bands.

Possible changes in the sales and marketing strategies:

If it really happens, the strategic marketing focus should shift – from primarily product-brand marketing and stakeholders’ engagement for the same, to intensive corporate-brand marketing with more intense stakeholder engagement strategies, for better top of mind recall as a patient friendly and caring corporation.

Similarly, the sales promotion strategy for branded generics would possibly shift from – primarily the doctors to also the top retailers. It won’t be unlikely to know that the major retailers are participating in pharma company sponsored ‘Continuing Pharmacy Education (CPE)’ in similar or even more exotic places than the doctor!

There are many more.

International examples:

There are enough international examples on what Prime Minister Modi has since proposed in his speech on this issue. All these are working quite well. To illustrate the point with a few examples, I shall underscore that prescribing in generic name or in other words “International Nonproprietary Name (INN)’ is permitted in two-thirds of OECD countries like the United States, and is mandatory in several other nations, such as, France, Spain, Portugal and Estonia. Similarly, pharmacists can legally substitute brand-name drugs with generic equivalents in most OECD countries, while such substitution has been mandatory in countries, such as, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy. Further, in several different countries, pharmacists have also the obligation to inform patients about the availability of a cheaper alternative.

However, the naysayers would continue saying: ‘But India is different.’

Impact on the pharma industry:

The March 2017 report of ‘India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)’ states that Indian pharmaceutical sector accounts for about 2.4 per cent of the global pharmaceutical industry in value terms, 10 per cent in volume terms and is expected to expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.92 per cent to US$ 55 billion by 2020 from US$ 20 billion in 2015. With 70 per cent market share (in terms of value), generic drugs constitute its largest segment. Over the Counter (OTC) medicines and patented drugs constitute the balance 21 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Branded generics constitute around 90 percent of the generic market. In my view, if the above decision of the Prime Minister is implemented the way I deliberated here in this article, we are likely to witness perceptible changes in the market dynamics and individual company’s performance outlook. A few of my top of mind examples are as follows:

No long-term overall adverse market impact is envisaged, as ‘the prices of 700 essential medicines have already been capped by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). However, some short-term market adjustments are possible, because of several other factors.

There could be a significant impact on the (brand) market shares of various companies. Some will have greater exposure and some lesser, depending on their current sales and marketing models and business outlook.

Valuation of those companies, which had acquired mega branded generics, such as Piramal brands by Abbott Healthcare, or Ranbaxy brands by Sun pharma, may undergo considerable changes, unless timely, innovative and proactive measures are taken forthwith, as I had deliberated before in this blog.

Together with much awaited implementation of the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) sooner than later, the sales and marketing expenditure of the branded generic players could come down significantly, improving the bottom-line.

Pharma marketing ballgame in this segment would undergo a metamorphosis, with brighter creative minds scoring higher, aided by the cutting-edge strategies, and digital marketing playing a much greater role than what it does today.

A significant reduction in the number of field forces is also possible, as the sales promotion focus gets sharper on the retailers and digitally enabled patient engagement initiatives.

The above examples are just illustrative. I hasten to add that at this stage it should not be considered as any more than an educates guess. We all need to wait, and watch how these promises get translated into reality, of course, without underestimating the quiet lobbying power of the powerful pharma industry. That said, the long-term macro picture of the Indian pharma industry continues to remain as bright, if appropriate and timely strategic interventions are put well in place, as I see it.

In conclusion:

It is an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals, and catering to the needs of 20 percent of the global requirements for generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to many modern medicines to a large section of its population.

Despite this situation in India, Prime Minister Modi’s encouraging words on this issue have reportedly attracted the wrath of some section of the pharma industry, which, incidentally, he is aware of it, as evident from his speech.

Some have expressed serious concern that it would shift the decision of choosing a specific generic formulation of the same molecule for the patients from doctors to chemists. My counter question is, so what? The drug regulator of the country ensures, and has also repeatedly affirmed that there is no difference in efficacy, safety and quality profile between any approved branded generic and its generic equivalents. Moreover, by implementing an effective track and trace system for all drugs, such misgiving on spurious generic medicines, both with or without brand names, can be more effectively addressed, if not eliminated. Incidentally, reported incidences of USFDA import bans on drug quality parameters and breach of data integrity, include many large Indian branded generic manufacturers. Thus, can anyone really vouch for high drug quality even from the branded generics in India?

Further, the expensive branding exercise of essential medicines, just for commercial gain, and adversely impacting patients’ access to these drugs, has now been questioned without any ambiguity, none else than the Prime Minster of India. The generic drug manufacturers will need to quickly adapt to ‘low margin – high volume’ business models, leveraging economies of scale, and accepting the stark reality, as was expressed in an article published in Forbes – ‘the age of commodity medicines approaches’. Even otherwise, what’s wrong in the term commodity, either, especially when generic medicines have been officially and legally classified as essential commodities in India?

Overall, the clear signal from Prime Minister Modi that ‘prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India ‘, well supported by appropriate legal and regulatory mechanisms – is indeed a good beginning, while paving the way for a new era of Universal Health Care in India. God willing!

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: drugs

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 Ticks The Right Boxes: A Challenge Still Remains

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?