Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

It’s happening in the West, and is equally widespread in the Eastern part of the globe too, though in different ways and forms, as both the national and international media have been reporting, consistently. The phenomenon is all pervasive, and directed towards stalling almost all possible future laws and policies that a large section of the pharma industry sees as a potential apocalypse for their business models.

It has a wide reach and covers, for example, the policy-decision makers or possible policy-decision makers in the near future, other policy influencers, many hospitals, and the final interface with the patients – the prescription decision makers.

Although, it affects health care as a whole, in this article I shall focus just on the pharma industry.

Looking West:

While looking at the West, I would cite a recent example from the United States. It’s yet another déjà vu for the western pharma industry.

On August 26, 2016, ‘The Los Angeles Times’ in an article titled, “Drug companies spend millions to keep charging high prices” stated, “Of roughly US$ 250 million raised for and against 17 ballot measures coming before California voters in November, more than a quarter of that amount – about US$ 70 million – has been contributed by deep-pocketed drug companies to defeat the state’s Drug Price Relief Act.”

The Drug Price Relief Act of California, is aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable for people in Medi-Cal and other state programs by requiring that California pays no more than what’s paid for the same drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the United States. It would, in other words, protect state taxpayers from being ripped off.

The report also quoted Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation saying that industry donations to crush the Drug Price Relief Act “will top US$ 100 million by the election, I’m quite certain of it.” He further added, “They see this as the apocalypse for their business model.”

Looking East:

While citing a related example from the eastern part of the globe, I shall draw one from nearer home – India, as China has already been much discussed on this matter. This particular media report on a wide-spread pharma industry practice, though took place in a different form, as compared to the United States, belongs to the same genre, and captures yet another déjà vu involving the pharma players operating in the eastern world, similar to what’s happening in the west.

India:

On August 30, 2016 a report published in ‘The Economic Times’ titled, “Pharma cos offer freebies to doctors, violate code: MP” quoted a serious allegation of a Rajya Sabha Member of the Parliament on this issue. The MP claims, he has evidence of four drug companies’ recently bribing doctors across India to push their products. These four companies include both large Indian and multinational pharma players, and two out of these four features, among the top five companies of the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The lawmaker further said, “I am waiting for the minister’s response on this issue. Nothing has come so far. We also have the names of the doctors who have taken bribes, which we will release eventually,”

Another September 06, 2016 report, published by the same business daily in India, categorically mentioned that TOI has documents to establish that one of these companies took hundreds of doctors from across India to places like Vancouver, Amsterdam, Oslo, Venice, New York, Boston, Brussels and Moscow. The documents reportedly include email exchanges between the company executives, city-wise lists of doctors with ‘legacy codes’, names of spouses, passport copies and visa copies, and show how the company has spent several millions of rupees in taking doctors and sometimes even their spouses, ostensibly to attend medical conferences.

Other NGOs have also reportedly submitted proof of the same to the Government for remedial measures in India, against such gross ongoing unethical practices in pharma marketing.

It is worth mentioning here that all these expenses are part of the marketing budget of a company and the sum total of which is built into the ‘retail price to the patients’ of the respective drugs, even in India.

Two broad processes for the same goal:

Thus it emerges, very broadly, there are two key processes followed by many in the pharma industry to achieve the same goal of increasing profit. These are as follows:

Marketing malpractices in various forms to influence prescription decision
Arbitrary increase of drug prices, for both branded and generic medicines

The justification:

Many global pharma majors still keep justifying, though the number of its believers is fast dwindling, that the high new drug prices have a linear relationship with the cost of new drug innovation. Even for argument’s sake one nods in favor, the critical question that needs to be answered is, if this is the basic or primary axle on which the wheel of innovation moves, won’t affordability and access to drugs for a significant number of the population be seriously compromised?

If not, why is this furor, across the world, is fast assuming a snowballing effect? Why are even the generic drug prices going up steeply even in the United States, where some of the largest Indian drug manufacturers are being questioned for the same by the competent authorities of the country?

I deliberated on a similar subject in my article titled, “The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs”, published in this Blog on May 20, 2016.

Marketing malpractices:

Laws are fast catching up to book the offenders resorting to pharma marketing malpractices in most of the countries of the world, including China. This is vindicated by the fact that global pharma players are now paying billions of dollars a fine, in various countries, especially in the West.

Just as no criminal law can totally eliminate any crime, anywhere in the world, despite a heavy dent in pharma’s reputation related to this area, many companies still continue to indulge in such malpractices, blatantly, and even with some brazenness.

India:

Unfortunately, in India, the inertia to catch the bull by the horn and lack of governance in this regard continues, making patients pay a heavy price. As the above media report indicates, both MNCs and the local players indulge into this deplorable activity almost without any inhibition. As many industry watchers believe, some companies have started hiring these services through professional third parties just to create a facade for taking the high moral ground, as and when required, both with the government and also other stakeholders.

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

UCPMP, though not a panacea, was aimed at containing pharma marketing malpractices in India. However, as happened with any other voluntary pharma marketing code, be it of a global drug major or their trade associations, similar non-compliances were detected even by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard to the code, apparently prompted the DoP contemplating to make the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizer – Mr. Ananth Kumar, in his reply in the Indian Parliament, to a ‘Lok Sabha Starred Question No: 238’ on the UCPMP based on the inputs received, also had admitted:

“The Government had announced Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Practices (UCPMP) which was to be adopted voluntarily w.e.f. 1st January, 2015 for a period of six months and has last been extended up to 30.06.2016. After reviewing the same it was found that the voluntary code was not working as expected. The Government consulted the stakeholders, including NGO’s / Civil Society members and after examining their suggestions it is now looking into the viability of making the Code Statutory.”

This seems to be yet another assurance, and expression of a good intent by the Union Minister. The fact today is, after extending the UCPMP in its original form up to June 30, 2016 with four extensions and despite the Government’s public admission that it is not working, by a circular dated August 30, 2016, the Government has informed all concerned, yet again, that voluntary UCPMP has now been extended ‘till further orders’.

This not only creates public apprehension on the DoP’s true intent on the subject, but also gives enough room for speculation regarding behind the scene power play by the vested interests to keep a mandatory UCPMP, having sufficient legal teeth, away, as long as possible. Are these forces then also visualizing its enforcement as an apocalypse for their business models in India too?

Thus, the possibility of containing pharma marketing malpractices in India is still charting in the realm of the decision makers’ assurances and no further.

Arbitrary drug price increases:

Arbitrary price increases of important drugs are drawing increasing public ire in the West, the latest being a 400 percent price increase of generic EpiPen of Mylan. This is now being considered yet another business malpractice in the pharma industry, as whole.

No robust regulatory or legal measure is now being followed in the West to contain the drug over pricing public health menace. Thus, it is increasingly assuming a critical political significance today to win over the voters, especially in the forthcoming Presidential election of the United States.

Thus, as reported by Reuters, on September 02, 2016, Hillary Clinton announced that, if elected, she would create an oversight panel to protect the consumers of the United States from large price hikes on longer-available, life-saving drugs and to import alternative treatments if necessary, adding to her pledges to rein in overall drug prices.

She would give the ‘Oversight Panel’ an aggressive new set of enforcement tools, including the ability to levy fines and impose penalties on manufacturers when there has been an unjustified, outlier price increase on a long-available or generic drug.

On September 08, 2016, reacting to these proposed measures articulated by Hilary Clinton, the global CEO of the world’s largest pharma player reportedly commented, as expected, that it “will be very negative for innovation.”

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is, even in the United Sates, a transparent mechanism to deal with arbitrary price increases of the existing important medicines, still charts in the realm of several assurances of the probable decision makers, just as it is India to effectively deal with pharma marketing malpractices.

A global CEO’s lone voice stands out:

In this context, I would start with yet another example of astronomical price increase of a widely used anti-diabetic product, besides EpiPen of Mylan. According to Dr. Mayer Davidson, Professor of Medicine at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, who has carefully tracked the rapid and repeated increases, from 2011 to 2013 the wholesale price of insulin went up by as much as 62 percent in the United States. Whereas, from 2013 to 2015 the price jumped again, from a low of 33 percent to as much as 107 percent.

In the midst of this scary situation, a solitary and apparently a saner voice from the global pharma industry stands out. According to an article published in the Forbes Magazine on September 06, 2016, Brent Saunders, CEO of Allergan, ‘explicitly renounced egregious price increases.’ Saunders also said that the industry needs to ‘end its addiction to price hikes far in excess of inflation, often taken several times in a single year.’ While outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” Saunders vowed that Allergan would:

Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts.
Limit price increases to once per year.
Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

Though this seems to be a lone voice in the pharma industry, it makes the CEO stand much taller than his peers.

India:

On this score, India has already put in place the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ to regulate the drug prices of primarily those falling under the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’. However, it is a different matter that as per its own public admission, NPPA is still unable to strictly enforce these price controls, with significant incidences of non-compliance. Therefore, the net benefits to the patients in India for having this mechanism, is indeed arguable.

The core issue:

All that we witness in this area are mostly assurances, promises and good intent on the part of various Governments of different political dispensation, over the last several decades. The same indifference to public health care, in general, continues. Nothing seems to be working effectively in the public health care space of the country, even today. A large section of patients, bearing the tough burden of the highest out of pocket health expenditure in India, are under significant consequential stress of all kinds.

An important part of this scenario is well-captured in the statement of the erstwhile Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016, when he said, “In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened.”

Is it a legacy? Possibly yes. But, who will fix it, and what steps are we taking now for its satisfactory resolution?

The core issue in the pharmaceutical arena is, therefore, about striking an optimal balance between drug profitability and patient affordability, to avoid any adverse impact on access to drugs for a large majority of population in the world.

Conclusion:

Thus, it appears to me, if those who now decide for the people’s health interest, also refuse to wake up from deep slumber and remain as indifferent as before, soon we may hear or read or experience yet another or more of similar deplorable developments, having serious adverse repercussions on the patients.

Interestingly, despite such incidents, pharma stocks remain generally unaffected and buoyant. Its overall trend continues heading north, factoring-in that no implementable Government action is forthcoming, for obvious reasons. Consequently, pharma business remains as robust as ever, but the patients continue to suffer increasingly more.

Pharma industry in general, has been seriously attempting to wash its hands off for this scary emerging situation, since long. It blames the governments for trying to throttle the money spinning business with ‘unnecessary’ regulations, as discussed above, for something that is only the state responsibility, as they perceive. The governments, in turn, blame the industry and try to regulate it more strictly. Invariably, the patients in need of right and affordable medical care get caught in this cross-fire – some succeed to overcome the health crisis, but mostly exposing themselves to huge financial uncertainty in the future, many others can’t.

When the business continues to flourish with current business ‘practices’, why would the pharma players bother about rapidly tarnishing industry reputation, and public outcry? Does it really matter at all on the ground, for running a money spinning business machine, especially when there exists a fair chance of stalling the new laws and policies, with deep pockets, as alleged by many?

In this scenario, what else a common man would do while falling seriously ill, except praying to the almighty for divine care and blessings for a speedy recovery, along with possibly lamenting, it’s déjà vu in the pharma industry?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Recomposing Notes of Pharma Marketing Playbook

Posted on June 20, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The global management guru Peter Drucker, in one of his management classics – “The Practice of Management”, published in 1954, that created the discipline of modern management practices, had underscored the following:

“As the core purpose of any business is to create a customer, a business has two, and only two functions, marketing and innovation. Only these two produce business results. All the rest are costs.”

The Harvard Business Review also had rated ‘The Practice of Management’ as Drucker’s best book on the managerial profession. Far more crisp than the larger compendium on Management, nicely balanced between precept and example, this book is eminently practical yet of genuine intellectual breadth. If Drucker’s work holds anything of immediate value for you, you will most likely find it here…”

Thus, Peter Drucker’s above concept is so fundamental that the pharmaceutical business can’t be any exception to it, in any way. That the old customers need to be retained, and the new customers are to be created on an ongoing basis, even in the modern times, still remain a basic requirement.

Nevertheless, the marketing process of doing so needs to change, according to the changing market dynamics. Continuation of playing the same notes from the grand old marketing playbook, with minor alterations here or there, would no longer suffice to keep pace with the changing market, and to effectively address the new stakeholders’ needs and wants.

Need to recompose notes of the playbook:

Both the current processes of pharma marketing and the patent claim for any type of drug innovation that the majority of the global pharma companies is currently following, have become highly contentious over a period of time, to say the least.

Even otherwise, in my view, both these processes have already hit the ceiling of the famous ‘law of diminishing returns’, where very simply put, the level of profits or benefits gained is less than the amount of money or energy invested.

Therefore, the question that comes up: Are the notes of the pharma marketing and innovation playbook fair, right, inclusive, and sustainable? However, in this article, I shall focus only on contemporary pharma marketing, and the opportunities that are coming up along with waves of changes in the business environment.

An example of ‘Change the logo’ saga:

Going by my personal experience, I have worked with many pharma marketing professionals, some of whom are still working in the industry. Post recruitment in the new company, having gone through a rigorous screening process, most of them would probably give a similar feedback that an anonymous quote captures as follows:

“The optimist says, ‘the glass is half full’; The pessimist says, ‘The glass is half empty.’ The marketing consultant says, ‘The glass needs resizing and a different logo.”

On a lighter vein, I am using below an example of one ‘change the logo’ approach. This is just one of many of my real life experiences. This may give you a panoramic view of how things generally are. The stretching of the same old marketing paradigm beyond its elastic limit is rather common, of course, with some sporadic digital tweaking. Nonetheless, the notes in the marketing playbook remain almost the same, producing the same tunes for some, and noise for many others.

This ‘logo change’ saga may sound quite familiar to many of my ex-colleagues of not so distant past. This approach exemplifies the limitations of a new recruit for a senior position to identify the core issues that would lead to the organization’s performance improvement.

It does not surprise me at all, when I find some top managements, who were an integral part of that selection process, promptly buying these shallow, and at the most peripheral ideas. It is quite evident that some of these top management members also suffer from similar analytical and management myopia. It is needless to mention that such things usually happen during the ‘honeymoon’ period’ of the new recruits.

Accordingly, the ‘logo change’ takes place in no time, paying a huge sum to the creative agency. Commensurate hype is simultaneously created around the new logo, backed by massive efforts to communicate its ‘ethereal design’ to as many targets as possible, often with no tangible outcome. Alongside, attempts are also made to change as many old things as possible, generating a multitude of seemingly high-voltage activities, though the performance on the ground remains unchanged, or rather deteriorates.

I fully understand, there is nothing wrong in changing anything, including a logo, that is not working or has outlived its time. However, when this assumes the top priority of a new and a top recruit, immediately after assuming office with a new responsibility, it somewhat doesn’t gel, and very often does not achieve the desired purpose.

Pharma marketing over-dependent on the likes of ‘Surrogate CMEs’?

Today, when there is a need to hear more from all the major stakeholders, one sided ‘telling my story’ mostly to the doctors continues to occupy a major part of pharma marketing, besides company sponsored or allegedly surrogate ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ even for old branded generics.

The preparation of a canned brand communication in India is a routine pharma marketing process, with a plethora of avoidable and unproductive activities. This canned message is delivered to the doctors, usually through the Medical Representatives, conforming to a structured ‘tool-kit’, and heavily backed by free samples and gifts.

A large number of doctors too, continue to take this process, particularly in India, as an unavoidable routine, and also an integral part of their professional activities. It is widely believed, and frequently reported that the ‘magic wand’ for large scale prescription generation for pharma brands lies somewhere else.

Apparently, it is where the financial relationship between the doctors’ and pharma players is usually built and strengthened. One allegation is, in the garb of so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generic or as some folks call these as ‘classic’ brands, this financial relationship continues to thrive.

This gives rise to a suspicion in many, as to why pharma marketing is so over-dependent on the so called ‘CMEs’, even for old branded generics in India.

The vicious circle continues:

When the financial relationship of various hues, between the drug players and the doctors take the center stage, which pharma company has a deeper pocket counts. More expenses incurred in such relationship building process, may consequently drive the drug prices higher. In this situation, the patients get literally caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, where the Governments are compelled to intervene, as has started happening now in many countries.

In tandem, the pressure on performance keeps mounting on the marketers from the same top management, ultimately repeating the old vicious circle, where it may not be the ‘logo change’ that time, but another different sets of the same genre of hectic activities would commence, in pursuit of the illusive sweet smell of business success.

Recompose notes of the marketing playbook:

Even today, the marketing communication in the pharma industry remains primarily a monologue. Many training programs are currently sold to the industry to make this process a dialogue, as the Medical Representatives detail their products to the doctors.

However, on the ground, as I witnessed even in the last month while seating incognito in the clinics of some doctor friends, that the practice of monologue continues reflecting a great visible hurry in the product communicators’ end. Some from large pharma companies were using electronic gadgets, instead of a usual spirally bound product detailing folder, but their overall communication approaches were monologue too.

Thus, the modern age pharma marketers need to recompose the notes of their marketing playbook, soon. Some of the areas of active consideration may include the following:

A. Brand messages to be “pulled” by doctors, not “pushed” by marketers:

An interesting worldwide survey of 228 senior global marketing executives was conducted in February 2006 by the Economist Intelligence Unit, in co-operation with Google. The study highlights the need to transform the marketing communication platforms from a monologue to a more intense process of engagement, through effective dialogue with the stakeholders.

In this new environment, the relevance is more important than repetition, and marketing messages should be “pulled” by the consumer rather than “pushed” by the marketer. This calls for a transformation of the internal marketing organization. All the deliverables of pharma marketers’ must have a relevance to time, and measurable, with total accountability for top and bottom line growth in the areas of responsibility.

In the consumer products’ industry, the last decade has witnessed several innovative two-way marketing “conversations” between the customers and some of the world’s leading consumer brands. Driven by a confluence of innovation, competition and big shifts in consumer behavior, the dialogue between brands and their customers is replacing the traditional marketing monologue, the study observes.

Some recent developments:

In this regard, on Jun 2016, an IBM News Release announced that ‘The Weather Company’, an IBM Business has developed an industry-first capability in which consumers will be able to interact with IBM Watson through advertising, by being able to ask questions via voice or text and receive relevant information about the product or offering. It can create a one-to-one connection with the consumer, that can be personal, relevant and valuable; and can scale across millions of interactions and touch points. This digital tool can also help the marketers uncover consumer and product insights faster than ever before, revealing connections previously invisible to human data scientists, IBM claims.

For example, an anti-allergy brand could enable visitors to Weather.com to ask questions about whether the product is appropriate for children or what sort of side effects it might cause, as WSJ mentioned in its news item of the same date.

However, only the FMCG companies, such as, Unilever, Campbell Soup Co. and GSK Healthcare have, so far, reportedly signed on with Weather Co. to start running Watson-powered ads on both desktop and mobile devices this year.

According to another 2014 report of IMS Health on Social Media, among the top 50 pharmaceutical companies, more than half do not engage with consumers or patients through social media on healthcare-related topics. The top 3 pharma companies in this regard are: Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithkline (GSK), and Novo Nordisk.

Thus, in the pharma industry, the old tradition, by and large, prevails. This scenario, I reckon, signals a pressing need to recompose the notes of the pharma marketing playbook, in general, and very soon.

B. Studying the future digital trends and customize:

To find out about what digital trends to expect in future, the February 2006 survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit had asked survey takers and executives about the online trends they learned during the previous 12 months from their children or other young people. The top three new trends came out as follows:

Social networking,
Podcasting
Multi-player video games

These are just examples, individual pharma marketers would need to take calls about the relevance of specific digital tools and trends relevant to their business and customize them accordingly.

C. Two important marketing tactics proposed:

It is becoming quite evident now, across the world, that with the stakeholders-mix and the traditional doctor-focused “push” messaging delivered mainly through a large sales force coverage, are not generating commensurate a return on investments.

While this approach still remains somewhat relevant for the doctors, one needs to find out what is happening to effectively engage the other important stakeholders. For example, what is happening to those patients who are seeking meaningful engagement through various digital platforms for healthcare?

Recently, the Wharton School, Google and McKinsey & Company teamed up to write a new e-book entitled ‘Pharma 3D’, which proposes the following two important marketing tactics:

To reach patients, pharma companies need to leverage broader engagement models through alternative digital channels (including wearable, online, and social media).

Pharma companies can no longer rely solely on their relationships with physicians; they also need to engage with other influencers, like online communities and social networks.

D. Pharma marketing organizations may consider doing 3 things for success:

The authors of ‘Pharma 3D’ suggested that the pharma marketing organizations may consider doing the following three things really well, for success:

They Discover the behaviors, beliefs and needs of the people they are marketing to.
They Design experiences relevant to the people they are marketing to.
They Deliver those experiences consistently, superbly, and efficiently.

Conclusion:

Though Peter Drucker had said long ago that marketing and innovation are two most critical functions of any business and only these two produce business results, in the overall pharma marketing activities a wide gap between the modern marketing realities and the current marketing practices still exist, rather glaringly.

It is true that digital tools are now being selectively used by some pharma companies, these largely fall in the area of digitizing the manual functions, with some add on gimmickry, and glamor quotient built into it.

In my view, pharma companies, especially in India, should no longer rely solely on building relationships with the physicians. Their top marketers also need to directly engage with all other crucial influencers, including the expert groups, online communities, and the social media, whenever required, leveraging the broader stakeholder engagement models.

The old pharma marketing playbook is slowly, but surely going out of sync with the stark market realities of date. So are the mindsets of a large section of the pharma marketers. It is now high time for the top management to create an appropriate marketing organization, and then encourage it composing the new notes for a contemporary, and a more relevant marketing playbook, jettisoning the old one, for good.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

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.

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tapan Ray

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject.

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data:

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study:

The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”

The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged.

Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.

Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.

In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.

The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children.

The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.

One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.

High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in JAMA Oncology, throwing a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014.

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows:

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.”

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades.

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog.

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

Posted on May 9, 2016 by Tapan Ray

May 4, 2016 edition of the ‘MIT Technology Review’ published an interesting article carrying the headline, “The World’s Most Expensive Medicine Is a Bust”.

The obvious question that floats at the top of mind: What is this most expensive drug in the pharma history, and why has it failed commercially, despite being a product of disruptive innovation and a marvel that stands out in the space of contemporary drug innovation?

The product is called Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec). It heralded the dawn of the “first gene therapy” in the Western world, whose approval helped ignite an explosion of investment and excitement around treatments that correct DNA, as the MIT article said.

Glybera promises to cure rare inherited diseases with one-time repairs to a person’s DNA. A single dose of gene therapy can change the genetic instructions inside a person’s cells in ways that last many years, or even a lifetime.

Interestingly, even with this unprecedented product offering, the product has become a commercial flop, due to its staggering million-dollar price tag, which very few patients can afford.

Is this an extreme example of price-value relationship for a new breakthrough pharma product? Yes, of course! Nevertheless, it makes us ponder on some key fundamentals, afresh, such as:

The core purpose of drug innovation
The price-value relationship of even breakthrough drugs

The proper understanding of these points comprehensively, especially the above two fundamentals, would enable the drug companies to achieve both, the core purpose of intricate drug innovation initiatives, and also making these medicines commercially successful with increased access to patients, through innovative ‘value delivery’ mechanisms.

I believe, the pharmaceutical industry is now at the threshold of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm would signal a metamorphosis in the price-value equations for all drugs, mostly due to changing socio-political environment, across the world, as we have started witnessing in the topmost free economy of the world – the United States.

Pharma business is a ‘value delivery system’:

Way back in June 2000, an article published in ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ on delivering value to the customers, deliberated on a 1988 paper of Michael J. Lanning and Edward G. Michaels. The study combines the value-maps developed in the price-value models with the idea of the “business system,” which was introduced in 1980.

The paper titled, “A business is a value delivery system,” emphasizes the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment. This means a simple statement of the benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge each segment for those benefits.

Looking at this concept in pharma perspective:

Keeping the above paper in perspective, when we look at the pharma value delivery system, besides the key benefits that a drug offers, one of the most critical value parameter continues to be the financial value.

The healthcare value chain, across the world, has started sharpening its focus on the drug cost today, more than ever before. This is primarily based on the differential value that a drug offers as compared to its closest alternatives. We may like it or not, it is happening irrespective of, whether the drug in question is a breakthrough innovation, or an off-patent high-priced generic medicine.

As I said before, not just in India, the affordability of health care in general, and medicines in particular, is rapidly emerging as a key concern for all developed and the developing nations, including the United States.

Thus, even after careful consideration of all novel product’s benefits and the costs associated with these, the stakeholders’ focus is getting sharper on the overall financial value of the product offerings to the patients. This is reality, and can’t just be wished away by any measure of powerful and expensive advocacy campaigns, together with clever media management.

The drug companies may continue to crib about it, but this will possibly lead them nowhere, in the long term. Instead, they would require to search for a workable win-win and level headed solution, for this most fundamental business issue.

Understanding the evolving paradigm:

We are fast arriving at this new paradigm. There, the financial value of a drug, in the ‘value delivery system’ of pharma marketing, would occupy the center stage. The drug companies would need to arrive at this financial value, not just by understanding the professional mindset of the doctors and taking them on board somehow, but by properly understanding what would the majority of stakeholders want to pay for a new drug, and then perhaps work backwards to translate that finding into reality.

Its successful application would soon assume a pivotal role in the pharma value delivery system. A company may contemplate pricing a drug high, limiting its access to a few rich, and still succeed in making its cash register ringing, such as, some new hepatitis C or cancer drugs. Nonetheless, this could ultimately make their overall business socio-politically too vulnerable, and may not be sustainable either, in the long run.

The same old and current approach does not create a wholesome value for a new drug to most of the customers, despite the company having a state of art ‘value delivery platform’, for unleashing a dazzling marketing blitzkrieg.

The pharma marketing strategy remains unchanged and stale:

At a time, when a paradigm shift is taking place, especially in the way the entire world views at the price-value equation of a new drug, the overall strategic approach of the pharma marketers, as I see it, still remains in the old paradigm, with its roots firmly entrenched there.

I think it so, because the traditional pharma marketing has always been a unilateral communication process, predominantly involving the doctors, and trying to fathom their needs, wants and professional mindset.

Accordingly, the product value delivery process for the doctors, with or without the medical representatives, is basically woven around those needs, wants and mindsets of the target doctors. It, by and large, continues even today, with some cosmetic changes in tools and formats here or there.

Therefore, when the basic marketing and communication process aims at effectively delivering the value of drugs, let us discuss briefly what does the core value of a drug mean?

The value of a drug:

For this purpose, I reckon, it would be prudent to avoid an ethereal approach to arrive at the financial value of a drug, such as, what is the cost of a life, as often raised by many pharma players. A practical approach to resolve this issue would benefit all, in every way.

Without going much into the core purpose of pharma innovation, usually the drug companies define the value of a medicine based on what they think about its attributes. Accordingly, respective players arrive at its financial value, that the patients or the payers must pay for, if they want to have an access to it.

Usually not many independent studies are conducted by the drug companies to ascertain how much the majority of stakeholders, including the governments, payers and patients, would want to willingly pay for a new drug, after well considering its value offerings.

Competitive Scenario:

The ever increasing, and virtually obsessed focus on drug ‘innovation’, while justifying the high financial value of a medicine for the patients, also restricts competition, especially for newer ones. For most of the patients this situation is a double whammy.

Additionally, the consolidation process within the industry is also fuelling this situation further. The virtual monopoly of a few companies with some new drugs, in key therapy segments, such as, diabetes, cancer, vaccines and HIV, is restricting the overall competitive environment. This would continue.

A September 24, 2014 Article, published in the ‘Insight’ of Bain & Company on the throws some light on the subject. It says, “over the past 20 years, and especially since 2000, building leadership in a category has become a crucial route to success in pharma. Seven of our 10 leading value creators, including Roche in oncology and Novo Nordisk in diabetes care, generated at least 50 percent of their revenues from one therapeutic area or primary care. In two cases – Biogen Idec in neurology and Celgene in oncology – more than 90 percent of revenues came from a single therapeutic area.”

As I said, this process is expected to continue, it is necessary for the drug companies, governments, other payers and the patients understand the new paradigm, and act accordingly to address this issue to protect mutual benefit.

If it does not happen, the evolving socio-political environment, across the world, would occupy the driver’s seat to navigate through this complexity, in the healthcare space in general and pharma in particular, safeguarding the patients’ health interest.

The core issue:

In the prevailing scenario, the core issue that gets reinforced, yet again, as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players, and the public health interest of a nation.

Possibly for this reason, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.”

Many countries are now seriously striving to arrive at a middle path to resolve this perennial conflict, India included. The drug companies may wish to take note of it.

I discussed this issue in an article published in this Website titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Beyond Profit Making?” on November 10, 2014.

Conclusion:

As the above ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ paper articulated, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy once that product is paid for. As the paper clarified, the “value” in a price-value map will necessarily be informed guesses, though after well-considering multiple variables.

Delivering more of this ‘surplus value’ to patients, willy-nilly, would soon be the name of the game, especially for the winners in both the global and local pharma industry.

In the entire drug sector, including India, this ‘price-value model’ could help a pharma company ascertain the sustainability of its competitive position, well considering the stakeholders’ perspective, and accordingly take the right business decision.

Thus, proper understanding of the ‘surplus value model’ while pricing a drug, and its immaculate execution through state of the art marketing and communication strategies, will separate the men from the boys, for sustained excellence in the pharma business.

Sans understanding of this ‘price-value model’, which is so important in the evolving new paradigm of a pharma value delivery system, a pharma player would risk getting caught in a tough headwind, especially with new high-priced products. This situation could, in turn, jeopardize its long term success, and even erode the well-earned company reputation, in tandem, at times mercilessly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:

A. Declining R&D productivity:

Year	R&D return (%)
2010	10.1
2011	7.6
2012	7.3
2013	4.8
2014	5.5
2015	4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C. Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

Big companies: 5 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

Big companies: 54 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent

A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced:

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue?

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof.

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Digital Therapeutics: Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation In Healthcare

Posted on November 23, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On November 9, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an interesting article reported, “Your doctor may soon prescribe you a smartphone app in addition to drugs and physical therapy.”

The hospitals in the United States (US) are developing new mobile apps to help patients manage serious medical conditions, record symptoms and communicate back to their doctors between visits, often in real time, besides helping patients adhere to their therapy, WSJ highlighted. The real beauty in these apps is, in addition to sending messages, reminders and instructions, the apps can alert providers to developing clinical problems before they become a crisis.

For example, “a new app from the University of Michigan called ‘Breast Cancer Ally’ is offered to patients to help them manage the onslaught of information and instructions they get throughout their diagnosis and treatment. It allows patients to look up and record their symptoms and provides guidance on when to consult the doctor about complications or concerns.”

Quoting experts, the article states, “this is a technology that is in everyone’s pocket and makes patients feel engaged in their own care.”

The implication of this development is profound. It appears, there could be a near term possibility of the same, for better, comprehensive health monitoring, leading to better quality of life and undergoing lesser hassles, if not hassle-free, as compared to what it is today in doing so.

Immense value in management of chronic diseases:

Besides serious ailments, these customized digital apps for smartphone, could be used to derive therapeutic impact in the early stages of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension.

As is well-known, in the early onset of most of the non-infectious chronic diseases, self-management plays a critical role to prevent the progression of the disease, saving significant treatment costs, besides other serious and expensive physiological complications in the future.

To achieve this goal, there is a critical need to appropriately educate the patients through doctors, along with the active role of pharmaceutical players. This could well be a win-win situation for the manufacturers of these products to productively engage the patients, not just for disease management, but for the commercial success of their respective brands too, with a well crafted integrated business strategy.

Digital Therapeutics:

Thus, these health apps serve the role of ‘Digital Therapies (DT)’, as well, for patients, especially at the onset of chronic ailments and to prevent any sudden crisis in serious disease conditions.

DT has, therefore, been defined as web, mobile, wearable and other digital technologies combined into an intervention to support healthy behaviors and provide therapeutic impact.

As stated earlier, DT has the potential to offer immense opportunity for patient engagement and to bring in substantial change in their health behavior with remarkable both short and long term cost-effectiveness.

The opportunities:

Offering DT to patients in India may not be very challenging either, on the contrary, it is an area of opportunity for all the interested players, especially when we go by the following facts:

According to the latest report from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) mobile phone subscriber base in India recorded 6.71 percent YoY growth to 980.81 million users in Q2 2015.

There were approximately 82 million 3G subscribers in India by the end of 2014 and the number is projected to reach 284 million by end of year 2017.

SMS, email, messaging and social networking apps are the most popular ones.

The Indian Government has expressed its commitment to setting up a robust digital infrastructure and to promote adoption of mobile Internet and related products and services.

In 2014-15, the Government budgeted INR 500 crore for building infrastructure as per the National Rural Internet and Technology Mission.

Currently, as the smartphones enable individuals to access various types of information, suggestions and advice from anywhere 24×7, in the above emerging scenario, an increasing number of patients are likely to opt for digital therapeutic tools for self-management of health more effectively.

This is a win-win situation for all, including the pharma companies, though with a contemporary and honed strategic business model.

In the foreseeable future:

An October 2013 paper of IMS Institute, titled “Patient Apps for Improved Healthcare” expects that over a period of time, the health app maturity model will see apps’ progress from being recommended on an ad hoc basis by individual physicians, to systematic use in healthcare, and ultimately to an end goal of being a fully integrated component of healthcare management.

The study makes the following important observations:

The patients are unlike to ever have the tools to replace the roles of the physician

Health apps may encourage patients to take a more active interest in their overall well being and understand the consequences of poor health in later life.

By having the patients aligned with the importance of wellness programs and sickness prevention, health systems can hope to realize savings, especially from a lower burden of multiple chronic conditions.

The Governments may consider making patients aware of the need to take increasing responsibility for their own healthcare, by providing incentives to stay healthy, where health apps could play a major role.

The paper also underscores the following four key steps to move through on this process:

Recognition by payers and providers of the important role that apps can play in healthcare

Security and privacy guidelines and assurances must be in place between providers, patients and app developers

Systematic curation and evaluation of apps that can provide both physicians and patients with useful summarized content about apps that can aid decision-making regarding their appropriate use

Integration of apps with other aspects of patient care

“Underpinning all of this will be the generation of credible evidence of value derived from the use of apps that will demonstrate the nature and magnitude of behavioral changes or improved health outcomes,” the paper comments.

According to available information, currently in the United States, around 100 advanced health apps have been approved by the FDA. However, all these are not for the use of patients. Some of these are for the use of doctors. Other sets of apps are available to patients only against doctors’ prescriptions. The rest is mainly for fitness and general life style related, and are affordable only to a limited number of people.

Key benefits of ‘Digital Therapeutics’:

To summarize, the key benefits of digital therapeutics are as follows:

More cost-efficient, as compared to conventional alternatives.

Help doctors managing disease conditions through constant monitoring with digital technology

Make patients more aware and even proactive with real time information in preventing many diseases, avoiding disease aggravation and improving quality of life.

Make sharing of information between doctors and patients easier and effective.

Some concerns:

In many countries, including India, many health apps do not have appropriate health regulatory approval. Hence, a number of key concerns, in general, have been raised in this area for speedy resolution, some of which are as follows:

Product and data quality
Reliability in treatment decisions
Privacy and security for patients

Not many pharma companies are engaged in ‘Digital Therapeutics’:

In my view, there is a solid reason why many global pharma companies are still not adequately engaged with digital therapeutics.

They are generally actively involved in the high voltage advocacy by encouraging innovation, which usually does not go beyond drug discovery. This championing does not talk much either, about charting the broader area of comprehensive disease prevention, treatment and management with the application of disruptive innovation, involving other non drug related digital technologies, which are cost effective to patients.

With the low hanging fruits of drug innovation, resulting into money-churning blockbuster drugs with huge margin and almost in no time, made most of these innovator drug companies comfortable with their current business model of only drug discovery.

This business model is now exhibiting enough signs of fatigue with research pipelines gradually drying out.

Nonetheless, there are some indications now of a few pharma players’ exploring this new area of digital therapeutics, but as an extension of the current business models. It still remains a challenging decision for most of them to shift the gear, moving towards a new horizon of a winning mix of new drugs and path breaking digital therapeutics.

Conclusion:

These are still early days for the majority of the pharma players looking at commercially leveraging the potential of possible customized offerings of digital health apps as integrated digital therapeutics for patients’ self-care health benefits. What we have seen so far is the drug companies using health apps as a tool to market a drug and not much beyond that.

I discussed this issue in my article in this blog on March 30, 2015, titled, “Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs”.

An April 17, 2014 article published in the ‘Forbes/Business’ epitomizes the relevance of digital therapeutics in the modern day healthcare, even in the countries like India, as follows:

“Three out of four Americans will die of a disease that could be avoided—if only they could re-route their unhealthy habits. A new category of medicine, digital therapeutics, wants to change the course of these conditions – and of history.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Curious Imbroglio: Innovation, IPR, India and ‘Uncle Sam’

Posted on May 4, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Last week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the “2015 Special 301 Report”, which is its annual review of the global state of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and enforcement.

While looking through the Kaleidoscope of business interests of the United States, variegated changing patterns of a wide variety of country-specific observations can be noted in this report.

It is widely believed that the report ‘pontificates’ about the adequacy and effectiveness of IPR protection and enforcement of its trading partners against USTR’s own yardstick, hinting unhesitantly at the possible consequences, if found lacking.

USTR reviewed seventy-two (72) trading partners for this year’s Special 301 Report, and placed thirty-seven (37) of them on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’. Thirteen (13) countries – Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela, are on the ‘Priority Watch List’. These countries will be the subjects of particularly intense bilateral engagement during the coming year.

India specific significant elements of the 2015 Special 301 Report include the following:

Increased bilateral engagement in 2015 between the United States and India on IPR concerns, following the 2014 Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) of India on this issue.

India will remain on the ‘Priority Watch List’ in 2015, but with the full expectation of US about substantive and measurable improvements in India’s IPR regime for the benefit of a broad range of innovative and creative industries.

The US offered to work with India to achieve these goals.

No OCR at this time for India, but US will monitor progress in India over the coming months, and is prepared to take further action, if necessary.

The 2015 report also highlights:

“While it is impossible to determine an exact figure, studies have suggested that up to 20% of drugs sold in the Indian market are counterfeit and could represent a serious threat to patient health and safety.”

According to media report, a senior Commerce & Industry Ministry official has commented, “India is disappointed at being featured yet again in the US ‘Priority Watch List’ of weak IPR countries. But it is not worried.”

Recent Action by India:

In October 2014, almost immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s return to India from the US, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘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.

In the same month, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India. Taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, the Think Tank’ released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders was also scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

Possible reasons of US concern on the draft ‘National IPR Policy’:

As I discussed in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, I reckon, there are three possible key areas of concern of American pharma industry against Indian patent regime. However, in the draft National IPR Policy India seems to have stood its ground in all those areas.

The draft IPR policy responded to those concerns as follows:

Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.” (Though it has not yet been challenged at the WTO forum)

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: On January 15, 2015, Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Confusion with the Prime Minister’s recent statement:

It is worth noting that in end April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly remarked to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”.

What the Prime Minister really meant by patent laws with “international standards” could be of anybody’s guess. This is because, even the World Trade Organization (WTO) considers Indian Patents Act compliant to TRIPS Agreement, which has been globally accepted as the ‘Gold Standard’ in the realm of IPR…unless, of course, Prime Minister Modi intends to accept ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions for India, under US pressure and at the cost of health interest of majority of Indian patients.

It is noteworthy though, his own Ministry of Commerce & Industry has categorically emphasized and re-emphasized several times in the past that India’s patent regime is fully TRIPS compliant.

To add greater credence to this argument, the noted free market economist and Professor of Economics at Columbia University – Arvind Panagariya, who has recently been appointed to run Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new NITI Aayog, has also endorsed it in his published articles, unambiguously.

As usual, leaving nothing to chance, immediately after the above remark of the Indian PM to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”, the USTR urged India to ‘expeditiously undertake’ initiatives stated by PM Modi, flashing across a long list of changes that the US wants to get incorporated in the Indian IP Acts and policies.

Pressure for amendment of Indian Patent Law:

From the intensity of pressure that the US Pharma industry is generating on the US Government, it is clear that American pharma industry will not be satisfied till Modi Government brings in changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, as dictated by its constituents.

At the top of much publicized US wish list on IPR, features abolition of Section 3(d) of the Indian patent law. This provision of the Act denies patents to frivolous and incremental innovations without offering any significant value to the patients in terms of improved clinical efficacy of the drug. Many would term such innovation as attempts towards evergreening of patents through minor molecular manipulation or similar other means. This kind of innovation gives already a very high priced blockbuster drug another full term of patent monopoly, often with even higher price, at the cost of patients.

Pressure for a relook at the National IPR Policy:

In fact, the USTR 2015 report, also asks India to have yet another round of consultations with stakeholders before finalizing its IPR policy. This is widely construed as an attempt on the part of the US Government and industry to conclude their unfinished IPR agenda for India.

Whether Modi Government would be bullied by the American Pharma industry to succumb to its pressure at the cost of the Indian patients and going against the national and international experts’ opinion, only time would tell.

Benefits of Innovation and India:

India has amply demonstrated time and again that it does understand the value and benefits of innovation in different facets of life and business. The country endeavors to protect it too, according to the law of the land. However, there are still some procedural loose knots existing in the IPR environment of the country.

As stated above, for effective remedial measures in those areas, a ‘Think Tank’ has already been constituted by Modi Government to formulate a robust and comprehensive National IPR Policy.

In this context, a media report quoted a senior official from the Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry saying, “We hope this year we can convince the US that our laws are drafted in a way so as to protect both our consumer and industry’s interest. The new IPR policy that we are coming out with will take care of any anomalies or vagueness in our existing regime and make it tight and also fast-track clearances of patent applications.”

Would there be a ‘Ghost Writer’ for Indian IPR Policy?

The first draft of the policy has already been circulated in January 2015 and discussed in the following month with the stakeholders. However, American Pharma industry does not seem to be satisfied with its overall content, leave aside the nitty-gritty.

Going by this development some apprehends that a powerful lobby group probably wants to be the ‘Ghost Writer’ for the IPR Policy of India. Coincidentally enough, we also see the USTR blowing hot and cold on this critical issue…blowing hot through its ‘Special 301 Report’ and cold by praising Prime Minister Modi’s remark to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”.

India should play a catalytic role in changing the drug innovation model:

A paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier…coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of all kinds of drug innovations…from break-through drugs to me-too varieties. Dove tailing scientific and business excellence with patients’ health interest, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Though arduous, playing a catalytic role to bring out this transformation sooner, is extremely important for India. This is because, drug innovation with significant value addition would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity. India understands that just as clearly as USTR …for its ‘make in India’ campaign or otherwise. No well-orchestrated and spoon-fed pontification required in this area…uncalled for.

Conclusion:

The bottom line is, the US Pharma industry continues to flex its muscle relentlessly under the very often used, misused and even abused façade that India does not understand the value of innovation.

On the other hand, the general sentiment in this area, both national and international, favors India.

As the new Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog of India, Dr. Arvind Panagariya wrote, “India must call the US’ bluff on patents,” it’s indeed time to demonstrate the same, once and for all.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear does creep in, after PM Modi’s well publicized recent remark to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”, especially when Indian Patents Act 2005 is already TRIPS compliant, according to WTO requirements.

That said, in the midst of a raging debate involving innovation, IPR, India and ‘Uncle Sam’, the moot question that floats at the top of mind is:

Has seemingly tough-minded Prime Minister Modi already yielded to ‘Uncle Sam’s’ bullying tactics to effect changes in an otherwise robust Indian patent regime, and that too at the cost of health interest of needy patients of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: innovation

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Digital Therapeutics: Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation In Healthcare

The Curious Imbroglio: Innovation, IPR, India and ‘Uncle Sam’