Tag Archives: human

Pharma’s Digital Initiatives In India: A Missing Link

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting study – designed to investigate the challenges that Health and Human Services (HHS) organizations face in implementing digital and data solutions, stands out today – for many reasons. One such being, this ‘multi-country survey’ project team had no inkling about the pandemic when the project was undertaken.

This study was conducted by a research team from Imperial College London’s Institute of Global Health Innovation (IGHI), and was sponsored by EY. The survey comprises of more than 2,000 global HHS professionals – from India, Australia, Italy, UAE, the UK and the US. 359 respondents were from India.

The research passed through the phase when Covid related disruptions was about to put HHS providers through the most extreme stress test in living memory. ‘While the outbreak was catastrophic in its effects, it presented the researchers with an exceptional opportunity to study the sector’s behavior during a pivotal moment,’ the paper noted.

From this perspective, today’s article will explore, from various different sources, across the world, how Covid-triggered rapid development and adoption of digital solutions are in the process of making a paradigm shift in the healthcare space. It spans across – health care service providers, its users, and practitioners – including pharma industry and the tech-solution developers.

Consequently, the question arises, would healthcare industry’s innovative spirit of 2020 is robust enough for taking a quantum leap in this space, as we move on. That space will span across – conceptualization and development of new health care products and services, alongside their consumption pattern and consumer behavioral dynamics. And, right up to the adoption of cutting-edge digital technology for commensurate delivery mechanisms. Let me start with some key findings in this area from the above report.

Some key findings – Global and India:

The findings of the Report titled, ‘Embracing digital: is COVID-19 the catalyst for lasting change?’ published on January 13, 2021, ferreted out some interesting facts, with details. These encompass both global and Indian scenario, in this area.

Some key findings – Global:

  • Pre-pandemic – just 18% of HHS providers had managed to embed digital tools in the way they work – mostly, due to lack of funds, regulatory restrictions, and risk aversion. However, the pandemic outbreak swept away many of these barriers, as 62% of organizations have now started using digital technologies and data solutions, globally.
  • 48% organizations are planning to continue investing in technology during the next three years, with 33% expecting more than 50%, and 19% more than 100% increase in investment.
  • While phone consultations are being offered by 81 % of HHS organizations (up from 39 % before the pandemic), 71 % of organizations offering video consultations (up from 22 % before the pandemic).
  • Respondents’ top objectives for future investment towards rapid adoption of digital solutionsinclude, transforming ways of working and service delivery, improving quality of care, reducing the administrative load, enabling better communications, and streamlining work processes.
  • However, 47% of respondents think, the introduction of digital and data solutions was a temporary measure to address challenges during the pandemic.

Some key findings – India:

The Covid-19 pandemic triggered fast acceleration of the adoption of digital technologies by the HHS in India, as well.

  • 51% of respondents from India reported that their respective organizations have increased the use of digital technologies and data solutions since the Covid-19 outbreak.
  • Increased staff productivity reported for 74 % of respondents’ organizations with 75% reporting that digital solutions have been effective in delivering better outcomes for patients and service users.
  • Remote consultations, such as, phone and video consultations have witnessed a greater increase in India than the global average. 86 % of Indian organizations are now offering phone consultation (up from 48 % before pandemic) and 83 % for video consultations (up from 33 % before pandemic).
  • Around three fourth of the respondents in India reported positive experiences with digital technologies and data solutions with the number of people using online consultations in India recording a threefold increase.

This encouraging trend and pattern needs to be consolidated, analyzed, and leveraged – for sharper actionable insights for the development of more contemporary products and services to delight the pharma and health care stakeholders.

A key missing link in India:

The digital health transformation of India’s healthcare system during Covid pandemic was also captured in another article, published by Elsevier Connect on February 23, 2021. It reiterated, although the pandemic has made an overall detrimental impact impacted on India, ‘it has brought about an avalanche of positive changes, including the adoption of digital health technologies and significant changes to the way care is delivered.’ Looking ahead, ‘With the launch of national public health initiatives, India has an incredible opportunity to become a digital health leader,’ the paper predicted.

However, the author also pointed out, unambiguously, that the health care crisis caused by the pandemic has also brought to the fore a key missing link – the need for updated and near real-time availability of trusted information. This observation is more relevant now than ever before, especially considering India’s National Digital Health Mission (NDHM).

National Digital Health Mission – a new ambition:

While addressing the nation on August 15, 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the National Digital Health Mission of India. He said in his speech, “From today, the national digital health mission will begin. It will revolutionize the Indian healthcare sector. Every Indian will be issued a health ID that will act like a healthcare account, storing details of all the tests done, existing diseases, diagnoses, medicines prescribed.”

The objectives of the mission are to establish a core digital health database, creating a system of Electronic Health Records (EHR) based on international standards, establish data ownership pathways, so that patients become the owner of their health records, and promoting health data analytics and medical research. This initiative by any standard, is expected to be a game changer, as and when it comes to fruition.

Subsequently, on June 25, 2020, the Union Ministry of Health, reportedly, wrote to the principal secretaries (health) of all states and union territories, asking them to extend full support to the NHA to create four registries — doctors, health infrastructure, health IDs and personal health records of patients. It also instructed the states to send the required details within the stipulated timeline without breaching the norms of data privacy.

Need to avoid any possible missing link in the NDHM:

However, the Harvard Business Review article, published on June 12, 2020, asserted that the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic not only presented a “mind-boggling array of challenges” exposed the limitations of the electronic health record (EHR) in helping physicians deliver care, especially in the United States.

It suggested: transformation of the EHR from an emphasis on a ‘person’s medical record’ – to an emphasis on their ‘plan for health’ and from a focus on ‘supporting clinical transactions’ to a focus on ‘delivering information’ to the provider and the patient, will be more meaningful.

Thus, it’s time for a new kind of EHR system in today’s perspective, as suggested by the HBR article, besides other domain experts. I am sure, competent authorities will take note of this transformation required in EHR initiatives to avoid any missing link in the new digital healthcare space in India.

As the above Elsevier Connect paper also observed, with the launch of national public health initiatives, such as, Ayushman Bharat and National Digital Health Mission (NDHM), India harbors an incredible opportunity to showcase its world class digital health ecosystem for all in the country.

To help fructify these projects, all key stakeholders – health care service providers, its users, and practitioners – including the pharma industry and the tech solution companies, need to get intimately involved with a common agenda in place. Falling behind may invite regrets, later.

Nonetheless, well before that – the common missing links in India - near real-time availability of credible data, trusted and verified information for adopting digital health for patients that will need to be provided by clinicians in a seamless manner, should be carefully identified and addressed.

New steps into digital healthcare are on the way:

Several new steps into digital healthcare have been taken in various countries of the world. One such initiative is ‘Internet Hospitals.’ These are basically an internet-medical-platform combining online and offline access for medical institutions to provide a variety of telehealth services directly to patients.

A Deloitte paper – ‘Internet Hospitals in China: The new step into digital healthcare,’ published on March 16, 2021 says: ‘Online hospitals are typically offshoots of offline medical organizations. The combination of Internet with health care will drive the medical industry’s transformation into a health service provider from a health care supplier, distributing resources equally and enhancing efficiency,’ moving ‘towards future smart health care.’

Conclusion:

Covid-19 has created a new focus on the digital health ecosystem in India, for accelerating the use of digital technology to radically advance health care systems and save lives. Today, many are experiencing that, big data, analytics, artificial intelligence, remote learning, and data inter-connectivity, can make a real difference to the work of HHS professionals in India.

Embracing digital with accelerated speed during the pandemic, has reportedly started making a significant positive impact on the cycle of the patient’s clinical assessment, treatment, and monitoring. With increasing use, it would reduce the cost of health care, improve patient access to affordable treatment and care services, when many patients’ journey for disease treatment will start online, and get directed to the optimal care setting either physically or virtually.

The article on health-tech, published in the Fortune India on February 20, 2021, has aptly concluded: ‘Eventually health technology infusion in the Indian healthcare ecosystem will be the route to enhance patient-centric healthcare accessibility, affordability, and sustainability. The advent of 5G technology in the country is poised to further catalyze this momentum.’ This, in turn, will facilitate ushering in more game changing steps into digital healthcare, creating a new ecosystem, greater awareness and a keen desire to remain healthy for all.

Thus, from the GIGO perspective, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, I reckon, in pharma’s digital initiatives, especially in India, a key factor needs to be carefully addressed. This is – fathoming existence of any missing link involving near real-time availability of trusted information and credible data generation, which could indeed be a great spoiler of any painstaking digital adoption project.

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.

 

 

Rebalance KOL-Mix As Covid-19 Redefines Pharma Marketing

Posted on by
Reply

‘It’s safe to say that 2020 was a year like no other and that 2021 will certainly not revert back to the old normal,’ reiterated the Harvard Business Review Article - ‘10 Truths About Marketing After the Pandemic,’ of March 10, 2021. Amid Covid 2.0, several astute pharma marketers, I reckon, have also realized the same by now. The recent Government announcement on the impending third wave of Covid-19, coupled with slow vaccination pace in the country, further strengthens this possibility.

That said, making all internalize that pharma marketing, and specifically the brand building process will no longer remain – as it traditionally was, may still be a tough task. Mere digitalization of the traditional marketing processes won’t be a magic wand, either, to excel in the rapidly transforming market situation. The task ahead is fundamentally cerebral – ahead of any Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and applications.

With the market dynamics going through a metamorphosis, pharma marketing needs to be redefined. Capturing the nuances of this redefinition is essential also to ensure the right focus on the right Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) – for successful branding with long-term image building. Today’s article will focus on this less charted area during the pandemic. Let me begin with a few examples of the redefined areas of marketing triggered by disruptive changes in the current pharma business environment.

Traditional pharma marketing axioms need to be redefined:

To give a flavor of this redefinition, I shall pick up the following two examples from the above Harvard Business Review Article and then zero-in on just one, to explore the recasting and rebalancing need of the KOLs, for business excellence in the new normal:

A.  Technology and human enablement:

Pre-pandemic belief: The right tech stack to drive modern marketing success.

Post-pandemic need: The right balance of factors (including tech stack) to drive modern marketing success.

In pre-pandemic days, focus on “tech stack” was emerging as an end-all game changer for marketing. But in the pandemic days there emerges a need to take a step back. The right approach to human enablement is becoming the key to properly understand the changes and their implications in the pharma business environment. Human enablement includes, making sure that people have the right skills to select and employ the most appropriate environment specific technology tools, effectively. The system should also ensure that the right measurement approaches are in place to motivate innovation and rewarding success.

B.  Relationship building to drive marketing success

Pre-pandemic belief: Relationships matter to drive marketing success

Post-pandemic need: Relationship building is everything to drive modern marketing success

Building relationship with customers rests on the bedrock of trust. Covid-19 has placed a new emphasis on relationships, faced with a near virtual sales environment. New findings indicate, the teams with existing relationships have been able to maintain revenue momentum, capitalizing on the strength of their prior bonds. In contrast, prospecting for new customers has required an evolved set of skills focused on selling solutions, not products, as the Harvard Business Review Article emphasized.

Trust, credibility, and integrity are fundamental to driving market momentum. These are foundational to the value exchange between a company and a consumer. As the Harvard paper writes, this has necessitated ‘a serious recasting of talent to identify people best suited to driving relationships in this new world of online interactions — a world that relies less on charm (and even an expense account) and more on insights and solutions. Trust will be built by and rewarded to those that listen to customer needs and then craft solutions to meet those needs.’

Thus, I believe, in the redefined pharma market, the marketers need to have a fresh look with fresh a pair of eyes to expand and select their KOLs to achieve their business goals – consistently, in the years ahead.

Pandemic impacted pharma’s KOL outreach:

Pharma marketers are well-aware how much they rely on their KOLs in several areas of a brand building strategy, including the creation of widely acknowledged brand reputation, winning key stakeholder trust on brands.  Thus, a robust strategy for engaging with stakeholders – based on KOL inputs, continue to remain an area of paramount importance for drug companies.

From this perspective, as I wrote before, during the early days of national lockdown triggered by Covid-19 pandemic, many marketers felt that in-person KOL outreach activities in physical events have only got disrupted temporarily. As the disruption prolonged, some companies hurriedly shifted online. Others hopefully kept waiting for some more time, and then tried to figure out how to catch up quickly by switching over to a more effective, interactive – and situation-specific contemporary communication channels and platforms, for them.

Marketers require recasting their KOL outreach strategy:

No doubt, KOL engagement remains a high priority area for pharma marketers - for guidance with fresh inputs while charting a new marketing pathway, mainly based on their:

  • Therapy area expertise where the company represents, and the sphere of influence
  • The span of influence to further business progress, gaining stakeholder trust and building brand reputation.

As the market environment and stakeholder expectations have altered significantly, in several marketing related areas, pharma marketers require quickly recasting their KOL outreach strategy, including virtual communication models and platforms. Many may consider, for valid reasons, though, that virtual events may not be as effective as effective as F2F physical events.

Notably, some well-researched digital outreach strategy for the KOLs – tailor-made according to their new expectations in the changing market dynamics, are trying to fetch the best out of them. The new initiative is also improving the effectiveness of virtual interactions manifold, steadily – with the ongoing honing of the processes. However, this would involve fresh mapping, and identification of a contemporary set of KOLs, soon, with in-depth understanding of their needs and interests.

Pharma KOL-mix need to include ‘influencers’ also:

Just to recap, KOLs are experts in their respective fields. Each one of them is also a well-regarded and influential voice, whose expert advice is respected and followed by many others – related to that field. These may include authorities in the same industry, whose opinion or decisions may have significant influence or impact on the business. In that sense, KOLs play the role of influencers, too.

Traditionally, in the drug industry KOLs are selected from accomplished and well-decorated medical experts who are often early adopters of new brands, playing a significant role in the prescription decision of other doctors.

Leveraging two other key roles of KOLs in the changing environment: 

The other two roles that need to be leveraged by pharma companies in the in the changing environment may include:

  • Making more people aware of the critical roles of pharma brands, e.g., what people have witnessed recently with Covid-19 drugs and vaccines.
  • Improving brand credibility and corporate reputation by gaining stakeholder trust. This is usually triggered a favorable word-of-mouth awareness of the role that the company is playing to save and improve the quality of human lives – and, in that process, the livelihoods.

This gets reflected in the most recent annual Axious Harris 100 survey, where two widely publicized Covid-19 vaccine makers – ‘Moderna and Pfizer leaped into the top 10 best-regarded companies in the U.S,’ among all other industries. This clearly highlights ‘Americans love their vaccine makers’. As reported, Moderna ranked third, while Pfizer featured at No. 7 on the strength of its product and innovation scores, nabbing high marks for vision and culture along the way.

‘They’re the first biopharma companies to crack the top 10 in the ranking’s 20-year history.’ Interestingly, Johnson & Johnson, which featured in the top 10 before; this year, it ranks 72 on the list with a reputation score roughly the same as 2020’s,’ the report adds.

KOL outreach needs to be more focused and well-targeted on even niches: 

This is an important need and has been vindicated by Deloitte focus group studies in the U.S., India, South Africa and the U.K and published on May 06, 2021. The studies found that the pandemic did improve overall pharma reputation score with a ‘reason to hope for more.’

However, still many respondents used phrases like, “profit-making” and “harmful”, as reasons of why they don’t trust pharma. Curiously, in the U.S., 29% of people cited “questionable moral integrity of biopharma executives” as a problem. Only about one-fourth (26%) of participants agreed that their trust in drug makers increased during the pandemic, even when Deloitte mentioned vaccine development.

Conclusion:

To mitigate such reputation, trust, and credibility related issues, besides transparency in drug pricing, besides efficacy and safety related research-data, pharma needs to work closely with a wider span of KOLs, who may help in explaining complex science in simpler words.

As the above Deloitte studies bring to the fore, the pandemic could be yet another fresh starting point for pharma to gain long-term trust of customers, and other stakeholders. In that endeavor, a fresh set of KOLs need to be identified through well-structured mapping. This initiative should ideally include, besides top medical and regulatory experts of high repute, globally acknowledged academics, top domain experts, and key members of the government.

Thus, in my view, as the pandemic redefines pharma marketing, there is an important need of rebalancing the KOL-mix of each company, based on their specific needs, especially in the virtual space, as the situation will unfold.

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.

 

In Pharma’s Moment of Truth “What You Do is Who You Are”

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a time when pharma industry will be tested, both by its external and internal customers – more than ever before. Looking back, in search of footprints on the sand is no answer either, as there isn’t any. But, a decision on moving ahead has to be made by each drug company in any case – charting a strategic pathway, in search of business excellence, if not for survival. A possibility looms large that the crisis may even overwhelm a company, if any, ill-conceived or ill-thought through steps are taken.

In that sense, the moment of truth has arrived for the industry – a time when ‘what different you do’ in the value delivery process of the business, will decide ‘who you are.’ One’s ability to lead the company or even follow the leadership, to navigate through this crisis, would determine the present and future success of the corporation. This isn’t an easy task. The evolving processes would be challenging to implement, and the traditional mindset may often act as a retarding force, as it were. In this article, I shall explore this critical area with recent examples, as far as possible.

Ability to fathom its most critical component is the bedrock for next steps:

The most critical component in this situation is the ability to make a careful and unbiased assessment of – how different would the ‘new normal’ be from the ‘old normal.’ The focus should not be on the barriers in making the necessary strategic changes, which I hear too often – but how to steer the business through this unprecedented crisis, regardless tough barriers on the way.

Covid-19 threat isn’t going to go away anytime soon:

However, one thing is for sure – no one knows, not just in India, but globally how big the crisis is, and will assume what form, when and how long. Let me give just three illustrations in this area that will be easily understood by all:

  • Initially, experts used to say, face masks are required only for those having symptoms and people close to them. “Masks are not required for those who doesn’t have symptoms. Whereas, the same experts are saying these days, “data now emerging about asymptomatic patients spreading the infection across the country, masks play an important role in containing the spread.” Thus, one is required to wear a face mask always while going outdoors.
  • Explaining the mode of disease spread, earlier, many experts, including the W.H.O, said that COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes. Thus, a mask is needed when one goes outdoors. Whereas, now the same experts, including the W.H.O, have confirmed that Coronavirus can be airborne indoors. In that case, one may need to wear a mask even indoors.
  • On April 23, 2020 the Director-General of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), reportedly, claimed that the situation is stable, and the country has been able to ‘flatten the curve.’ But on May 09, 2020, Director, AIIMS, reportedly, said, “Currently, the cases are continuing to grow at a flat rate, sometimes even more. So, it is very difficult to predict when the peak will come; but it is likely to peak around June or July…” Whereas, an MIT study, which has also been reported in the press reveals, “India might see 2.87 lakh Covid cases per day by February 2021.”

These instances drive home the point – although a serious threat of Covid-19 infection will continue in the foreseeable future, but the way it will manifest itself, and the fresh precautionary measures that will deem necessary, may change with time. Let me give one more example of increasing threat of getting re-infected by Coronavirus by already infected individuals has heightened today than in the past.

The battle tactics need to be updated:

Strategy for war against Covid-19 onslaught may broadly remain similar. But the battle tactics in the multiple fronts need to be updated on an ongoing basis. This needs to be based on increasing or narrowing of the spectrum of threat and other critical factors, as scientific evidences will reveal from time to time.

For example, as is unfolding today, a large number of already infected people, particularly living in areas with high population density, may not necessarily develop any long-term immunity against the Coronavirus infection. Such a possibility will have a wide impact on any business strategy in the new normal that an organization may contemplate.

The rationale for constantly updating battle tactics:

Let me now focus on the rationale for constantly updating battle tactics based on scientific evidences with a few contemporary examples. The study, published in the Nature Medicine on June 18, 2020, found that individuals recovering from Covid-19 infection may have immunity only for 2-3 months. Although, it may not necessarily be construed that a recovered person can get re-infected, but any vaccine that may eventually come may need to address such issues, which seems to be a tough call.

Alongside, findings of another large research – Spain’s Coronavirus antibody study, published in The Lancet on July 06, 2020, has also cast doubt on the feasibility of herd immunity as a way of tackling the Coronavirus pandemic. As the BBC News reported on July 07, 2020 - based on these findings, Prof. Danny Altmann, British Society for Immunology spokesperson and Professor of Immunology at Imperial College London has made similar comments on effective vaccine development initiatives.

He said, the study would, “reinforce the idea that faced with a lethal infection that induces rather short-lived immunity, the challenge is to identify the best vaccine strategies able to overcome these problems and stimulate a large, sustained, optimal, immune response in the way the virus failed to do.”

“What You Do is Who You Are”: 

As the saying goes: “What You Do is Who You Are.” With this fast-evolving scenario, pharma leadership will need to effectively address a dual strategic game plan to outmaneuver the barriers of the Covid-19 pandemic:

  • Putting in place a robust operating strategy for customer value delivery process of the business.
  • Capturing the details of new Covid19 related ongoing developments to constantly hone the battle tactics in several different fronts.

Both the above processes will involve picking up all such validated research findings, mostly on the run. Mostly because, such issues may impact both internal and external customers of the organization, besides competition. Therefore, factoring-in each of those new developments, while constantly sharpening the war strategy and battle tactics in the fast-evolving scenario, will be of crucial. And, what you think or do in this situation will determine who you are – what type leadership traits you exhibit to face the challenges of the new normal, effectively.

Two types of leadership in the new normal:

Amid challenges of the present crisis, I reckon, top leadership will find two broad types of domain leaders – ‘pro-tradition’ and ‘pro-change’ – both will have successful past track records. They need to be identified for appropriate strategic tasks.

As is known to many, a good number of successful leaders are operating through decades around the concept of physical presence of patients while consulting a doctor or other health care providers. Several of them seem to be still unsure about the extent of organizational and operational changes required to face this unprecedented crisis, head-on. Even today, some of them keep trying to impress others by citing instances of what they did so well in the past.

There is nothing wrong in that. But, the business environment and requirements of those days were different – quite different from today’s demand. Curiously, many of such good leaders, with impeccable past success records, seem to be more bothered about seemingly insurmountable barriers on the way. They are afraid of migrating away or jettisoning the traditional pathway of success. Probably, the fear of failure – after achieving success for a long time, is the reason. I consider these successful professionals as ‘pro-tradition’ leaders.

There are also examples of another type of leaders. They are generally younger, looking forward with a contemporary mindset, nurture a can-do spirit with a resilience to bounce back, even in difficult times. Which is why, any transient fear of failure doesn’t usually overwhelm them. And, these leaders, I reckon, may be broadly termed as ‘pro-change’ leaders.

Keeping aside, past success records or future success potential of pharma leaders, in the current scenario – what they actually think or do in the changing environment to steer the organization out of this never-before crisis, will indeed determine ‘who they are.’

A contemporary initiative sets an example:

Top leadership of several drug companies, such as those at Novartis, is leading the way for a change management as the new situation will demand – by setting examples for others. These leaders seem to be taking note of all changes, as discussed above, while giving shape to a strategy, and reshaping the same based on data, as and when required. Interestingly, more technology professionals are getting attracted to pharma operations during Covid-19 pandemic than ever before, as a recent research report unfolds. This is a good omen for pharma and needs to be leveraged, effectively.

The findings of a new research report:

A new research report from Novartis -  A Powerful Pairing,  emphasizes: “The global COVID-19 pandemic sparked a seismic shift in the adoption and scaling of digital technologies across the healthcare sector at a pace never before seen. Almost overnight, organizations had to dial-up their efforts to develop, manufacture and ultimately bring medicines to patients in a socially distant world.” The survey brings out some interesting points, such as:

  • 86 percent of respondents believe the time has come for digital healthcare, and many of them are interested in taking part.
  • Regardless of the sector they currently work in, the two industries that technology professionals would consider switching to, are technology and healthcare and pharma (49 percent for each). This interest rises to 58 percent for workers based in India and 55 percent for those based in China. They feel, Covid-19 pandemic has made them more aware of medical causes around the world and how important they are. Through work in this sector, they can save countless human lives.
  • 52 percent of technology talent sees innovation potential in the healthcare and pharma sector, with the top reason to apply for a job being the opportunity to innovate through technology.
  • 89 percent technology professionals say that data science is important to the development and delivery of healthcare industry solutions and services.

Conclusion:

Surging ahead to reach a million mark, as on July 12, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 850,358 with 22,687 deaths. With a record high of 27,755 daily cases yesterday, the pace of climb continues.

It’s now virtually a writing on the wall that India will have to sail through the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic for quite some time, where unprecedented leadership interventions will be of critical importance – even in pharma. This endeavor will also call for selective induction of competent technology professionals in all pharma business domains, as required. The challenge involves not just carving out the ‘war strategy’, as it were, against Covid-19, but also continually honing the ‘battle tactics’ in multiple fronts – mostly on the run, for desired outcomes.

The situation calls for taking an in-depth inventory of an organization’s existing human resources, based on success ingredients required to turn the tide, which, I reckon, should also be the starting point in this venture. In this moment of truth – standing at the cross-roads of the drug industry, there is no further room for top pharma leadership to procrastinate the decision-making process. All competent professionals should be taken on board. In tandem, both – seemingly ‘pro-tradition’ and ‘pro-change’ leaders, should be encouraged to realize that in the new normal “What You Do is Who You Are” in the future pharma business.

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.

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Deadly Climate Change Impact On Human Health: How Prepared Is India?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not uncommon to find many people, including heads of countries, expressing their serious apprehensions in public, about the scary impact of climate change. Just the last year, on November 26, 2018, BBC News captured one of such incidences with the astonishing headline: “Trump on climate change report: I don’t believe it.” The findings of this report have underscored, ‘unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy.’

Similarly, a few years ago, on September 05, 2014,CNN News 18 quoted Prime Minister Narendra Modi as saying: “Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed,’ while answering to a question on climate change. Regardless of the outcome of any split-hair analysis of the rationale behind such statements from the world leaders, such public discourse could trivialize the possible catastrophic impact of climate change on the planet earth.

Be that as it may, that climate change is taking place, carrying all its ill-effects, is real now, without any ambiguity. There is also widespread consensus among the members of the United Nations that ‘the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented during post hunter-gatherer human existence.’

It is worth noting that way back in 2001, the ‘Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, further recorded: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is likely to be attributable to human activities”, most importantly the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.

Several ‘International Agreements’, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change - all supported by hard scientific data, have called for immediate, quantifiable measures in each country to address the ‘wide-ranging environmental threats, such as ozone depletion and long-range transboundary air pollution.’ Against this backdrop, in this article, I shall focus on the dreadful effect of climate change in the proliferation of a wide-variety of ailments, especially infectious diseases, within a few decades. While doing so, let me first have a quick recap on what is ‘Climate Change’, in a simple language.

Climate Change – a quick recap:

According to the United Nations, ‘Climate Change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly.’

It’s important to note, although, the planet Earth’s climate is constantly changing over geological time, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events. Scientists are concerned that the natural fluctuation or variance, is being overtaken by a rapid human-induced warming, as they emit more greenhouse gases. As these gases get trapped in the atmosphere, more heat is retained that has serious implications for the stability of the planet’s climate, even impacting human health with grave consequences. The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has also warned that the health of millions could be threatened by increases in malaria, waterborne disease and malnutrition.

Its impact human health:

The direct and indirect impact of climate change on human health is profound. Before I go into the specifics, let me indicate some of the direct ones, as captured by the Center for Health and the Global Environment (CHanGE), University of Washington. This is sans any charts and maps, unlike the usual practice:

  • Increasing temperatures are causing poor air quality that can affect the heart and worsen cardiovascular disease.
  • Increasing exposure to pollen, molds, and air pollution, all of which can worsen allergies and other lung diseases, such as asthma.
  • Changes in the geographic range of disease-carrying insects, such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas and other similar ones, which can fast spread many tropical ailments, such as dengue fever and malaria to humans.
  • Increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather and climate events can cause, besides many physical illnesses, several kinds of mental illnesses – increasing both morbidity and mortality.
  • Frequent flooding events and sea level rise can contaminate water with harmful pathogens and chemicals, potentially causing food-borne and waterborne illnesses.
  • Changing weather patterns affect the quality and quantity of nutritious foods with increasing incidence of under-nutrition and micronutrient deficiencies.
  • Additional stress placed on hospital and public health systems, could limit people’s ability to obtain adequate health care during extreme weather events and disease outbreaks.

Most specific and the deadly one:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses,’ clearly flagged that ‘Changes in infectious disease transmission patterns are a likely major consequence of climate change.’

Citing a pertinent analogy to explain the reason, it said: “Humans have known that climatic conditions affect epidemic diseases from long before the role of infectious agents was discovered, late in the nineteenth century. Roman aristocrats retreated to hill resorts each summer to avoid malaria. South Asians learnt early that, in high summer, strongly curried foods were less likely to cause diarrhea.”

Would pharma players convert these problems into opportunities?

Curiously, some pharmaceutical investors are researching to fathom potential business opportunities lying underneath the above problem, especially for vaccines and newer antimicrobials. It’s probably a blessing in disguise not just for the drug companies, but also for the general public, considering the following two issues, prevailing in the current scenario:

  • According to W.H.O, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is an increasingly serious threat to global public health. It threatens the effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi, causing the success of even major surgery and cancer chemotherapy seriously compromised.
  • ‘Pharmaceutical companies are backing away from a growing threat that could kill 10 million people a year by 2050’, reported a July 19, 2018 article. This is because, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Profitable Enough for Big Pharma to Make More,’ wrote another article, published in Bloomberg Businessweek, on May 3, 2019.

Interestingly, a recent report analyzed and evaluated how this can be done, and which companies will be benefitted most in that process. 

“Climate change to fetch a big business opportunity for pharma”:

As reported on July 25, 2019, Morgan Stanley told investors that climate change will cause an increased prevalence and rapid spread of infectious diseases that may be a boon for some drug companies with big vaccine portfolios. It also highlighted, between 383 million and 725 million more people may be exposed to Zika, dengue and other diseases by 2050, depending on the pace and severity of global warming.

The analysts estimated, especially 7 pharma companies will be critical to fighting infectious diseases brought on by climate change. According to the research note of thebank, ‘the USD 500 billion infectious disease market could see demand for an added USD 125 billion in new vaccines, or as much as USD 200 billion assuming premium pricing for more complex new treatments.’

The top possible gainers:

Identifying the top possible gainers, Morgan Stanley apprised, vaccine development being more difficult and expensive, companies that are already in that business will have an upper hand.

Hence, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline are expected at the top, given their existing pipelines and manufacturing capacity. Takeda and Merck both have vaccines in the works for dengue fever, one of the diseases that climate change is likely to exacerbate. Janssen and Pfizer are both active in the vaccines market, but would need to establish new research programs to take on tropical diseases. ‘Moderna’ is also in a good position because it has demonstrated a potential pipeline for drugs combating the Zika virus., as Morgan Stanley further elaborated.

Nevertheless, Morgan Stanley isn’t the only bank looking at investment opportunities from climate change, on July 24, 2019, Goldman Sachs also, reportedly, said it was hiring a sustainable-finance group that is looking into issues related to sustainability. Thus, on the positive side, climate change could fetch a big business opportunity for many pharma players, across the world.

600 million people at risk for climate change in India:

On June 24, 2019, a reputed national business news daily of India reported, “600 million people at risk: Climate change may soon turn critical in India.” Against this threat, the current public health care infrastructure in the country, continues to remain fragile, as stated in India’s National Health Profile, 13th Issue.

It also states, the cost of treatment has been on the rise in India and it has led to inequity in access to health care services. Intriguingly, the country spends around 1.02 percent of its GDP towards public health, which has remained static to declining over a long period of time. Although, health insurance is a growing segment, it hasn’t taken off fully. Several measures are needed to improve and expand insurance coverage.

Further, according to the report by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in the US, India is facing shortage of 600,000 doctors and 2 million nurses. This report was widely quoted by the Indian media, on April 14, 2019.

These facts give a perspective on what is India’s level of preparedness to address the critical health issues related to climate change, especially the havoc that the dreaded infectious diseases can cause to so many.

Conclusion:

Astute health policy makers, including a large section of the top political echelon of the country are, apparently, aware of various ill effects of climate change. They also seem to be cognizant that these are likely to accelerate the worsening health problems of the population, including infectious diseases, asthma and other respiratory diseases.

Assuming, new and modern drugs will keep coming to help treat these ailments, do we have a functioning and efficient public health infrastructure to grapple with such issues. What about high out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare for a large section of the population, regardless of Ayushman Bharat?

As the (W.H.O) publication - ‘Climate change and human health – Risks and Responses’ recommended, ‘early planning for health is essential to reduce, hopefully avoid, near future and long-term health impacts of global climate change. The optimal solution, however, is in the hands of governments, society and every individual—a commitment to a change in values, to enable a full transition to sustainable development.’

That said, as India is also a signatory to the latest Paris Agreement on Climate Change, can we assume, India will walk the talk to significantly contain its deadly impact on human health? How is India preparing itself to meet this great challenge of Probably it is anybody’s guess, at least, as on date?

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.

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Posted on by
Reply

“Russia and India climb World Bank’s Doing Business rankings”, was a headline in the Financial Times on October 31, 2017. India jumped 30 places – from 130 out of 190. Almost instantly, the domestic media flashed it all across the country, as the prime news item of the day. It brought great satisfaction to many, and very rightly so.

The news is also worth cheering as it ignites the hope of a large section of the society that sometime in the future more business will come into the country, more jobs will be created, and in that process India will emerge as a more healthy and wealthy nation, just as many other countries around the world.

This loud cheer, in tandem, also transcends into a hope for a well-oiled public healthcare system functioning efficiently in India, alongside greater wealth creation. This is because, while expecting a healthier nation, one can’t possibly keep the public healthcare system of the country out of it, altogether. Thus, I reckon, it won’t be quite out of place to have a quick look at India’s current ranking on other healthcare related indices too, such as ‘Healthcare Index’ and ‘Human Development Index’ and ‘Hunger Index’:

Healthcare index:

With that perspective, when go through the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, published in The Lancet on September 16, 2017, it will be difficult to wish away the fact that India ranks 154 among 195 countries in ‘Healthcare Index’. Surprisingly, India ranks much behind Sri Lanka (72.8), Bangladesh (51.7), Bhutan (52.7) and Nepal (50.8) though, of course, above Pakistan (43.1) and Afghanistan (32.5). This is what it is, regardless of the fact that India’s Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index has increased by 14.1 – from 30.7 in 1990 to 44.8 in 2015.

Human Development Index:

The ranking of India in the Human Development Index (HDI) is also not encouraging, either. Many would know, HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income, which are used to rank countries in human development. As life expectancy also depends on the quality of healthcare, HDI has a significant bearing on this count, as well.

The ‘2016 Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in March 2017 shows that India has slipped by one rank from 130 to 131, among 188 countries. According to UNDP, ‘in the past decades, there has been significant gains in human development levels almost in every country, but millions of people have not benefited from this progress. This report highlights who have been left behind and why?’

I shall dwell on the ‘Global Hunger Index Report’ below at an appropriate context.

Why is this comparison between different indices…and now?

The above question is indeed a very valid one. Nonetheless, it is important to do so. I am quoting these rankings to flag the sharp contrast in our mindset to rejoice the good rankings, and lampooning the adverse ones, citing one reason or the other.

It is obvious from the general euphoria witnessed by many on such good news –  highlighted so well by the print, television and social media, with high decibel discussions by experts and politicians. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in any way. However, similar media discussions were not evident for taking effective corrective measures, soon, when ‘global burden of disease rankings’ or ‘Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ or the ‘Global Hunger Index’ rankings were published in September, March and October 2017, respectively.

Does it therefore mean that effectively addressing issues related to crumbling public healthcare infrastructure in the country attracts much lesser importance than ensuring ease of doing business in the country? Do both the politicians and the voters also consider so? Perhaps the answer is yes, as many would envisage in the largest democracy of the world.

What’s happening elsewhere?

In many developed and also the developing countries of the world, general public or voters’ expectations for having an affordable and robust public healthcare delivery system from the respective Governments seem to be high. Consequently, it also directs the focus of the politicians or lawmakers on the same. This scenario includes even the oldest democracy of the world – America. Such expectations on comprehensive healthcare covers the need for affordable drug prices too.

That voters are greatly concerned about healthcare in those countries is supported by many contemporary surveys. Just before the last year’s American Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: September 2016, substantiated this point. It said, besides considering personal characteristics of the candidates, the voters clearly articulated their priority on patient-friendly healthcare laws and affordable drug prices, as follows:

  • Over 66 percent of voters expressed that healthcare law is very important to their vote
  • 77 percent said prescription drug costs are unreasonable, expressing widespread support for a variety of actions in order to keep healthcare costs down

Accordingly, The New York Times on September 17, 2017 reported: “The public is angry about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Surveys have shown that high drug prices rank near the top of consumers’ health care concerns, and politicians in both parties - including President Trump — have vowed to do something about it.”

I haven’t come across such widespread demand from the voters getting captured in any survey, before either any State Assembly or the Parliament elections in India. Hence, public healthcare continues to languish in the country, as various Governments come and go.

What happens post-election in the oldest democracy?

We have enough examples that post-election, the oldest democracy of the world tries to satisfy the well-articulated healthcare needs of the voters, on priority. To illustrate the point, let me help recapitulate what happened in this regard, immediately after the last two Presidential elections in America.

After swearing in on January 20, 2009, then American President Barack Obama, as expected by the voters and promised by him accordingly, enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, almost within a year’s time – on March 23, 2010. Similarly, within a few months of swearing in as the American President, Donald Trump administration is mulling to address the voters demand and his electoral promise to make the prescription drugs more affordable.

Public demand and outcry for affordable healthcare, including affordable drugs have led to several serious consequential developments in the United States. Let me illustrate this point with another example of recent lawsuits filed against alleged price fixing of generic drugs – many of these are new, but a few started in the last few years.

Vigil on drug prices continues:

As high drug prices are a burning issue even in America, a lot many steps are being taken there on that issue – just as many other developed and developing countries are taking.

It is rather well known that even after enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the Department of Justice of the country expanded probing into the allegation of price fixing by many generic drug manufacturers operating in America. One such illustration is October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. It states that the AG is leading a coalition of 46-states in new, expanded complaint in Federal Generic Drug Antitrust Lawsuit. It further mentioned: States allege broad, industry-wide understanding among numerous drug manufacturers to restrain competition and raise prices on 15 generic drugs, where some senior executives have been sued.

Interestingly, in this notice the AG said, “The generic drug market was conceived as a way to help bring down the cost of prescription medications. For years, those savings have not been realized, and instead the prices of many generic drugs have skyrocketed.” He alleged that the defendant companies’ collusion was so pervasive that it essentially eliminated competition from the market for the identified 15 drugs in its entirety. ‘Ongoing investigation continues to uncover additional evidence, and we anticipate bringing more claims involving additional companies and drugs at the appropriate time,” the Attorney General further added.

By the way, the expanded complaint of the states reportedly also includes several large Indian companies, such Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. Curiously, the expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Examples such as this vindicate, even if a robust public healthcare system is put in place, the regulators would still keep a careful vigil on drug prices.

Getting back to the key link between some indices:

Let me now get back to where I started from – the link between ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘becoming a healthy and wealthy’ nation, over a period of time. This would subsequently bring us to the link between healthy nation and the existence of a robust and functioning affordable public healthcare system in the country.

From that angle, I raised a key question. Why the general public, and specifically the voters in India aren’t making effective delivery of an affordable public healthcare as one of the top priority areas while voting for or against a political dispensation? The question assumes greater relevance when one sees it happening in many other countries, as discussed above. Is it, therefore, worth pondering whether this issue can be explained, at least to a great extent, by applying the well-known ‘Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs.’

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and hunger index:

As the literature says, ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ is a theory of motivation in psychology developed by Abraham Maslow in 1943. He believed people move through different stages of five needs that motivate our behavior. He called these needs physiological, safety, love and belonging (social), esteem, and self-actualization.

As we see, the first two basic needs are physiological and then safety. Maslow explains the ‘physiological needs’ as food, water, sleep, and basic biological functions. When these physiological needs are adequately met, our safety needs would usually dominate individual behavior.

Similarly, Maslow’s ‘safety needs’ in the modern era are generally expressed as the needs of job security, financial security, and health and well-being, among a few others. Thus, the need for healthcare falls under ‘safety needs’, following the most basic ‘physiological needs’.

As Food is one the first basic needs, India’s current ranking in the ‘Global Hunger Index (GHI)’, would suggest this primary need of having at least two square meals of nutritious food a day, has not been adequately met by a large population of Indians, not just yet.

India’s ranking in the Global Hunger Index (GHI):

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been defined as a multidimensional statistical tool used to describe the state of countries’ hunger situation. The GHI measures progress and failures in the global fight against hunger. It is now, reportedly, in its 12th year, ranking countries based on four key indicators – undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report, titled ‘2017 global hunger index: The inequalities of hunger ’, indicates that India ranks below many of its neighboring countries, such as China (29th in rank), Nepal (72), Myanmar (77), Sri Lank (84) and Bangladesh (88), but ahead of Pakistan (106) and Afghanistan (107). Just for the sake of interest, North Korea ranks 93rd while Iraq is in 78th position.

The primary basic need of food and nutrition does not seem to have been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. Many of them are still struggling and searching for appropriate means of earning a dignified livelihood. It includes support in agricultural production and the likes. Thus, many voters don’t feel yet, the second level of need that prompts a vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country. The same situation continues, despite ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on healthcare being one of the highest in India, alongside the cost of drugs too.

Conclusion:

This brings us to the key question – When would the demand for having an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country, assume priority for the general public in India, and the voters, in particular?

Sans Government’s sharp focus on public healthcare, including the cost of drugs, devices, and education, it will be challenging for a democracy of India’s size to make a decisive move, for a long term – from average to good – and then from good to great, even in the economic parameters.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs onto various health related global indices, it appears that the primary basic need of food and nutrition has not been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. This possibly makes a large section of Indian voters to move into the second level of need, raising a widespread vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country.

Rejoicing country’s advancement in the World Bank’s ranking on the ease of doing business by 30 points in a year has its own merits. However, in the same yardstick, doesn’t health care losing the priority focus of the nation also highlight the demerits of misplaced priority in a country’s governance process, and just because the voters are not quite demanding on this issue?

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.

Health, Human Capital, Human Development And GDP Growth – A Discord in India

Posted on by
Reply

Is sustainable growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) intertwined with public health, human capital and human development, or each one of these deserves to be seen and analyzed in isolation? Or, is there a discord between India’s GDP growth rate, and various published indices of its public health, human capital and human development?

This important issue, which has various facets and dimensions, such as, social, economic, education and health, needs to be debated widely.  However, in this article, I shall try to address this question only from the public health perspective. 

It is a generally accepted fact that GDP growth rate, at any given point of time, is just one of the primary indicators, and not the sole indicator, to gauge the real health of any country’s economic ground realities. Nevertheless, considering its time-tested importance, one can well understand why India’s key focus is now primarily on boosting the rate of GDP growth of the nation. 

To translate this core objective into reality, the Government in power, almost single-mindedly and quite commendably, is actively engaged in various well publicized campaigns, such as, ‘Make in India’, several basic infrastructure developments, and attracting more Foreign Direst Investments (FDI) into the country.

High GDP growth and the general well-being of a nation:

The above initiatives are indeed praiseworthy. However, according to experts’ reports, though GDP growth presents a good first approximation of economic well being of a country for international comparisons, it ignores many basic and critical factors of the general well-being of a nation.

For that reason, there is a need to deliberate whether the pursuit of achieving a sustainable high GDP growth of India is in sync with a commensurate improvement in the indices of human development and human capital, where health stands out as one of the most critical common factors.

Some key parameters to assess the ground reality:

To properly assess the ground reality of the general well being of a country, such as India, at least, the following important parameters should be looked at together, and not in isolation: 

  • GDP growth: It’s a rate at which a nation’s Gross Domestic product (GDP) changes/grows from one year to another.  
  • Human Development Index (HDI): It is a tool developed by the United Nations to measure and rank countries’ levels of social and economic development based on the health of people, their level of education attainment and standard of living.
  • Human Capital Index (HCI): It measures countries’ ability to nurture, develop and deploy talent for economic growth. One of the most significant parameters, that is effective in human capital performance, is the role of individual health, and its related indices in enhancing the economic level of a country, besides the investment in individuals’ education. Among health features of a society, high life expectancy, low death rate in children, healthy nutrition, degree of medical advancements, the costs that the government or the family incur for the health sector and low-cost services before birth, are considered most important. 

It is worth noting, both in HDI and HCI, public health stands out as one of the most critical common factors.

A discord in India:

Keeping this in perspective, in my view, a huge discord does exist in India between HDI, HCI and the GDP growth.

High GDP growth:

All Government initiatives backed by favorable international prices of, especially, crude oil and commodities have enabled India to record the highest GDP growth of around 7.5% in 2015, as against estimated 0.5% of Brazil, -3.8% of Russia, 6.8% of China and around 1% of South Africa among the BRICS countries, in the same period.

However, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF), India has the lowest per capita GDP of US$ 5,238 among the other members of the bloc and is also lagging behind the other BRICS economies in terms of quality of life.

It is a different matter though, many experts, including a prominent member of the ruling party, are not quite convinced with India’s high GDP growth numbers.

Low Human Development Index (HDI):

According to the 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) report, recently released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), India occupies 130th position among 188 countries.

Among BRICS nations, Russia ranks 50, Brazil 75, China 90, South Africa 116. While among India’s neighboring countries, Sri Lanka occupies rank 73, China 90, Bhutan 132, Bangladesh 142, Nepal 145, Pakistan 147 and Afghanistan 171.

Low Human Capital Index (HCI):

According to the 2015 HCI report released by Geneva based World Economic Forum (WEF) earlier this month, India occupies105th rank out of the total 130 countries included in the index.

Among the BRICS countries, India ranks at the bottom, as against Russia’s 28th, China’s 71st, Brazil’s 83rd and South Africa’s 88th. Among the neighboring countries, even Bangladesh, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are also placed higher on the index, besides China.

Public health is the common denominator:

As I said before, for all the three – GDP growth, HDI and HCI, the health of the population is the common denominator, which no nation can possibly afford to ignore for a sustainable and high rate of GDP growth.

An article titled, “Health and the economy: A vital relationship”, published in the ‘OECD Observer’ also underscored that health care performance is strongly dependent on the economy, but also on the health systems themselves. This link should not be underestimated.

Such expert recommendations, by all means, create a high priority situation, which needs to be addressed with commensurate well thought-out policy measures, backed by adequate budgetary support.

India is still a laggard in public health standards:

Leave aside the developing nation or BRICS countries, even some much smaller neighboring nations continue performing far better on some critical health indicators than India.

In fact, the World Bank health indicators’ data show that even Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam, with much lesser per capita GDP are ahead of India in several key health indicators, as shown in the following table:

Some Key Indicators India Bangladesh Nepal Vietnam
GDP Per capita(PPP) (Constant at 2011 US$) 2014 5445 2981 2261 5370
Life Expectancy At Birth (Female) 2013 68 71 70 80
Survival to Age 65 (% of Cohort) 2013 63 72 69 72
Public Health Expenditure (% of GDP) 2013 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.5
Infant Female Mortality Rate/1000 of Live Birth 2015 38 28 27 15
Mortality Rate (Under 5 year of Live Births) 2015 48 38 36 22
Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 1000 Live Births) 2013 190 170 190 49
Rural Population With Improved Access to Sanitation Facilities (%) 2015 29 62 44 70
Vitamin A Supplementation Coverage Rate (% of Children 6-59 months) 2013 53 97 99 98
Immunization DPT (% of Children 12-23 month) 2014 83 95 92 95
(Source: Live Mint, October 28,2015) 

Similarly, another 2011 study published in the ‘The Lancet’ reported that Out of Pocket expenditure on health in India is the highest, as compared to its much smaller neighbors, as follows:

Country Out of Pocket expenditure on health (%)
Maldives 14
Bhutan 29
Sri Lanka 53
India 78

Intriguingly, this overall dismal public health situation continues to remain unchanged even today, despite well hyped high GDP growth rate of India.

Conclusion:

For a sustainable and high economic growth, if public health also becomes one of the top priority areas of the country, it would get reflected in India’s commensurate higher ranking in both HDI and HCI, as well, highlighting the general well-being of the nation.

Thus, just a single minded valiant chase in pursuit of registering high GDP growth, in isolation, may not necessarily mean significantly more job creation, and attaining world-class public health standards in India.

To ensure all-round well being of the general population of India, a well integrated and comprehensive strategic roadmap, with public health included in it, I reckon, would prove to be more meaningful. 

This approach would also help resolve the prevailing discord between high GDP growth, low Human Development Index (HDI) and low Human Capital Index (HCI), where public health clearly emerges as the common denominator.

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.

 

 

Worsening Health Effect Of Climate Change In India: A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

At present, out of the top five most pressing global and local environmental challenges, ‘Climate Change’ features at the top.

It has been broadly defined as, “a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.” 

The impact of Climate Change’ is so profound that, if not addressed immediately, it would most likely to cause extinction of human life from the planet Earth and that too in the most agonizing and painful way, lasting over a long period of time.

The Paris Summit and its objectives: 

To effectively address the ‘Climate Change’ issue, nearly 150 world leaders of 196 countries, including Prime Minister Modi, deliberated in the Paris summit earlier in December 2015. Their representatives and negotiators ultimately succeeded, at the fag end of the ‘Paris Summit’ to arrive at a global consensus for inking a new ‘Climate Change’ agreement.

Prior to this, a report titled, “Paris 2015: Getting a global agreement on climate change”, published in August, 2014 by the Green Alliance Trust, United Kingdom stated that the agreement, expected to be signed in this Paris summit should ensure a meaningful united global action on climate change, covering the following key points:

  • A strong legal framework and clear rules
  • A central role for equity
  • A long term approach
  • Public finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition
  • A framework for action on deforestation and land use

Experts opined that a strong deal will make a significant difference to the ability of individual countries to tackle climate change by ensuring the following:

  • Give a clear signal to business for desired environmental protection and pollution control
  • Guide investment toward low carbon outcomes
  • Create a simpler, more predictable framework for companies operating in different countries
  • Help meeting international development aims, which are at increasing risk from rising global temperatures.
  • Help reducing poverty
  • Help improving health and building security
  • Fetch huge benefits to the natural environment by helping to avoid biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems upon which the existence of human life depends

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’:

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’ has been clear and is well captured in Prime Minister Modi’s reiteration in the Paris summit as follows:

“Climate change is not of our making. It is the result of global warming that came from an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. Yet, we face its consequences today, and that is why the outcome in Paris is so important and we are here today. We want the world to act with urgency. Agreement must lead us to restore balance between humanity and nature. We want a comprehensive equitable and durable agreement in Paris.”

Worsening health effect:

‘Climate Change’ could even drive the human race to extinction in its final outcome. Meanwhile, besides its devastated environmental impact on the planet Earth, it would gradually but surely worsen human health conditions.

In this article, I shall focus only on human health perspective on ‘Climate Change’. 

Direct and indirect health impact:

I would classify the adverse impact of ‘Climate Change’ on health basically into two categories:

- Indirect

- Direct

Indirect impact: 

Many of the indirect health impact events of ‘Climate Change’ either go unnoticed or are still considered as an ‘Act of God’. Although this issue relates to our ultimate survival, even today in India not many debates are taking place on the subject, mostly in the Television Channels. This amazing medium continues to remain obsessed with competitive high decibel shouting and slanging matches to strengthen the viewers’ appetite, even more, mostly on trivial sensationalism.

Fortunately, global awareness of the disastrous impact of ‘Climate Change’ is increasing, slowly but surely. 

I shall give below just a few examples of indirect health impact of this change:

- Extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, tsunamis, heat-waves and other disasters would keep increasing the mortality rate. Many experts attribute the cause of the recent deluge in Chennai to ‘Climate Change’, though there are other view points too. 

- Extreme weather conditions have also started causing frequent crop failures, especially in the developing world like India. As a result, many people go hungry and children suffer from malnourishment, mostly in rural areas, precipitating adverse health consequences.

- The impact of all these on mental health is also at times devastating and should in no way be ignored. Frequent incidences of farmers’ suicide in India due to crop failures could possibly be due to their deteriorating mental health, which needs to be studied in detail.

Direct impact:

According to ‘Big Picture’ – a free and impartial educational resource that explores the innovations and implications of cutting-edge science, rising temperatures and pollution levels may act together to directly worsen various health conditions, a few examples are as follows:

- Researches say, air temperature is more likely to affect cardiovascular function, when ozone levels are high, including the heart’s electrical activity and airflow into the lungs.

- A recent review has established that air pollution sets off nearly as many heart attacks as physical exertion, alcohol or coffee. Belgian researchers examined 36 studies conducted in various countries between January 1960 and January 2010 to examine the percentage of heart attacks attributable to the common risk factors and found that air pollution increased a person’s heart attack risk by 5 percent.

- Higher temperatures may also make the body more sensitive to toxins, such as ozone.   

- Studies show allergies are on the rise in developed countries, including the United States, which could partly be rising carbon dioxide levels and warming temperatures. 

- A number of notorious diseases, such as, malaria and cholera, thrive with the increase in temperature and rainfall. To give an example, the mosquitos that carry the malaria parasites grow rapidly in hot and humid conditions. The increasing prevalence of such weather conditions in climate change is likely to spread these diseases in a much wider population.

Is there any upside for ‘Climate Change’? 

Available information also points out towards some possible, but limited benefits for ‘Climate Change’, as follows: 

- Reduced risk of dying of the elderly persons from extreme cold in the winters of the temperate countries.

- Longer summers in those countries are likely to improve agricultural yields of the farmers.

Let me hasten to add, all these upsides, if at all, may not help the developing and poorer nations of the planet Earth, as such climatic conditions are mostly prevalent in the developed nations of the world.

Need for further research:

A report titled, “A Human Health Perspective On Climate Change”, published on April 22, 2010 by ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’ and the ‘National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’, identified the following major research areas that need to be further explored and understood in the ‘Climate Change’ perspective:

The above outcome of the study is exactly in the expected line, which was “to identify research needs for all aspects of the research-to-decision making pathway that will help us understand and mitigate the health effects of climate change, as well as ensure that we choose the healthiest and most efficient approaches to climate change adaptation.”

How can we all contribute individually?

On this subject, by a release on November 26, 2011, ‘The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’ of the United States recommended some very easy to follow steps for all of us.

It said, each individual can help in this matter by using less energy and water. For example, one may consider turning off lights and TVs when one leaves a room. Turn off the water, when brushing teeth.

It suggests, another way to help is by learning about Earth and its climate. The more we know about how Earth’s climate works, the more we shall be able to help solve problems related to climate change and that is also the purpose of this article.

In addition, besides many others, we may consider lesser use of our private cars and more of available public transports. Smokers may consider to quit smoking. We can also help by planting trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

India’s high stake:

A December 9, 2015 article published in ‘The New York Times’, titled “For Indians, Smog and Poverty Are Higher Priorities Than Talks in Paris” reiterated as follows:

At the climate talks in Paris, “few countries have so much at stake as India. For the last month, the front pages of major newspapers have been dominated by one environmental crisis after another: City-dwellers are up in arms about hazardous levels of air pollution, which has already damaged the lungs of about half of Delhi’s schoolchildren. And last month brought torrential rains and flooding in the southern city of Chennai, evoking the erratic weather that climate experts warn about.”

India’s consistent stand in various ‘Climate Change’ talks is drawing a fine balance between rapid development of the nation, with commensurate new job creation and health safety & environment. However, the apprehension that is being expressed now by many, whether that is feasible on the ground at all, for holistic measures in the right direction, with the adequate funds flow for the same.

Thus, the key concern of the Indian negotiators was, signing of any global agreement to support a strong climate regime, without requisite funding, could seriously impede India’s economic growth and development agenda. The developing nations, such as India, therefore, expect adequate and committed funding from the developed nations for generation of clean energy to drive inclusive economic prosperity of the respective emerging economies.

Developed nations still not quite on the same page?

The developed nations, even in the final text of the deal, do not seem to be quite on the same page, with firm financial commitments. As a result, a ‘Tug of War’ of objectives, as it were, surfaced in the final negotiation process – mainly between sustained economic development and stringent global measures with fund commitment to contain possible extinction of the human race in the world.

The impact of an effective implementation of the agreement is expected to last almost in perpetuity.

Conclusion:                                                                              

Finally, on the last Saturday, December 12, 2015 a new global deal to address the pressing issue of ‘Climate Change’, was agreed in Paris. Unquestionably, this is a critical step forward for all countries to save the planet Earth.

Intriguingly, the deal still does not provide for a binding commitment towards adequate funding by the developed countries, which is so essential for the developing nations to adopt clean and renewable energy to contain the devastating impact of the ‘Climate Change’.

Although, the agreement does talk about funding of US$ 100 billion a year from 2020 to 2025, this is not the legally binding part of the deal, as many people had expected.

In my view, if there is just one statesman who could be singled out for taking exemplary initiative to make the deal come through, it would be President Barack Obama of the United States. He spoke several times to the heads of the several developing nations, including India, China and Brazil, many times to iron out the differences till the last moment, for this key global issue – indeed a statesman par excellence, at least to me.

Be that as it may, the deal has now been inked, Indian Government also has expressed its satisfaction and happiness with the final text of the agreement. Still, a key question haunts: Would it produce the desired results, as expected? Well, that depends on how effectively and time bound manner the global commitments get translated into reality, with required fund flowing smoothly, to contain environmental disasters, leading to natural calamities and jeopardizing human health-safety.

Let’s all keep our finger crossed, as the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

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.