Tag Archives: Government

Dissapointing: No proposal of ‘Healthcare Reform’ in the Union Budget of India for 2011-12: China rolled it out in 2009.

Posted on by
Reply

January 15, 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ in an article titled, “Learning from others” states the following:

“Having universal coverage through a public commitment does have costs, including public costs. The proportion of national expenditure on health that is met by the government is 26% in India and 45% in China. Or, to look at a related contrast, while government expenditure on health care in India is only around 1·1% of its GDP, it is around 1·9% in China. One need not be a genius to see that if the government of a country is ready to spend more on health, it could expect better results in terms of the health of the people.”

While comparing India with China, I reckon, one should take into account of larger disease burden in India as compared to China and the cost that India pays due to slow progress of reform processes in a democratic framework with open and free society and the vibrant outspoken media in the country. Further, the healthcare reform processes in China started over a decade earlier than India, resulting in a significant difference in the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and the healthcare financing systems of both the countries, over a period of time.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation:

Access to safe drinking water in India may be comparable to other emerging economies, but sanitation condition in India needs radical improvement. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) the Access to potable water and improved sanitation in those countries are as follows:

Country Drinking Water  (% population) Sanitation                     (% population)
India 89 28
Brazil 91 77
China 88 65
Mexico 95 81
South Africa 93 59

Key issues in the Public Hospitals:

The ethical issues, which the patients face, especially, in the hospitals of India, I reckon, have not been reported for China by the Transparency International.

Transparency International India (2005) had reported the following seven key issues and irregularities experienced by the patients at the Government Hospitals in India:

  1. Medicines unavailable: 52%
  2. Doctors suggest a visit to their private clinic: 37%
  3. Doctors refer to private diagnostic centers: 31%
  4. Over-prescription of medicines: 24%
  5. Bribes demanded by staff: 20%
  6. Diagnostics tests done even when unnecessary: 18%
  7. Doctors are absent: 13%

All these continue to happen in India, with no respite to patients, despite ‘Hippocratic Oath’ being taken by the medical profession and the new MCI guidelines for the doctors being in place within the country. Moreover, a miniscule spend of 1% of the GDP by the Government of India towards public healthcare of the nation, is indeed a shame.

Healthcare Reform in China:

Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:
China in 1997 took its first reform measures to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.
Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China:
The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicates that out of pocket spending on healthcare services more than doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.
Series of healthcare reforms were effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address the situation  prevailing at that time.
The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:
The core principle of the new phase of the healthcare reform process in China is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will assume a critical role.
The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.
Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines in China:
Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.
Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:
Chinese government will monitor the effective implementation and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.
It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.
Drug price regulation and supervision in China:
The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Besides Democracy, China has something to learn from India too:

The article, as mentioned above, from ‘The Lancet’ concludes by saying that unlike China, the real progress in India has come out of public discussion and demonstration within the democratic set-up in India. One such program is distribution of cooked mid-day meals to school children and selected interventions in child development in pre-school institutions. Such programs are currently not available in China for development of proper physical and mental health of, especially, the children of the marginalized section of the society

Conclusion:
There exists a sharp difference between India and China in the critical healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of public funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite the same in India, because of various reasons.
High economic growth in both the countries has also led to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.
To effectively address the critical issues related to health of its population, the Chinese Government has already announced a blueprint outlining its new healthcare reform measures for the next ten years. How will the Government of India respond to this situation for the new decade that has just begun?

It was very dissapointing to learn from the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister of India for 2011-12 that the perspective of our Government on the importance of healthcare for the fellow citizens of India, still remains indifferent.

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Have the successive ‘Drug Policies’ of India delivered? If not, why not?

Posted on by
Reply

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented as follows:
“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”
The “Drug Policy “of India:
The new ‘Drug Policy’ of India, which is long overdue, should address all these key issues, as articulated by ‘The Lancet’. Unfortunately, outdated ‘1995 Drug Policy’ is still operational, since last fifteen years. The reason for inordinate delay in putting a new, robust and more reform oriented ‘Drug Policy ’in place is still not known to many, as it is probably languishing in the prison of indecision of the bureaucracy of the country.
The ‘Drug Policy 1986’ clearly enunciated the basic policy objectives relating to drugs and pharmaceuticals in India. After around 25 years, should not the government, at the very least, ponder to assess whether the successive drug policies have delivered to the nation the desirable outcome or not?
In my view, the objectives of the new ‘Drug Policy’ should help accelerating the all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to make it a force to reckon with in the global pharmaceutical space. The drug policies are surely not formulated just to implement rigorous price control measures for drugs. The policy should also formulate other key measurable initiatives, assigning specific accountabilities, to contribute significantly towards achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation. The policy should also encourage working closely and in tandem of all the related ministries of the government.
Financial protection against medical expenses for all is very important:
One of the very major issues in the healthcare space of the country is high out of pocket expenses by the majority of our population. “Financial protection against medical expenditures is far from universal with only 10% of the population having medical insurance” in India. (Source: Lancet Jan 11, 2011).
A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure: (Source: Lancet)
1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%
The key issue remains unresolved:
The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ has highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses in India and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also highlighted that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively are financed by loans and sell of assets.
Drug Prices in India:
The cost of medicines, especially the essential medicines in India, is one of the lowest in the world, even more economical than our neighboring countries like, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Moreover, as per DIPP data the inflation index of medicine in 2009 was much lower at 112.32 against the same for all commodities in the same year at 127.47. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) also indicated that there was almost no rise (+0.5%) of drug prices in 2010 over the previous year because of effective ‘Drug Price Monitoring mechanism’ by the regulator and fierce market competition.
Around 38% – 40% of Indian population can’t afford to spend on medicines:
While framing the ‘Drug Policy’, the government should also keep in mind that a population of around 38 to 40% of India, still lives below the poverty line and will not be able to afford any expenditure towards medicines. Adding more drugs in the list of essential medicines and even bringing them all under stringent price control will not help the country to resolve this important issue, in the prevailing situation.
The key focus area of successive ‘Drug Policies’ of India has been just ‘price’:
The reform initiatives enunciated by the government in the successive drug policies have been considered by the pharmaceutical industry, in general, as far from satisfactory. In the era of globalization, where market forces play a dominant role to control prices, including the essential commodities, the rigors of stringent price control on pharmaceuticals need to be addressed urgently. This was re-enforced even in the ‘National Economic Survey Report of 2009′.
Will continuation of the same focus be able to resolve the issue?
I do not think so. Continuation of the focus on price since last four decades has certainly enabled the government to ensure that drugs prices in India are cheapest in the world. However and very unfortunately the ‘Drug Policies’ with focus on price alone have not been able to ensure even today that 47% and 31% of hospitalization in rural and urban areas, respectively, are financed by robust healthcare financing systems and not by private loans and selling of assets by individuals.
Expectations from the new ‘Drug Policy’:
Adequate and immediate policy measures to respond to the needs of a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of the society are absolutely critical to address this pressing issue. Effective penetration of health insurance, will, therefore, be one of the key growth drivers not only for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, but also to ensure its inclusive growth, as desired by many.
Conclusion:
Unfortunately, the ‘Drug Policies’ of India have not been able to keep pace with the globalization process of the country as compared to even those industries, which are dealing with the essential commodities, like pharmaceuticals. The amended Indian Patents Act came into force in the country in January 2005. The drug policy of India, for various reasons, has not been able to articulate, as yet, specific key measures to encourage innovation, giving a new thrust to the pharmaceutical R&D space of the country, as much as it should have been.
The ‘New Drug Policy’ should have clear and transparent provisions of stringent drugs ‘price monitoring’ mechanism by the NPPA. The policy should also include an equally transparent system to ensure that errant pharmaceutical players, if any, who will be caught with profiteering motives, under any garb, at the cost of precious lives of the ailing patients, are brought to justice with exemplary punishments, as will be defined by law.

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.

Limiting FDI in Pharma is a protectionist cry: Does not benefit the common man.

Posted on by
Reply

“Protectionism is harmful” very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister of India, just the other day. This was in context of “recent US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.
While almost at the same time, both Indian and the foreign media reports indicate that being concerned by the recent acquisitions of the home grown relatively large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the Department of Industrial Policy and promotion (DIPP) of the Government of India are mulling a proposal to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), as applicable to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Even the Health Minister of India has been expressing this concern since ‘Abbott – Piramal deal’ was inked last year. He expressed the same apprehension, as he read out from his written speech, in an industry function in Mumbai held on January 7, 2011.

Thus the moot question is, will limiting FDI in pharmaceuticals be not considered by the world as a protective measure, just as ‘hiking visa fees and clamping down outsourcing’ from India by other countries?
Is it a mere speculation?
I would reckon so, as at this stage India cannot afford to take any retrograde anti-reformist measure in its endeavor to further accelerate the economic progress of the nation. The Finance Minister of India has also expressed so publicly, in the same context, quite recently.
Still the speculation is quite rife that a new cap of 49% FDI for pharmaceuticals would be able to keep the multinational companies (MNCs) away from having controlling stakes in the Indian companies, which will not jeopardize access to quality medicines at an affordable price to a vast majority of the population.
The key apprehensions:
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following key apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies by the MNCs:
1. Such takeovers could lead to an ‘oligopolistic market’ where a few companies will decide the prices of essential medicines, adversely impacting the ‘Public Health Interest (PHI)’.
2. If large Indian companies having the wherewithal to replicate any patented molecule are taken over by the MNCs, the ‘oligopolistic’ situation thus created and being strengthened by the exclusivity of products through product patent rights, will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of PHI by granting CLs.
3. In such a situation MNCs could well decide to sell only the high priced patented and branded generic drugs rather than the cheaper essential drugs, pushing up the drug prices and causing inconvenience to patients.
Addressing the key apprehensions:
Let me now try to address these apprehensions impartially and with as much data as possible.
1. Can Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) be ever oligopolistic? Dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.
IPM has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (source: IMS 2010). Even after, all the recent acquisition, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% (source: AIOCD/AWACS , November 2010). Even the Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter group though different and not the individual companies) contribute just around 40% of the IPM.
Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘oligopolistic market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.
2. The idea of creating a legal barrier in terms of limiting the FDIs to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of you, as mentioned in the ‘discussion paper’ of DIPP, sounds bizarre.
3. The market competition is also extremely fierce in India with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the IPM) having not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism. In an environment like this, the very thought of any threat to ‘public health interest’ due irresponsible pricing, may be taken as an insult to the government’s own price regulators, who have contributed in making the medicine prices in India cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Hard facts tell us a different story:
The apprehension that acquisition of Indian drug companies by MNCs will hurt the consumer interest is not based on hard facts. MNCs constitute 19% of the total share of the Indian pharmaceutical market in value terms. Of the 455 companies listed in IMS ORG, 38 are foreign owned (only 8.4%). The fragmented nature of the industry ensures high level of competition that has led to the lowest prices of essential medicines in India.

Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.
Access to world class science and technology:
Even the acquisition of Shantha Biotechnique by Sanofi-aventis has enabled the domestic bio-tech company to get world class R&D support and international exposure in partnership with the one of the world’s largest vaccines development company – Sanofi-Pasteur. It is worth noting that none of the prices of locally produced vaccines by Shantha Biotechnique has gone up after this acquisition.
Data also shows that the number of products under price control is now much higher for MNCs in general than the domestic drug companies.
Other positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:
All these acquisitions were absolutely voluntary in every way and brought in for the country large amount of foreign investments as can be seen in the Piramal Healthcare buyout amounting to US $3.72 billion and earlier the Ranbaxy buyout of US $4.2 billion. Such acquisitions also help in shifting investment and R&D focus of the MNCs into India, which offers good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, through partnering with MNCs, local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, resources and good manufacturing practices. A number of local companies have already entered into alliances with MNCs to leverage these opportunities.
Thus limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical industry at this stage, when the government in fact is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investments will indeed be a retrograde step for the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The importance of ‘Supply Chain Integrity’ in ‘Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM)’ process

Posted on by
Reply

Since the last decade with increasing pace of change, mostly in the western world has accelerated the globalization process in the Pharmaceutical Industry across the world. The key drivers to these changes are as follows:

1. A large number of patent expiration hugely impacting the top-line growth
2. Research pipeline is drying-up
3. The cost of bringing a new molecule from ‘the mind to market’ has now touched around US $ 1.75 billion
4. Regulatory requirement to get the marketing approval is getting more and more stringent, basically for patients’ safety, making clinical development more expensive and time consuming
5. Cost containment measures of various governments around the world is putting an immense pressure on product price, significantly affecting the profit margin

Changing Business Process:

All these factors are triggering other sets of consequential strategic events of enormous significance. Among those, following key corporate strategic steps indeed stand out:

1. More mergers and acquisitions of various size and scale to achieve both revenue and cost synergy, with new products and newer types of resources

2. Transformation in the fundamental operating models, e.g. R&D focused companies like Pfizer, GSK, sanofi aventis are extending their business interest in the pharmaceutical generics space, as well

3. Increasing globalization process and more focus on the emerging markets of the world like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Turkey, Mexico

4. Growing emphasis on partnering, as we see in India, like for example, between Pfizer and Aurobindo, Claris and Biocon, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL), AstraZeneca with Torrent, sanofi aventis with Zydus Cadila etc.

5. Global outsourcing in the ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMs)’’ space

Increasing importance of GSCM:

In today’s evolving scenario, Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM) process has assumed a key importance. The need to reduce costs significantly and minimize the risks associated with the procurement activities of the business, have compelled many innovator companies to extend the activities of their Supply Chain management process to the Global arena, instead of just confining to the local space.

The changing requirements of all hues and types in various areas of the business, like in sales and marketing, manufacturing, research and development etc., have created a challenging, if not a rather volatile operating environment.

Such an evolving scenario will make the GSCM to increasingly play a key role in the overall business process of an organization to ensure that the right products are available at the right place, at the right time, at a right price and following the right processes…Always.

Emerging GSCM hubs:

There is at the same time, a new trend emerging to provide world class outsourcing services, especially from countries like India and China. These initiatives, which in turn will make these two countries the key global outsourcing hubs, are definitely not due to just cost arbitrage. It encompasses increased integrated value proposition for the overseas customers. Cost is just one of the key factors, others being quality, speed and suppliers’ integrity and reliability. Nothing in this value chain is mutually exclusive. GSCM will need to go through a set of complex algorithms to strike a right balance between all these vital parameters.

Importance of GSCM integrity:

In the days to come by, one of the greatest challenges in GSCM will be to improve the supply chain integrity and security. An appropriate definition of integrity for supply chains could be:

“…the requirement that the system performs its intended function in an unimpaired manner, free from deliberate or inadvertent manipulation.”

A safe and secure supply chain is definitely not a new requirement. However, in the list of priority of importance, it has now come up significantly, compared to what it was just a few years back. Though the issue of improving supply chain integrity and security has now assumed global importance, unfortunately, any uniformity in national regulatory requirements for this vital parameter is glaringly missing. Such a lack of regulatory uniformity clearly highlights that the pharmaceutical companies, engaged in manufacturing, are still not aligned with each other on what will be the right way to ensure absolute integrity, safety and security in the supply chain operating process to guarantee patients’ safety.

Globally, many Pharmaceutical Companies are getting engaged in improving supply chain integrity, security and patients’ safety with the introduction RFID. This, as many may know, is an inventory tracking system for improved product traceability, which in turn extends some protection to its customers with genuine products from the genuine pharmaceutical manufacturers. It is worth noting that RFID is just one component of overall patients’ safety initiative.

Along with high tech measures like RFID, to improve supply chain integrity, I reckon, pharmaceutical companies will need to further enhance their respective ‘supplier qualification process’. The process of supplier audits should include all important and critical areas of manufacturing, testing and quality, related to each individual product.

Stringent supplier qualification standard is of prime importance:

Only a stringent supplier qualification process will be able to guarantee integrity, safety and the quality of outsourced products from the suppliers.

An example of a GSCM related tragedy:

Before I conclude, I would like reinforce my recommendation with the example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was violated and seriously challenged thereafter.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with over sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that his Heparin was supplied to Baxter by Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Conclusion:

Let us all ensure that such a tragedy does not get repeated in future due to a breach in the supply chain integrity, anywhere in the world…for the patients’ sake.

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.

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on by
Reply

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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.

Why does the Government divert focus on to fringe issues to address critical healthcare concerns of the nation?

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India has recently initiated a public debate through a ‘Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licensing (CL) of Patented Pharmaceutical Products’.

The key intent of the discussion is presumably to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the people of the country.

Could such debate serve any meaningful purpose?

Since the issue of CL involves only patented products, I wonder, whether this debate would in any way help sorting out the issue of poor access to modern medicines in our country or this is just another ‘hog wash’ or ‘diversion ploy’ of the decision makers to divert the attention of the stakeholders from the core issues of poor access to healthcare for the common man of India.

Will CL be able to address abysmally poor access to medicines issues in India?

A quick analysis of the prevailing situation related to access to modern medicines in India suggests that the usage of patented pharmaceutical products account for much less than 1% of the sum total of all medicines consumed in India in value terms. In volume terms it will be even more miniscule in terms of percentage.

As per IMS (MAT July, 2010) Indian Pharmaceutical Market size is Rs. 44,476 Crore, even 1% market share of the patented pharmaceutical products will mean Rs. 445 Crore, which is quite far from reality.

Thus, CL of patented medicines would have no sustainable and meaningful impact on improving access to modern medicines for the common man of the country. Moreover, around 40% of the population of India live below the poverty line (BPL). These ‘Children of a lesser God‘ very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicine, however cheap these could be. Vast majority of the such population who lack the financial capability to pay for even the cheapest off-patent generic medicines, which comprise more than 99% of the total medicines consumed within the country, will continue to be left in the lurch.

65% of Indians do not have access to WHO list of essential medicines, which surpasses even the African countries:

Our government also admits that 65% of Indians do not have access to even WHO list of essential medicines, none of which holds a valid patent in the country. This should be the key concern in the country. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during 2000-2007, India had poorer access to essential medicines than even many African countries. It is worth noting that many of these African countries has a patent life for pharmaceuticals for around 30 years, against of 20 years in India. What are we then talking about?

Provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are robust enough:

In any case, the provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are not only quite clear and well articulated, but also at the same time offer flexibility in the decision making process to the Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) to invoke CL in a justifiable situation. Thus proposed guidelines related to CL would possibly invite more questions than answers. Consequently, it will be an extremely complicated process for the IPOs to categorize all the situations related to CL. Therefore, in my view, such initiatives, as initiated by the DIPP to frame guidelines for CL could prove to be totally counterproductive, as such guidelines, as stated above, would seriously limit the flexibility of the IPOs to take appropriate action, even when it would require to do so.

Moreover, it is absolutely imperative for the Government to ensure that the primacy of the patent statutes is not disturbed in any way, as such guidelines related to CL would only be consistent with the appropriate provisions within the statute and cannot be used beyond the Patent Law of the land. It goes without saying that any dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of the provisions within the statute related to CL, should only be resolved by the judiciary.

Conclusion:

How could then CL possibly offer answers to the vexing healthcare access issues of the nation? Is the Government not wasting its precious little time, instead of trying to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and resolve the critical ‘access to affordable quality medicines’ issue of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives?

By Tapan Ray

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

Making quality medicines available at an affordable price – Are we ‘missing woods for the trees’?

Posted on by
Reply

On August 4, 2010 the Parliamentary standing committee for Health and Family Welfare in its 45th report, recommended the following to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Parliament of India for ‘Making quality medicines available at an affordable price’ to the common man:

1. Blanket caps on the profit margins of all medicines across the board, as these are the ‘only items’ where the purchasing decision is taken by a doctor – a third party and not by the patients who will actually pay for such medicines. In such a situation, a possible’ unholy nexus’ between the prescribing doctors and the pharmaceutical companies could put the patients at a disadvantage and in a helpless situation.

2. This blanket cap on profit for ALL drugs will discourage pharmaceutical companies to shift the balance of their product portfolio from schedule (price control) to non-schedule (outside price control) formulations.

3. This action will make the administration of the ‘Price Control’ mechanism by the Government much simpler by eliminating the current practice of price monitoring and the government preference of substitution of generic drugs for the branded pharmaceuticals

4. MRP of ALL medicines should be determined by the NPPA based on an open and transparent process and considering interests of all stake holders, as is currently being followed in other areas like, electricity tariff, bus, auto rickshaw and taxi fares, insurance premiums and various interest rates.

5. The Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Department of Pharmaceuticals should work out a system through the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee to put a blanket cap on profit margins of ALL drugs across the board, immediately.

6. Despite amendment of the MCI guidelines for the doctors in December 2009, banning the acceptance of all kinds of gifts, trips to foreign destinations and availing various types of hospitality by them from the pharmaceutical companies, nothing much has changed on the ground related to such ’unethical practices’. Since MCI has no jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical companies, the government should formulate similar punitive steps through the DCGI, CBDT etc. against the erring pharmaceutical companies.

7. The Committee indicated that it desires to be kept apprised of the action taken in this regard by the Government.

The key factors influencing affordability of medicines:

All the above steps will remain as good intent by the policy makers, if the issue of access to medicines is not addressed simultaneously. As we know that affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even access to medicines.

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 just one of these factors:

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

High out of pocket expenditure could push a section of population below the poverty line:

In India ‘out of pocket expenditure’ as a percentage of total healthcare expenses is around 80%, being 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% of the population below the poverty line in one year.

‘Missing woods for the trees’?

Affordability is indeed a relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population even above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines. In a situation like this, putting a blanket profit cap on all medicines will not be just enough. There is a crying need to put in place an appropriate healthcare financing model by the policy makers, covering all sections of the society. Are we then ‘missing woods for the trees’?

Create a robust healthcare provider group through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives to offer quality healthcare at an affordable price:

To resolve the issue of affordability of healthcare in general including medicines, the policy makers should take immediate steps to put in place the ‘Healthcare Financing’ initiatives through a robust PPP model in the country. A highly competitive ‘Health Insurance’ sector, created through PPP, could emerge as a powerful and key healthcare provider in the country. The power that such stakeholders will then assume in deciding for their respective clientele, types of doctors, hospitals, diagnostic labs and even what types of medicines that will be dispensed to them to offer quality healthcare at an affordable price, could indeed be a game changer having an immense influence in bringing the cost of overall healthcare for the common man, including medicines, very significantly.

The ‘Health Insurance’ companies can then decide through the Third Party Administrators (TPA), based on public interest, what types of fees should be charged by the following to offer quality healthcare services at an affordable price to their clientele, if these groups would like to avail the huge business potential for a long period of time:

1. Doctors
2. Hospitals
3. Diagnostic laboratories
4. Other related service providers

For making centralized purchase of medicines, these insurance companies or payors may enter into a hard negotiation with the pharmaceutical companies directly to bring down the price of medicines for the use of their respective clientele.

A recent incident:

To illustrate the above point let me quote an important and related news item, which was published in almost all the leading national daily newspaper, just in the last month.

In July 2010, it was reported that about 18 health insurance companies, who were providing cashless services to the policy holders at over 3,000 hospitals across India, found out that only 350 of them constituting around 11% of the total, were consuming more than 80% of the total claims.

It was also reported that the patients were overcharged by these hospitals for each hospitalization irrespective of the treatment provided and were left with them very little funds for their next treatment. This prompted the said insurance companies to bring some order out of the chaos, as it were.

As a result, at least 150 hospitals only from Delhi and the National Capital region were taken out of their designated list for the cashless facility, keeping the facility available at around 100 hospitals where none belonged to any corporate chain. Similar action was taken against hospitals in other cities, as well.

Thereafter, these insurance companies also decided to convey to the invidual policy holders the fresh list of hospitals for cashless facilities, working out new treatment packages depending on the quality of available healthcare infrastructure of each hospital and a lower or a higher rate was worked out for implementation, accordingly.

This illustration will vindicate how powerful and assertive the health insurance companies could be with the effective use of the TPAs for the sake of public health interest, if they wish to and at the same time to protect their respective bottom lines, creating a win-win situation for all.

Conclusion:

It is indeed an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals and catering to the needs of 20 per cent of the global requirements for the generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to modern medicines to around 650 million population of the country (The World Medicine Report, WHO 2004). Like in many other emerging economies of the world, in India too, access to modern medicines along with their affordability, is the key macro healthcare issue of the nation.

In a situation like this, as stated above, when the payors or health insurance companies will start exerting immense performance pressure to all concerned to provide quality healthcare at an affordable price, even the alleged ‘unholy nexus’ between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession, perhaps will not have any practical relevance.

It is worth pondering, whether the Government is now sending confusing signals to the civil society at large by propagating ‘non-regulated pricing’ for Petroleum Products and ‘regulated pricing’ for pharmaceutical products?

By Tapan Ray

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