Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

Posted on October 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The corollary of the above headline could well be: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM)?”

Whenever the first question, as appears in the headline of this article: “Is drug price control a key barrier to growth of the IPM?”, is asked to the pharma players, irrespective of whether they are domestic companies or multinationals (MNCs), the answer in unison would quite expectedly be a full-throated ‘yes’. Various articles published in the media, including some editorials too, also seem to be on the same page, with this specific view.

Likewise, if the corollary of the above question: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the IPM?”, is put before this same target audience, most of them, if not all, would expectedly reply that ‘in the drug price control regime, this question does not arise at all, as IPM has been primarily a volume driven growth story.’ This answer gives a feel that the the entire or a major part of the IPM is under Government ‘price control’, which in fact is far from reality

Recently, a pharma industry association sponsored ‘Research Study’, conducted by an international market research organization also became quite vocal with similar conclusion on drug price control in India. This study, released on July 2015, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’. The report also underscores: “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

I argued on the fragility of the above report in this Blog on September 7, 2015, in an article titled, “Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges”.

Nonetheless, in this article, going beyond the above study, I shall try to put across my own perspective on both the questions raised above, primarily based on the last 12 months retail data of well-respected AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:

To put this discussion in right perspective, following AIOCD-AWACS’ monthly pharma retail audit reports, I shall divide the pharma products in India into three broad categories, as follows:

Products included under Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)

Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013

Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate

The span of price controlled medicines would currently be around 18 percent of the IPM. Consequently, the drugs falling under free-pricing category would be the balance 82 percent of the total market. Hence, the maximum chunk of the IPM constitutes of those drugs for which there is virtually no price control existing in India.

According to the following table, since, at least the last one-year period, the common key growth driver for all category of drugs, irrespective of whether these are under ‘price control’ or ‘outside price control, is price increase in varying percentages:

Value vs Volume Growth (October 2014 to September 2015):

Month	DPCO Product Gr%		Non-DPCO Products Gr%		Non-NLEM Para 19 Gr%		IPM
2015	Value	Volume	Value	Volume	Value	Volume	Value	Volume
September	2.8	1.2	10.9	1.1	11.5	9.0	9.9	1.4
August	3.3	(2.7)	14.5	2.4	15.2	13.7	13.0	1.6
July	5.1	(0.6)	14.2	4.1	11.8	9.9	12.9	3.3
June	5.6	(0.1)	16.2	6.2	14.6	11.7	14.8	5.0
May	5.3	(0.3)	12.1	3.4	7.2	4.3	11.0	2.6
April	11.1	5.3	18.4	9.6	11.9	9.6	17.2	8.7
March	17.6	9.5	21.7	13.0	15.6	13.2	20.9	12.2
Feb	13.9	7.6	20.0	10.1	14.4	9.9	18.9	9.6
Jan	6.9	1.8	14.0	3.7	NA	NA	12.7	3.3
2014
December	8.0	0.7	14.8	3.2	NA	NA	13.6	2.7
November	3.1	(3.4)	12.6	0.3	NA	NA	10.9	(0.4)
October	(2.4)	(5.7)	6.8	(1.7)	NA	NA	5.2	(2.6)

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd

Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?

I would not reckon so, though the pharma industry association sponsored above study virtually suggests that ‘free pricing’ of drugs would help improve medicine consumption in India, leading to high volume growth.

As stated earlier, the above report of IMS Health highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

On this finding, very humbly, I would raise a counter question. If only free pricing of drugs could help increasing volume growth through higher consumption, why would then the ‘price-controlled non-NLEM drugs under para 19’, as shown in the above table, have generally recorded higher volume growth than even those drugs, which are outside any ‘price control’? Or in other words, why is the consumption of these types of ‘price controlled’ drugs increasing so significantly, outstripping the same even for drugs with free pricing?

The right answers to these questions lie somewhere else, which I would touch upon now.

Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?

DPCO 2013 came into effect from from May 15, 2013. Much before that, NLEM 2011 was put in place with a promise that all the drugs featuring in that list would come under ‘price control’, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court of India. Even at that time, it was widely reported by the media that most of the drugs featuring in the NLEM 2011 are either old or may not be in supply when DPCO 2013 would be made effective. The reports also explained its reasons.

To give an example, a November 6, 2013 media report stated: “While the government is still in the process of fully implementing the new prices fixed for 348 essential medicines, it has realized that most of these are no longer in supply. This is because companies have already started manufacturing many of these drugs with either special delivery mechanism (an improved and fast acting version of the basic formulation) or in combination with other ingredients, circumventing price control.”

Just to give a feel of these changes, the current NLEM 2011 does not cover many Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDC) of drugs. This is important, as close to 60 percent of the total IPM constitutes of FDCs. Currently, FDCs of lots of drugs for tuberculosis, diabetes and hypertension and many other chronic and acute disease conditions, which are not featuring in the NLEM 201, are very frequently being prescribed in the country. Thus, the decision of keeping most of the popular FDCs outside the ambit of NLEM 2011 is rather strange.

Moreover, a 500 mg paracetamol tablet is under price control being in the NLEM 2011, but its 650 mg strength is not. There are many such examples.

These glaring loopholes in the NLEM 2011 pave the way for switching over to non-NLEM formulations of the same molecules, evading DPCO 2013. Many experts articulated, this process began just after the announcement of NLEM 2011 and a lot of ground was covered in this direction before DPCO 2013 was made effective.

Intense sales promotion and marketing of the same molecule/molecules in different Avatars, in a planned manner, have already started making NLEM 2011 much less effective than what was contemplated earlier.

Some examples:

As I said before, there would be umpteen number of instances of pharmaceutical companies planning to dodge the DPCO 2013 well in advance, commencing immediately after NLEM 2011 was announced. Nevertheless, I would give the following two examples as was reported by media, quoting FDA, Maharashtra:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to patients. GSK Consumer Healthcare claimed that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ achieved the fifth largest brand status among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months from its launch ending in February 2014. The issue was reportedly resolved at a later date with assertive intervention of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

2. Some pharmaceutical companies reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form.

Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?

From the above examples, if I put two and two together, the reason for DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth becomes much clearer.

Such alleged manipulations are grossly illegal, as specified in the DPCO 2013 itself. Thus, resorting to illegal acts of making similar drugs available to patients at a much higher price by tweaking formulations, should just not attract specified punitive measures, but may also be construed as acting against health interest of Indian patients…findings of the above ‘research report’, notwithstanding, even if it is accepted on its face value.

In my view, because of such alleged manipulations, and many NLEM 2011 drugs being either old or not in supply, we find in the above table that the volume growth of ‘Price Controlled NLEM drugs’ is much less than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19’ drugs. Interestingly, even ‘Out of Price Control’ drugs show lesser volume growth than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19 drugs’.

Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:

The wave of general concerns expressed on the relevance of NLEM 2011 reached the law makers of the country too. Questions were also asked in the Parliament on this subject.

Driven by the stark reality and the hard facts, the Union Government decided to revise NLEM 2011.

For this purpose, a ‘Core Committee of Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research & Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), was formed in May 2014.

The minutes of the first and second meetings of the ‘Core Committee of Experts’, held on June 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, respectively, were also made public.

On May 5, 2015, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers Ananth Kumar said in a written reply to the ‘Lok Sabha’ that “The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control.” This revision is taking place in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products, the Minister added.

Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?

If ‘drug price control’ is abolished in India, would pharma companies grow at a much faster rate in volume with commensurate increase in consumption, than what they have recorded during ‘limited price control’ regime in the country? This, in my view, is a matter of conjecture and could be a subject of wide speculation. I am saying this primarily due to the fact that India has emerged as one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical market during uninterrupted ‘drug price control regime’ spanning over the last 45 years.

Nevertheless, going by the retail audit data from the above table, it may not be necessarily so. The data shows that volume growth of ‘out of price control’ drugs is not the highest, by any measure. On the contrary, it is much less than ‘price controlled drugs under para 19 of DPCO 2013′, which are mainly prescribed for non-infectious chronic diseases on a large scale.

I am referring to AIOCD-AWACS data for just the last 12 months, because of space constraint, but have gone through the same for the entire DPCO 2015 period, till September’15. The reason for my zeroing in on DPCO 2015 is for the three simple reasons:

- The span of price control in this regime is the least, even lesser than DPCO 1995, which was 20 percent.

- It is much more liberal in its methodology of ‘Ceiling Price (CP)’ calculation, over any other previous DPCOs

- It has also a provision, for the first time ever, of automatic price increases every year for price controlled drugs, based on WPI.

A safeguard for patients?

Medicines enjoy the legal status of ‘essential commodities’ in India. Thus, many believe that ‘drug price control’ is a ‘pricing safeguard’ for Indian patients, especially for essential medicines and ‘out of expenses’ for drugs being as high as over 60 percent.

In the prevailing health care environment of India, the situation otherwise could even be possibly nightmarish. The key reason for the same has been attributed to ‘market failure’ by the Government, for most of the pharmaceutical products, where competition does not work. I discussed this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?” of April 27, 2015, in this Blog.

In India, ‘drug price control’ has successfully passed the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court, along with its endorsement and approval. Any attempt of its retraction by any Government, without facing a tough challenge before the Apex Court, seems near impossible.

Conclusion:

The fundamental reasons for overall low volume growth, or in other words, price-increase driven value growth of the IPM, I reckon, lie somewhere else, which could be a subject matter of a different debate altogether.

As I said in the past, IPM grew at an impressive speed consistently for decades, despite ‘drug price control’, and grumbling of the industry for the same. This high growth came from volume increase, price increase and new product introductions, the volume growth being the highest.

Most of the top 10 Indian pharma players, came into existence and grew so fast during the ‘drug price control’ regime. The home-grown promoter of the numero-uno of the IPM league table, is now the second richest person of India. These are all generic pharma companies.

Generally speaking, Indian pharma shares even today attract more investors consistently than any other sector for such a long time. Granted that these companies are drug exporters too, but they all gained their critical mass in partly ‘price controlled’ Indian market. The criticality of the need for consistent growth in the domestic market, by the way, still remains absolutely relevant to all the pharma players in India, even today, despite…whatever.

Growth oriented overall Indian pharma scenario remaining quite the same, ‘drug price control’ with a current span of just around 18 percent of the IPM, can’t possibly be a growth barrier. Otherwise, how does one explain the highest volume growth of ‘price controlled non-NLEM drugs’, which is even more than ‘out of price-control drugs’?

Be that as it may, in my view, implementation of public funded ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’ by the Indian Government, in any form or calling it by any other name, can possibly replace DPCO. Similar measures have been adopted by all the member countries of the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’ in this area, though following different paths, but nevertheless to attain the same goal.

Lamentably enough, the incumbent Government too has not ‘walked the talk’ on its number of assurances related to this core issue of health care in India.

Still, the hope lingers!

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.

Indian Patents Act To Prevail Undiluted…Finally

Posted on July 27, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Curiously enough, what a little birdie told me just a couple of weeks ago, very similar to that I read in various media reports even less than a week later.

It was related to a somewhat trepidatious national policy in the making on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India.

One major apprehension, besides a few others on this IPR Policy, was flying all over and nettling many. It was regarding the possibility of tweaking or dilution of the Indian Patents Act by the Government, coming under strong external pressure and also to get support on India’s food security in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Probably to douse this simmering fire of trepidation, well calibrated, unambiguous and reassuring narratives on the subject were unfolded recently by the Government, that too in a quick succession, which were somewhat as under.

On July 20, 2015, at an event organized by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reiterated that:

India’s IPR laws are quite in compliant with the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement.

There is no need for apprehension in any corner of the world as to what India’s patent regime is like.

The Minister also indicated at the same event that following a transparent process of drafting…and redrafting; the final blue print of the IPR policy has now been circulated to all concerned ministries for inter-ministerial consultations. After completion of that process soon, her Ministry would submit the final version to the Cabinet for approval.

It is now anticipated that by the end of this year the first ‘IPR Policy’ of India would be operational.

The creeping angst for a possible twitching in the country’s otherwise robust Patents Act, was mostly originated from a pointed recent utterance of Prime Minister Modi on this issue that we shall quickly explore in this article.

Another stronger assertion:

Immediately thereafter, while commenting on a related article published in an Indian business daily dated July 24, 2015, Minister Nirmala Sitharaman reasserted the following points even more emphatically and virtually in so many words:

India’s IPR laws are fully compliant with international obligations under the TRIPS agreement. This includes the Patents Act, 2005, whose provisions have time and again stood the test of judicial scrutiny.

There is no question of permitting ‘evergreening’ of patents, or of realigning our IPR laws to comply with US laws.

There is no question of sacrificing our IPR laws to get support from a particular country even on food security.

A brief background:

In October 2014, almost immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s return to India from the United States, the the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’, chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan, to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas.

The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised in such reports and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce & Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders, continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing robust patent regime of India.

Taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, the Think Tank’ released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments. According to Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, “Different people, countries, including the United States and other organizations have already given their inputs on the draft policy.”

The new policy would focus on stronger enforcement of IPR by increasing the manpower in IP offices and reducing pendency of IPR filings. It aims at bringing clarity to the existing laws and making changes wherever required to safeguard the interests of Indian industry and patent holders worldwide.

I reviewed this subject in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective.

Most recent apprehension:

The most recent spark for the speculation of a possible dilution in the Indian Patents Act 2005, came from the April 24, 20015 media report that quoted Prime Minister Modi expressing his intent on the issue, seemingly going overboard, as follows:

“India’s patent laws should be brought on par with global standards to make Asia’s third largest economy a hub for outsourced creative services.”

The basic purpose of making such an apparently ambiguous statement may be construed as an attempt to attract more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) for the country.

Whatever it may be, this announcement of the Prime Minister sent a strong signal to many as an impending major shift in his Government’s thinking to move away from an otherwise robust and a decade old IPR regime in India, undoubtedly under intense external pressure.

The above pronouncement from an otherwise tough minded Prime Minister came as a bolt from the blue, as it were, to many stakeholders. This is mainly because; India has so far been maintaining in all forum that its IPR regime is fully TRIPS compliant and garnered enough international support from the experts in this area, including Nobel Laureates.

The Prime Minister made his intent even stronger, when he further elaborated his argument as under:

“If we don’t work towards bringing our intellectual property rights at par with global parameters, then the world will not keep relations with us. If we give confidence to the world on IPR, then we can become a destination globally for their creative work.”

Some American Government agencies reportedly lapped up Prime Minister Modi’s statement as they openly commented as follows:

“The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India expeditiously undertake this initiative”

Intriguing comment:

Prime Minister Modi’s comment in this regard that “India needs to bring its patent laws on par with global standards,” comes of rather intriguing to many domain experts, as TRIPS agreement is the only universally accepted ‘Global Standard’ for IPR. Even the new Government has reiterated that Indian patent regime is fully TRIPS compliant.

India welcomes and encourages innovation:

With the enactment of Patents Act 2005, India has demonstrated that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and pharma patents in particular, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

There are still some loose knots in the process of speedy resolution of all IP related disputes and creation of a desirable ecosystem for innovation in the country, that the new IPR Policy is expected to effectively address, soon.

Two fundamental changes that the US is looking for:

Leaving aside the peripheral ones, the following two are the center pieces where the United States would want India to dilute its Patents Act 2005 considerably:

Patentability for all types of innovation, including ‘me-too’ ones and evergreening of patents, which would delay entry of affordable generic drugs.

“Compulsory Licensing (CL)” provisions, other than during natural calamities.

The status today:

Though the Prime Minister has not further spoken on this subject publicly, from the recent statements of the Union Minster of Commerce and Industry it seems rather clear that for greater public health interest, India has decided to keep its Patents Act undiluted, at least, for now.

The Union Government has distinctly explained its stand in the following two areas:

I. No…No, to ‘Evergreening’ of patents in India:

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet are as expensive, if not more than the original ones.

In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

“Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.”

The study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:

Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘evergreening’ pharmaceutical patents that can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.

Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive steps are used to grant patents.

Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.

Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

Indian Patents Act under its section 3(d), discourages the above practices for public health interest. This particular provision, though absolutely TRIPS compliant is not followed in the developed markets, predominantly for commercial reasons. Hence the mounting pressure is on India for its major dilution.

II. Compulsory License (CL) provisions would stay to prevent misuse and abuse:

This is another major safeguard provision for the patients against abuse and misuse of patents, including obscene price tags of patented drugs, non-working of patents as a commercial strategy, limited availability, besides extreme urgency and some other situations. Though TRIPS very clearly allows all such provisions, India has so far granted just one CL.

With these India has amply demonstrated that CL provisions are important safeguards for the country and not for abuse or misuse by any one, including the Government. Moreover, it has to pass the acid test of rigorous judicial scrutiny that includes the Supreme Court of India.

Despite all these, more scares are being created around CL provisions in India than what is the reality in the country.

Various safeguards and deterrents against misuse and abuse of patents are absolutely essential for public health interest. Hence there is naturally no question of going back from such provisions in the statute.

It is worth noting, if Indian Patent regime is not TRIPS compliant, why hasn’t any country complained against India to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for having all these provisions in the Indian Patents Act, as yet?

India shows the new IPR way:

According to available reports, the following countries are coming closer to the Indian pharma patent regime:

Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents
Peru, Columbia and some other South American countries have placed curbs
Philippines has similar provisions
South Africa is contemplating to incorporate such steps
Australia is deliberating on making the law tougher

Positive reverberations in the domestic pharma sector:

Home grown pharma players seem to be visibly happy too, as the overall stand of the Government in this regards is getting clearer.

This in many ways gets vindicated, when a promoter, chairperson and managing director of a mid-size Indian Pharma and Biotech company, with high media visibility, reportedly comments on the finalization of Indian IPR Policy as follows:

“There is a need to protect interest and disallow monopolies like big pharma or big companies/corporates that want to invest and take advantage of the Indian market.”

Concerns of some ‘Who’s Who’:

The following is just an example of such concern:

On February 10, 2015, the Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, made the following comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’:

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

As things stand today, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz’s worst apprehension on the Indian Patent regime, in all probability would not come true.

Conclusion:

For quite some time, Indian Government has been under intense nagging from the United States, other developed countries, many drug MNCs and the pharma lobby groups lavishly funded by them; to effect major changes in the Patents Act of the country that currently denies unreasonable commercial exploitations, in many ways. Section 3(d) of the statute is just one of the key examples.

The browbeaters of such ilk keep pontificating the importance of ‘innovation’ and that too with a condescending undertone, as if the Indian Government is blissfully ignorant about it.

They allegedly want the Government to dilute the robust safeguard provisions of Indian Patents Act, trying to unfairly tilt the balance of justice in their favor. Consequently, it would go against the patients’ health interest by considerably delaying entry of cheaper generic equivalents, of ‘me-too’ type of inventions, in the country.

Despite initial apprehensions based on the possible misconstrued observation of the Prime Minister Modi on this issue, clear and unambiguous recent assertions of the Government on the patent regime of India, especially in the ‘count-down’ days of the new IPR Policy announcements, is reassuring. It goes without saying, this cannot happen without the benediction of India’s all-powerful Prime minister.

As stated in the draft document, let us hope that the new IPR Policy would help establishing a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.

Under this backdrop, it now emerges almost indubitably that Indian Patents Act 2005 would continue to prevail undiluted much to the dismay of its fiercest critics…Finally?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Union Budget Proposal 2015-16 of India : Is Pharma Industry Now Out of Focus?

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Budget Expectations:

Overall expectations of the Pharma Industry in India from the Union Budget perspective was very modest this year. The key areas were as follows:

- To encourage innovation, in-house R&D exemption limit was expected to be raised from 200 percent to 250 percent

- Excise duty rationalization was expected on:

Formulations (5 percent)
API (10 percent)

- A reduction of MAT (20 percent) was expected on SEZ

Union Budget Proposals:

Status quo

Impact:

In view of this scenario, there has been virtually no sector-specific direct impact of the Union Budget 2015-16 on the Pharma Industry. This critical sector seems to be out of focus of the Government from the budget perspective, at least for now.

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.

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Recent price reductions of a number of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs falling outside the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), have attracted fury of the pharma industry . By a notification dated July 10, 2014, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invoked Para 19 of the DPCO 2013 for these price changes, the implications of which would indeed be far reaching.

NPPA has now decided to examine inter-brand price variation for single ingredient formulations in eight therapeutic groups, which, besides cardiovascular and diabetic drugs, would include, anti-cancer, HIV/AIDS, anti-TB, anti-malaria, anti-asthmatic and immunological (sera/vaccines). In these therapy areas, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the brand(s) exceeding 25 per cent of the simple average price of all in the same molecular category having 1 percent or above market share, would be capped at the 25 per cent level.

Pharma industry, in general, feels that this ‘unwelcoming decision’ of the NPPA, which allegedly goes beyond the scope and spirit of DPCO 2013, would invite great uncertainty in its business environment.

On the other hand, many consider this price reduction as a ‘Good Omen’ for millions of patients suffering from related life-long ailments. They argue, the purpose of this ‘Bitter Pill” of the NPPA, is to send a clear message to the pharma industry to shape-up with responsible drug pricing.

The new Minister’s recent statement:

It may not be a bad idea to take into consideration the above notification of the NPPA in the light of what the new minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar said on May 28, 2014. According to media report, the Minister expressed his intent as follows:

“… As far as branded medicines of multinational pharmaceutical companies are concerned, we will talk to all of them and try to bring down prices of essential drugs for poor by 25-40 per cent… The pharmaceutical industry is very important for the health of the country, he added…our main mission will be to ensure the availability of all necessary medicines at affordable prices, especially for poor across the country.”

It is, therefore, quite possible that the NPPA’s decision on price reduction of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs has the Minister’s concurrence.

Industry’s key concern:

This recent decision of the NPPA has reportedly angered the industry, as the Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) clearly articulates two basic criteria for drug price control in India, as follows:

1. Span of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) on the ‘essentiality criteria’ of the drugs, which in turn is based on the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)

2. Methodology of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) with a clear departure from ‘Cost-Based Price Control’ to the ‘Market-Based Price Control’.

The industry alleges violation of these criteria for the recently announced price reduction of a number of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, as those do not fall under NLEM 2011.

Price variation is of no-use to patients for prescription drugs:

As the prices of non-scheduled formulations are not fixed by the NPPA, which can virtually be launched at any price to the market, there has been a huge variation of prices between the branded generics within the same chemical entity/entities. Following is a quick example:

Molecule	Disease	MRP of Lowest Price Brand	MRP of Highest Price Brand
Telmisartan 10’s	Hypertension	Rs. 25	Rs. 385
Glimeperide 10’s	Diabetes	Rs. 40	Rs. 133 (Brand Leader)

From this chart, one may be able to fathom some basis in the NPPA’s argument that similar price variations in many branded-generics are of no-consequence for prescription drugs, as doctors decide the medicines that a patient would take. If doctors were influenced to prescribe high priced medicines, the patients would require paying more for those drugs, further increasing their Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses. It is also not uncommon that highest price brands are category-leaders too, as indicated in the table above.

Key lacunae in DPCO 2013:

As highlighted in my earlier blog post titled “Is The New ’Market Based Pricing Model’ Fundamentally Flawed?”, even besides that specific drawback in the methodology of price control in DPCO 2013, NLEM 2011 does not also cover a wide range of essential drugs.

NLEM 2011 does not cover many combinations of TB drugs, a large number of important drugs for diabetes and hypertension, which I shall deliberate in just a bit.

Many other critical life saving medicines, such as, anti-cancer drugs, expensive antibiotics and products needed for organ transplantation have been left out of price control. In fact, the prices of a number of these drugs have reportedly gone up after the notification of DPCO 2013.

The government has now reportedly admitted in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the market value and share of medicines covered by new DPCO 2013, as ‘Essential Drugs’, is a meager 18 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM).

As a result, DPCO 2013 based on NLEM 2011 undermines the entire objective of making essential drugs affordable to all.

All these lacunae in the current DPCO 2013 calls for a major revision of NLEM 2011. The Union Health Ministry has reportedly initiated steps to revise the list considering the existing market conditions and usage of drugs by the patients.

Invocation of a ‘Safeguard Provision’ in DPCO 2013:

Probably anticipating this scenario, a key safeguard provision was included in Para 19 of DPCO 2013, which reads as follows:

“Fixation of ceiling price of a drug under certain circumstances:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the Government may, in case of extra-ordinary circumstances, if it considers necessary so to do in public interest, fix the ceiling price or retail price of any Drug for such period, as it may deem fit and where the ceiling price or retail price of the drug is already fixed and notified, the Government may allow an increase or decrease in the ceiling price or the retail price, as the case may be, irrespective of annual wholesale price index for that year.”

It now appears, NPPA could realize the key limitations of DPCO 2013, which was put in place rather hastily, in course of its implementation for over one year. Consequently, the patients’ long standing plight with high drug costs for many common life style diseases that are not featuring in NLEM 2011, prompted the the drug regulator in its above notification to bring 108 non-scheduled formulation packs of diabetic, cardiac and other drugs under Para 19 of DPCO 2013, catalyzing an outcry within the pharmaceutical industry in India. Out of these 108 formulation packs, 50 come under anti-diabetic and cardiovascular medicines.

Many important drugs are outside NLEM 2011:

Following is an example of the important cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs, which are not featuring in the NLEM 2011 and have now been brought under Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

Sitagliptin, Voglibose, Acarbose, Metformin hcl, Ambrisentan, Amlodipine, Atenolol, Atorvastatin, Bisoprolol, Bosentan, Gliclazide, Glimepiride, Miglitol, Repaglinide, Pioglitazone, Carvedilol, Clopidogrel, Coumarin, Diltiazem, Dobutamine, Enalapril, Rosuvastatin, Simvastatin, Telmisartan, Terazosin, Torasemide, Trimetazidine and Valsartan, Enoxaparin, Eplerenone, Esatenolol, Fenofibrate, Heparin, Indapamide, Irbesartan, Isosorbide, Ivabradine, Labetalol, Levocarnitine, Lisinopril, Metolazone, Metoprolol, Nebivolol, Nicorandil, Nitroglycerin, Olmesartan, Prasugrel, Prazosin, Propranolol, Ramipril.

More reasons for industry outcry:

As reported in the media, the industry outcry reportedly highlights, besides what I have cited above, the following:

The price control order under Para 19 has been notified without any prior consultation with the industry.

The manner and method in which this unilateral decision has been taken is untenable.

The NPPA’s reasoning, about exploitative pricing by the industry as the reason for such a move, is incorrect given that every product category (in consideration) has approximately 30-70 brand options across price ranges for physicians and patients to choose from. The premise that products are not accessible due to affordability is misplaced. (The above table explains this point).

Disease environment was same when the government had cleared the policy and no “extraordinary circumstance” has emerged since then for the regulator to invoke Para 19 in public interest.

NPPA has exceeded its brief and gone into policy-making.

NPPA’s rationale for invoking Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

On the other hand, following reasons were cited by the NPPA for taking this decision:

The aim of DPCO 2013 is to ensure that essential drugs are available to all at affordable prices. The Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated November 12, 2002 in SLP no. 3668/2003 have directed the Government to ensure that essential and life saving drugs do not fall outside the ambit of price control, which has the force of law.

The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers has delegated the powers in respect of specified paragraphs of the DPCO 2013, including paragraph 19, to be exercised by the NPPA on behalf of the Central Government in public interest.

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure as different brands of the same drug formulation identical to each other vary disproportionately in terms of price.

The different brands of the same drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

The main reason for market failure is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for Government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role that pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, such intervention becomes necessary. This assumes greater significance, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most, putting huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

There is very high incidence of diabetes in the country, which affects around 61 million persons and the figure is expected to cross 100 million by 2030 as per the projection of the International Diabetes Federation; and it is estimated that every year nearly 1 million people in the country die due to diabetes and hypertension.

The drug regulator categorically mentions that In accordance with the guidelines issued by the NPPA, after approval of the ‘Competent Authority’, these price fixations of non-scheduled formulations under Para 19 of DPCO 2013 have been made.

Constituents of the same Ministry with conflicting view points:

Though both NPPA and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) come under Mr. Ananth Kumar, the new Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, both these constituents seem to have conflicting views on this important issue.

The pharma industry reportedly has sought the DoP’s intervention in this matter. The DoP, in turn, is learnt to have requested for the opinion of the Ministry of Law on using ‘Para 19′ provision in favor of public interest by the NPPA, invoking the power assigned to the drug regulator.

Another route for the industry is to legally challenge the said notification of the NPPA. However, one should keep in mind that a PIL is still pending before the Supreme Court questioning the validity DPCO 2013.

The arguments for and against:

Taking all the above points into consideration, the following two important areas of debate have now emerged on this NPPA notification, both in favor and also against:

A. Nothing has materially changed since DPCO 2013 was put in place:

Industry sources highlight that he following two points, that triggered NPPA’s invoking Para 19, have been there for a long time, including the period when the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) was formulated:

- Huge price differences among various branded generics of the same molecule

- Cardiovascular ailments and diabetes have assumed endemic proportion

The other group counters that, if mistakes were made while formulating the NPPP 2012 because of intense pressure from vested interests in the erstwhile regime, why corrective actions can’t be taken now?

B. NPPA has exceeded its brief:

Industry sources question, how could NPPA possibly issue such notification of price reduction for non-scheduled formulations, as it is not a policy maker?

Others counter with equal zest: Of course NPPA is not a policy maker, it is a drug price regulator… And as a price regulator, it has implemented Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in the right earnest with the requisite powers conferred on it.

The impact:

According to published data, after the latest price revisions of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, around 21 per cent of the anti-diabetic drug market faces the ceiling price, while the total market of cardiovascular medicines under price control is now estimated at around 58 per cent, with an overall adverse impact of reportedly Rs 550 Crore on the Indian Pharmaceutical Market. Overall price reduction for these two categories would range between 5 and 35 per cent, the average being around 12 per cent.

MNCs seem to have been hit harder:

An additional bad news for the MNCs is that the scope of Para 19 has now gone beyond the generic space and included even patented product.

For the first time a patented product Sitagliptin has been brought under the purview of Drug price Control order. This decision could give an unprecedented handle to the NPPA to regulate prices of even patented drugs through invocation of Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in future. Moreover, many high-priced branded generics of MNCs are brand leaders too. Thus, in a relative yardstick, invocation of Para 19 would hit the MNCs harder, creating an uncertainty in their business environment.

Conclusion:

Drug prices are cheapest in India in dollar terms, claims the pharma industry. Does this claim hold much water? May be not, because it should be realistically seen in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and Per Capita Income in India. In that sense many would argue that drug prices in India, on the contrary, are not cheaper at all.

Moreover, it is important to take into cognizance the huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics due to a flawed system, as patients have no role to play in choosing a drug (within the same molecule) that they would need to buy. It is the doctor who is the sole prescription decision maker, where price, per se, may not play a very significant role.

In a situation like this, despite the anger of the industry, many would ponder whether or not NPPA’s engagement and reasoning, on behalf of the Government, to bring some sense in the madness of drug pricing in India be just wished away?

Cheaper medicines in general and generic drugs in particular, would always make the patients and the payor happy, leaving the industry mostly angry.

Keenly observing the recent series of events and taking note of a number of highly credible viewpoints, besides a couple of seemingly spoon-fed, ill-informed and run-of-the mill type editorials, this is about time for the stakeholders to judge without any bias what is right for the country, its people and of course the business to work out a win-win solution, dousing the likes of ‘Fire in The Blood‘, once and for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

In VUCA World: Changing Dynamics of Prescription Generation Process

Posted on November 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The acronym VUCA is often being used to emphasize upon the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity in various situations. The term has been derived from military vocabulary and is being used since 1990s in the business management parlance. VUCA is also considered as a practical code for awareness and readiness.

I find all the elements of VUCA playing an active role in the prescription demand generation space too, as it is based on various assumptions of what will work and what won’t in a fast changing pharmaceuticals business environment.

The interplay:

Primary interplay in the sustainable prescription demand generation process of today’s digitally empowered VUCA environment, I reckon, could be as follows:

Volatility: Fast changing dynamics of medical communication with interfaces made of emerging modern technological tools carrying high risks of rapid obsolescence.
Uncertainty: Lack of predictability in assessing outcomes of increasingly expensive product detailing inputs, coupled with too many surprise elements popping-up in the environment almost from nowhere and more frequently.
Complexity: Multi-factorial Doctor-Medical Representative (MR) interactions, which get even more complicated with increasing time constraints for effective product detailing to take place.
Ambiguity: Difficult to fathom changing needs of the doctors/payors, leading to increasing cause-and-effect confusion by the pharma marketing strategy planners.

Keeping these in view, today I shall deliberate on the ‘Criticality of Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ for sustainable prescription demand generation in a VUCA environment.

The key influencer – a new study:

A research study published in June 2013, in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’ establishes that the interaction between physicians and MRs, though essential for improvement of medical care, is indeed complex. This is mainly because of the apprehension that conflict of interests may affect the doctors’ prescription decision-making process.

However, the fact comes out, the doctors tend to prescribe more of expensive medical products after interacting with MRs from the concerned manufacturing companies, which, in turn, raises the treatment costs for patients.

Study established MRs influence prescription decision:

This particular AHJ study compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents, Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that MR presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced on the use of DES, and resulted in higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

Interestingly on such interactions between the MRs and the drug/devices industry two opposite viewpoints emerge.

‘MR-Doctor interaction important‘ – Industry:

Quoting the Associate General Counsel and Director of Legal and Medical Affairs at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical technology trade association, Reuters reported, “interactions between sales representatives and doctors benefit patients and are supported by professional medical organizations.”

‘MR interaction should not influence prescription decision’ – Doctors:

In the same report, the study’s lead author was quoted saying, “We need to evaluate carefully any interactions with medical industry to ensure that we minimize an effect on our decision making process.”

The bottom-line, though the debate continues:

This debate will keep continuing even in the years ahead. Be that as it may, the key fact that emerges out of the above study is, MRs do play a critical role in the prescription decision-making process of the doctors, especially for expensive medical products . Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies will prefer maintaining such ‘influencing’ roles of MRs to boost revenues of their respective brands.

This process assumes even greater importance in a VUCA world, as situation specific more frequent human interventions, strongly backed by state of art technological supports, would need to be effectively deployed for generation of sustainable prescription demand to excel in business.

The X-Factor:

However, one of the most challenging issues even in a VUCA situation is that pharma players continue and will continue to target the same sets of prolific prescribers for any given class of products in pursuit of success. As a result, time being so limited, very often even after waiting for hours MRs may not be able to meet the key prescribers.

Moreover, as and when the meeting takes place, it may well get restricted to just a very brief discussion due to the X Factor – paucity of the doctors’ time. Thus, delivering an effective product message in such a short time becomes increasingly challenging. Further, the difficulty in arresting un-interrupted attention of the busy practitioners due to X-Factor when they are with patients, compounds the problem.

Pivotal role of state of art technological tools:

The effectiveness of connection between respective brands of different drug makers and the doctors can be greatly facilitated with the application of state of art technology and modern internet based tools in varying proportions, as the sales and marketing communication strategy would dictate.

This area is emerging as a crafty game, which calls for wide-scale application of analytics.

Traditional strategies not enough:

In a VUCA world, while traditional face-to-face product detailing to doctors may continue to be the primary means for prescription demand generation, experimentation with a good number of new Internet based initiatives has already been started, as I discussed in my earlier article.

Hence, the concepts of digital marketing and e-detailing are gaining ground fast. Such initiatives of augmented digital communication of key marketing messages to doctors, would also help driving the key customers’ traffic to respective product Websites of the concerned companies for more detailed and convincing medical treatment solutions, as and when required by the busy doctors.

Types of digital interventions:

These digital interventions may include:

Highly targeted brand specific e-mailing responding to pre-identified needs of individual doctors
Sample ordering as per requirements of doctors
Live online product presentations at a time convenient to individual doctors
Quick and need-based problem solution centric online chats 24×7
Strategic usage of social media, backed by a robust pre-decided key output measuring matrix

However, the mix of each of these digital applications will need to be carefully worked out as robust supporting measures to key prescription demand generation activities, spearheaded by the MRs.

MRs to remain as ‘Spearheads’:

In my view, MRs would still remain the frontline force in the emerging world (dis)order, may be lesser in number, for sustainable prescription demand generation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take them on board upfront and train suitably to make the modern digital interfaces successful as powerful differentiating support tools.

Technology based training on digital marketing and e-detailing as empowering initiatives, demonstrating tangible benefits that such high tech-interventions can offer in the overall sales performance of MRs, would play a critical role. Such efforts would, in turn, immensely help making digital augmentation strategies for pharma detailing successful, in the long run.

MR involvement is critical:

In my view, to be successful in a VUCA environment with all these endeavors, however tech-intensives those may be, there will be a critical need to make the MRs understand and learn the process. In tandem, it is equally important to actively engage them in the execution of the integrated medical communication strategy of the concerned companies.

Keeping this perspective in mind, I guess, it will be quite apt to quote Ben Franklyn, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, scientist, musician, inventor and economist, all in one, who once wrote:

“Tell me and I forget,

Teach me and I remember,

Involve me and I learn”

Thus, MRs would continue to have a critical role to play in the demand generation process for prescription medicines. However, they must be properly trained to be able to provide the types of knowledge and information that the doctors may not have ready access from elsewhere.

The entire process would, at the same time, require massive technological interventions, not incremental in nature but radical in scope and dimensions, and at a much wider scale than what we have been attempting today.

Challenges in India:

The very concept of VUCA in the changing dynamics of sustainable prescription demand generation, brings to the fore the issue of quality of MRs in India.

Currently there is a wide, both inter and intra company, variation in the educational qualifications, relevant product and disease area knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards between MRs in our country.

Employability of MR in a VUCA world:

Just when we talk about augmented digital interfaces in medical communications, there exists a huge challenge in the country to strike a right balance between the level/quality of sales pitch generated by the MRs for a brand.

At times, many of them may not be properly armed with requisite scientific knowledge, and the basic norms of professional conduct/ ethical standards, while rendering their services.

They may not also be able to handle the sophisticated technological tools with quick application of minds. Hence, the subject of employability of MR in a VUCA world needs to be addressed afresh in India.

‘One size fits all’ strategies:

To make it happen, the pharmaceutical players would require to jettison, ‘one size fits all’ types of strategies in a VUCA world.

In tandem, pharma marketing strategists will need to be intimately conversant with a relatively difficult process of cerebral gymnastics to help formulating individual key prescriber-centric communication strategies, where MRs can play a key role with optimal digital interventions.

This is possible, if supported by the respective employers creating an environment of empowerment, backed by requisite product training, technological tools, modern behavioral inputs and above all by making investments to create of a large sustainable emotional capital for longer term business excellence.

Conclusion:

All the elements of VUCA would keep playing very critical roles in sustainable prescription demand generation process in the years to come, more than ever before.

There is a critical need to understand the interplay between each of these dynamics on an ongoing basis to make strategic modifications quickly, whenever required. This is important, as the prowess to introduce right changes at right times will differentiate men from the boys in this ultimate ball game of the pharma industry.

To succeed in a VUCA environment, pharmaceutical companies may choose to predominantly focus on harnessing their technological expertise.

However, to face the waves of virtually unpredictable continuous change, only technology based efforts, I reckon, are less likely to fructify. Unless, these high- tech interventions are spearheaded by time-specific fast enough and intelligent skilled human responses in form of MRs.

Having said that, it would be foolhardy to even think of completely taming VUCA with whatever human and technological wherewithal that any pharma player may be able to garner to achieve its goals. It is, in fact, a matter of relativity in managing VUCA in a given situation at a given time.

Thus I believe, there is, on the contrary, a need to leverage a VUCA environment, for creation of an ‘Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ in the product detailing process with a high sense of urgency. This would be critical to gain cutting edge advantages for generation of increased prescription demand in a sustainable way.

For the pharmaceutical marketing strategists, this new ball game would obviously not be a piece of cake either, as the key success factors would involve the right mindset of first unlearning and then relearning the process on an ongoing basis, virtually in all time to come

With this perspective, I conclude by quoting the famous American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler, who once said,

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on October 28, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
Patented products’ pricing rationale,
Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example, the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

Comparing them to a placebo
Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.

These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.

These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.

These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India.

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year.

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1	US Chamber of Commerce	136.3
2	National Association of Realtors	41.5
3	Blue Cross / Blue Shield	22.5
4	General Electric	21.1
5	American Hospital Association	19.2
6	National Cable & Telecom. Association	18.9
7	Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)	18.5
8	Google	18.2
9	Northrop Grumman	17.5
10	AT&T	17.4
11	American Medical Association	16.5
12	Boeing	15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

Intellectual Property (IP)
Patent
Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe:

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

	Company	Amount US$ Million	Year	Reasons
1.	GlaxoSmithKline	3, 000	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2.	Abbott	1,500	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3.	Johnson & Johnson	1,200	2012	Unlawful promotion
4.	Merck	950	2011	Unlawful promotion
5.	Ranbaxy	500	2012	Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6.	Johnson & Johnson	327	2011	Unlawful promotion
7.	Boehringer Ingelheim	280	2011	Overcharging government health programs
8.	Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit	280	2010	Overcharging government health programs
9.	Elan	203	2010	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10.	Johnson & Johnson	158	2012	Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest,

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others, a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

“Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”

“Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A	23% to 34%
R&D	12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients.

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI, on paper, has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities related to CMEs and others, from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession or any medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It is expected that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials would possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country.

Another article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010.

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on July 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs (Types of Defective Product Liability Claims)

Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects, even though properly manufactured (Damages in Defective Products Cases.)

Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

- Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

- Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: industry

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

Indian Patents Act To Prevail Undiluted…Finally

Union Budget Proposal 2015-16 of India : Is Pharma Industry Now Out of Focus?

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?