Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments

Posted on August 18, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide. This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently. A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year. Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

The societal goals they aim to achieve
The costs they incur on R&D
The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

Current mechanism of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in the pharmaceutical space, undoubtedly facilitates spiraling high drug prices with no respite to patients and payers, as access to these drugs gets severely restricted to the privileged few, denying ‘right to life’ to many.

Moreover, the current global ‘Pharma Patent System’ does not differentiate between qualities of innovations. The system extends equal incentives for pricing the drugs as high as possible, even if those offer little advantages to patients. Fortunately, this loophole has been plugged in the Indian Patents Act 2005, to a large extent.

That said, there is no well-structured incentive available to develop clinically superior drugs with public funding, even in India, so that prices could be significantly lower with equally lesser risks to the companies too.

Conclusion:

Current pricing system of patented medicines is even more intriguing, as these have no direct or indirect co-relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. On the contrary, drug prices allegedly go up due to other avoidable high expenditures, such as, physicians’ gratification oriented marketing, which includes even reported bribing, high profile political lobbying and private jet setting key executives lifestyle with exorbitant compensation packages, besides others.

To effectively address this issue, besides public R&D funding, there has been a number of suggestions for creation of a win-win pathway like, creation of “Health Impact Fund’. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as ‘Open Innovation’ and ‘Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)’, to choose from.

A recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access with reasonable affordability.

Be that as it may, ‘Patented Drug Pricing’ does not seem to have any relevance to a company’s investments towards R&D. On the contrary, the companies charge the maximum price that they could possibly handle to maximize profits on these life saving medicines.

In an environment of indifference like this, it is the responsibility of other stakeholders, especially the government, to ensure, by invoking all available measures, that life saving medications for dreaded diseases such as cancer, can get to those who need them the most, come what may.

Is the ever-alert new Government listening?

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.

Union Budget 2014-15: Ticks The ‘Top Priority’ Boxes on Healthcare

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The Union Budget 2014-15, especially for healthcare, needs to be analyzed against the backdrop of what the common patients have been going through in the healthcare space of India, over a period of time.

In that context, I would quote new sets of data from a consumer expenditure survey carried out reportedly by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 2011-12, capturing the following disturbing facts for a period between 2000 and 2012:

Total family spend on medical bills increased by 317 percent in urban areas and 363 percent in rural areas for institutional care, while ‘at-home’ medical expenses increased by about 200 percent in both urban and rural areas.

For institutional care in hospitals and nursing homes, costs of tests increased by a hopping 541 percent in urban areas. Even for the at-home patient, costs of diagnostic tests increased by over 400 percent in the same period.

Increases in doctors’ fees in hospitals were 433 percent in rural areas compared to 362 percent in urban cities,

Hospital charges went up by 454 percent in rural areas compared to 378 percent in urban areas.

Medicine costs in hospitals went up by 259 percent in rural versus about 200 percent in urban areas.

The number of families that reported expenditure on hospitalization dipped from 19 percent to 14 percent in urban areas and from 19 percent to 15 percent in rural areas. Lack of proper facilities at accessible distances was reported to be a key factor in dipping cases of hospitalization in rural areas.

Conversely, families that spent on patient care at home increased from 61 percent to 75 percent in urban areas and from 62 percent to 79 percent in rural areas.

Against the above backdrop, within 45 days after coming to power, in his maiden Union Budget Proposal for 2014-15, the Finance Minister of India has ticked most of the right boxes of national health priorities for India. It may not be a dream budget covering everything and all expectations; nonetheless, the budget reflects the intent of the government for the coming years.

Without going into minute details of the Union Budget in general, in this article, I shall dwell on its impact on the healthcare arena of India, in particular.

Key focus areas for healthcare:

Broadly speaking in the healthcare space what impacts the stakeholders most, besides others, are the following and no responsible government can afford to wish these away:

Access
Affordability
Capacity Building
Innovation
Ease of Doing Business

Within these five key areas, the Finance Minister appears to have focused on the four, namely – ‘Access’, ‘Affordability’, Capacity Building and overall ‘Ease of Doing Business’ in India.

I shall deliberate on each of these points briefly in a short while.

An example of pre-budget expectations of a pharma industry association:

With the current healthcare issues of India in mind and the above priority areas in the backdrop, I read recently in a business magazine, the expectations of one of the pharma industry association’s from the Union Budget 2014-15. Without being judgmental, I am now quoting those points for you to evaluate any way you would like to.

The key expectations of that pharma association were reportedly as follows:

1. Weighted Tax Deduction on Scientific Research:

“Currently there are no specific tax benefits available to units engaged in contract R&D or undertaking R&D for group companies. Benefits should be provided for units engaged in the business of R&D and contract R&D by way of deduction from profits”.

2. Clarity on taxing giveaways to doctors:

“The ambiguity of the CBDT circular in this regard has created widespread concern in the industry. As an interim measure, the CBDT may consider constituting a panel with adequate representation from the industry and Departments of Revenue and Pharmaceuticals to define expenses as ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’ and lay down guidelines for implementation”.

3. Tax holiday for healthcare infrastructure projects:

“It is necessary to extend the tax holiday benefit to hospitals set up in urban areas to enable companies to commit the substantial investments required in the healthcare sector”.

4. FDI – Ambiguity on coverage (e.g. whether allied activities such as R&D, clinical trials are covered):

“Currently, there are no specific guidelines laid down on whether the FDI provisions are applicable to pharmaceutical companies undertaking allied activities e.g. R&D, clinical trials etc”.

5. Excise Duty on Active Pharma Ingredients (APIs):

“The excise duty rate of APIs be rationalized and brought on par with pharma goods i.e. excise duty on the inputs (API) should be reduced from 12% to 6%. Alternatively, the Government may introduce a refund mechanism to enable Pharma manufacturers to avail refund of excess CenVat Credit”.

Other issues that this particular pharma association had penned in its pre-budget memorandum of 2014-15, were as under:

Adoption and implementation of uniform marketing guidelines (e.g. the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices circulated by the DoP)
Rationalization of clinical trial guidelines
Updating of governing laws such as Drugs & Cosmetic Act to reflect the current industry scenario
Stakeholder consultation while introducing and implementing drug pricing guidelines

Interesting?

This memorandum is indeed interesting…very interesting, especially when it is taken as comprehensive and well-publicized expectations from the Union Budget of a pharma association in India. This pre-budget memorandum is just an example. Other pharma associations also had put on the table, their respective expectations from the government in the budget.

I gave this example, just to highlight what the new government has actually delivered in the charted priority areas in its warm-up maiden budget proposal, for the benefit of all concerned.

Pragmatic healthcare push in the Union Budget 2014-15:

I felt good to note, within a very short period, the new government could fathom the real healthcare issues of the country, as mentioned above, and proposed to deploy the national exchequers’ fund, probably following the good old saying “put your money where your mouth is”.

Initiates a major step towards ‘Health for All’:

In that direction, the government in its budget proposal has given a new thrust towards ‘Health for All’. For this purpose, two critical initiatives have been proposed:

Free Drug Service:

Free medicines under ‘Health for All’ would also help addressing the issue of poor ‘Access’ to medicines in the country.

Free Diagnosis Service:

Besides ‘Access’, focus on diagnosis and prevention would consequently mean early detection and better management of diseases.

Thus, free medicines and free diagnosis for everyone under ‘Health for All’ would help reducing Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure on healthcare in India quite significantly. It is worth reiterating that OoP of over 70 percent, which is one of the highest globally, after Pakistan, pushes millions of people into poverty every year in India. This proposal may, therefore, be considered as a precursor to Universal Health Care (UHC).

Increase in FDI cap on insurance sector:

The Finance Minister has proposed an increase in the limit of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the insurance sector from the current level of 26 per cent to 49 per cent. However, the additional investment has to follow the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) route. Though this change is not healthcare sector specific, nonetheless, it would ensure deeper penetration of health insurance, improving access to healthcare.

Other key 2014-15 Union Budget proposals:

Other key proposals include:

Universal access to early quality diagnosis and treatment to TB patients

Two National Institutes of Aging (NIA) at AIIMS, New Delhi, and Madras Medical College, Chennai. NIA aims to cater to the needs of the elderly population which has increased four-fold since 1951. The number of senior citizens is projected to be 173 million by 2026.

Four more AIIMS-like institutions in Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Vidarbha in Maharashtra and Purvanchal in UP, for which Rs 500 Crore has been set aside.

Additional 58 government medical colleges. The proposal also includes 12 government medical colleges, where dental facilities would also be provided.

15 Model Rural Health Research Centers (MHRCs) in states for better healthcare facilities in rural India.

HIV AIDS drugs and diagnostic kits have been made cheaper through duty rationalization.

For the first time, the budget proposal included central assistance to strengthen the States’ Drug Regulatory and Food Regulatory Systems by creating new drug testing laboratories and strengthening the 31 existing ones.

Focus on biotechnology:

The Finance Minister proposed a cluster-led biotech development in Faridabad and Bangalore, as well as agro-biotech clusters in Mohali, Pune and Kolkata. It is a well-established fact that a cluster approach ensures that academia, researchers and the companies engage closely to create strong synergies for innovation and growth.

The announcement of Rs 10,000 Crore funds for ‘startups’ is also expected to help ‘startups’ in the biotech space.

Withdrawal of exemption of a service tax:

As a part to widen the service tax net, the Finance Minister has proposed withdrawal of exemption on service taxes in case of technical testing of newly developed drugs on humans. This has attracted ire of the pharma industry, just as any withdrawal of tax exemption does.

Re-arranging the proposals under high impact areas:

As indicated above, if I now re-arrange the Union budget proposals 2014-15 under each high impact areas, the picture would emerge as follows:

Access improvement:

- “Health for All” – Free drugs and diagnostic services for all would help improving ‘Access’ to healthcare by manifold.

- Universal access to early quality diagnosis and treatment to TB patients would again help millions

- Deeper penetration of health insurance and its innovative usage would also help a significant number of populations of the country having adequate ‘Access’ to healthcare.

Affordability:

- HIV AIDS drugs and diagnostic kits have been made cheaper through duty rationalization.

- “Health for All” – Free drugs and diagnostic services for all would help answering the issue of ‘Affordability’, as well.

Capacity building:

- Two National Institutes of Aging (NIA) at AIIMS, New Delhi, and Madras Medical College, Chennai.

- Four more AIIMS-like institutions in Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Vidarbha in Maharashtra and Purvanchal in UP, for which Rs 500 Crore is being set aside.

- Additional 58 government medical colleges, including 12 colleges where dental facilities would also be provided.

- 15 Model Rural Health Research Centers (MHRCs) in states for better healthcare facilities in rural India.

- Central assistance to strengthen the States’ Drug Regulatory and Food Regulatory Systems by creating new drug testing laboratories and strengthening the 31 existing state laboratories.

Innovation:

- Cluster-led biotech development

Ease of doing business:

- Numbers of common pan-industry initiatives have been enlisted in the general budget proposals, many of which would improve overall ‘Ease of Doing Business’ in the healthcare sector too.

A concern:

Despite all these, there is a concern. In the Union Budget proposals 2014-15, the health sector attracted a total outlay of Rs 35, 163 Crore, which is an increase from the last year’s Rs 33, 278 Crore. I wonder, whether this increase would be sufficient enough to meet all healthcare commitments, as it does not even take inflation into account.

Conclusion:

Taking all these into consideration, the Union Budget proposals for 2014-15, in my view, are progressive and reformists in nature. I am quite in sync with the general belief that the idea behind any financial reform of a nation is not to provide discretionary treatment to any particular industry.

With that in mind, I could well understand why this budget has not pleased all, including the constituents of the healthcare industry and would rather consider it only as a precursor to a roadmap that would follow in the coming years.

However, given the monetary and fiscal constraints of the country, the Union Budget 2014-15, with its key focus on healthcare ‘Access’, ‘Affordability’, ‘Capacity Building’ and overall ‘Ease of Doing Business’ in India, sends right signals of moving towards a new direction, for all. Opportunities for ‘Innovation’ and growth in the biotechnology area have also been initiated, which expectedly would be scaled up in the coming years.

Currently, the general belief both globally and locally is that, this new government has the enthusiasm, will and determination to ‘Walk the Talk’ to make India a global force to reckon with, including its healthcare space.

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.

Leading Through The Challenge Of Change: Is Pharma Leadership Too Archaic?

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A recent major global survey titled “Testing The Health Of The Pharmaceutical Industry” has revealed that a sizable majority of executives polled, though believe the sector is in good shape, are concerned of its reputation. Interestingly, 73 percent of respondents believe that pharma companies should become “Genuine Healthcare Providers”.

From many other reports, as well, one gets to know that the overall image of the global pharmaceutical industry, despite the high profile personas being on the saddle, is currently as good or as bad as the same of, say, Tobacco or Alcoholic beverages sectors. Lamentably, the common perception is that the industry is hugely self-serving, problem making, largely exploitative and mostly surreptitious in its dealings.

This perception prevails, despite the fact that pharma industry exists to help mankind fighting against diseases continuously, thus improving the quality of life, quite unlike the other two industries, as indicated above.

Media reports on ignoble acts of this otherwise noble industry keep coming in tidal waves regularly and unabated, from many parts of the world, the latest being the alleged mega bribery scandal involving the large global majors in China, besides many others.

While industry leadership is generally smooth articulators, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ slogans in the frontiers of ethics, values and shared goals of many of these much reported companies, are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What then could possibly be the reason of such perception gap that this great industry is allowing to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that pharma collective leadership has not been able to adequately adapt itself with the demands of changing healthcare environment and the needs of various nations in this space, across the globe? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic?

Is Pharma leadership too archaic?

In this context, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published in one of the latest issues of Forbes, though deals with issues pertaining to the ‘Healthcare Industry’ in America, nevertheless makes some interesting observations, which are relevant to India as well, just as many other countries of the world.

It states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn-around an adaptive healthcare business model.

As a result, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities.

Inward looking leadership?

From the available details, it appears that today, mostly inward looking pharma leadership tends to ignore the serious voices demanding access to medicines, especially for dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to unleash yet another barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘Drug Innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. The leaders do it either themselves or mostly through their own funded trade associations.

In tandem and unhesitatingly, the leadership and/or their lobbyists reportedly exert all types of pressures even to get the relevant laws of sovereign countries amended or framed to further their business interests. The leadership continues to demonstrate its insensitivity to the concerns of a vast majority of patients, other stakeholders and their respective governments, further reinforcing its self-serving image.

Does anyone really talk against ‘Drug Innovation’?

The moot question, therefore, is: Why is this hype? Who on earth really talks against drug innovation? None, I reckon. On the contrary, drug innovation is considered by all as absolutely fundamental in the continuous combat of mankind against a galore of ailments. It should certainly be encouraged, protected and rewarded all the way, following a win-win pathway for providing access to these innovative drugs for all. There is no question about and no qualms on it.

Insensitive comments do matter:

Insensitive comments from the leadership further widens the perception gap. Let me give two examples:

I. Recently while justifying the price of US$ 1000/tab of the Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi of Gilead, the CEO of Sanofi reportedly highlighted, “Unprecedented innovation comes at a price.” This is of course true, but at what price…US$ 1000/tablet? If this comment is not insensitive and outrageous, does it at least not smack of arrogance?

II. Another such insensitivity was expressed through reported proclamation in public of the Global CEO of Bayer, not so long ago, which clarified that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” Incidentally, the above comment came from the same Bayer whose research chemists synthesized Prontosil, the first antibiotic, in 1932, more than a decade before penicillin became commercially available. Prontosil and subsequent “Sulfa” drugs – the first chemicals used to treat bacterial infections, ushered in a new era for medicine, saving millions of lives of patients globally. At that time, the then Bayer CEO probably did not say that Prontosil was developed “just for the Western Patients that can afford it.”

‘Inclusive Innovation’ for greater access:

Any innovation has to have an impact on life or life-style, depending on its type. Each innovation has a target group and to be meaningful, this group has to have access to the innovative product.

So far as drugs and pharmaceuticals are concerned, the target group for innovation is predominantly the human beings at large. Thus, to make the drug innovation meaningful, the new medicines should be made accessible to all patients across the globe, with social equity, as per the healthcare environment of each country. This underscores the point that drug innovations would have to be inclusive to make meaningful impacts on lives.

New age pharma leadership should find out ways through stakeholder engagement that innovative drugs are made accessible to majority of the patients and not just to a privileged few…fixing a price tag such as US$ 1000/tab for Sovaldi, Sanofi CEO’s above comment notwithstanding.

Leadership lessons to learn from other industries:

Traditional pharma leadership has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. For example, to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated:

“If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a gutsy and exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern on global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world? Besides some tokenisms, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of dreaded and difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few?

Finding cost-effective ways for even ‘Unprecedented’ drug innovation:

Taking a lesson from the Tesla example and also from my earlier blog post, ‘Open Source’ model of drug discovery, would be quite appropriate in the current scenario not just to promote more innovative and intensive approaches in the drug discovery process, but also to improve profit.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘Open Source’ model would be substantial reduction of cost even for ‘Unprecedented’ innovations, besides minimizing the high cost of failures of several R&D projects. These, coupled with significant savings in time, would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines accessible to many more patients and the innovation inclusive.

Indian Pharma – promoter driven leadership:

Back home in India, fast growing India Pharma businesses predominantly consist of generic drugs and are family owned. A 2011 study conducted by ‘ASK Investment Managers’ reported, “Family Owned Businesses (FOB)” account for 60 percent of market cap among the top 500 companies in India and comprise 17 percent of the IT Industry, 10 percent of refineries, 7 percent of automobiles and 6 percent of telecom, in the country. In the domestic pharmaceutical sector, almost hundred percent of the companies are currently family owned and run, barring a few loss making Public Sector Units (PSUs).

As most of these companies started showing significant growth only after 1970, we usually see the first or second-generation entrepreneurs in these family run businesses, where the owners are also the business leaders, irrespective of size and scale of operations.

However, it is unlikely that the pharma business owners in India would be willing, just yet, to go for a regime change by hiring professional leaders at the helm of a business, like what the IT giant Infosys announced the week last or Cipla did sometime back. Nevertheless, they all should, at least, attune themselves with the mindset of the new age pharma leaders to reap a rich harvest out of the opportunities, at times veiled as threats.

New leadership to be ethically grounded and engage everyone:

Unlike what is happening with the current pharma leadership today, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable governance.

Quoting Dr. Michael Soman, President/Chief Medical Executive of Group Health Physicians, the above Forbes article states that in the new age healthcare leadership model, the leader may not have to have all of the answers to all the problems, but he would always have a clear vision of where we wants to lead the company to.

This new leadership should create a glorious future of the pharma industry together with all other stakeholders by asking: “How can we all be part of healthcare solutions?”

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, despite so much of good work done by the pharmaceutical industry in various fields across the world, including in India, the general public perception on the leadership of the pharma world, is still very negative for various reasons. Pharma industry also knows it well.

Thus, around the close of 2007, the Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly said publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

The available statistics also paints a grim picture of the traditional big pharma business model going from blockbuster to bust with the mindset of the leadership, by and large, remaining unchanged, barring some cosmetic touch-ups here or there.

The old business model – sprawling organizations, enormous capital investments, and spiraling costs, underwritten by a steady stream of multibillion blockbuster products – is simply a pipe dream today.

Has anything much changed even thereafter? May be not. Thus, to meet the new challenge of change in the healthcare space, doesn’t the new age pharma leadership still look too archaic, at least, in its mindset and governance pattern?

Is it, therefore, not high time for them to come out of the ‘Ostrich Mode’ collectively, face the demanding environmental needs squarely as they are, try to be a part of healthcare solutions of a nation in a win-win way and avoid being perceived as a part of the problem?

Effective leadership learning process has always been eclectic, borrowing ideas and experiences from other disciplines. In case of pharma, it could well be from other knowledge industries, such as, Information Technology (IT), Telecommunications etc. But change it must. Not just for business growth creating shareholders’ value, but for long-term survival too, basking in glory.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Drug Innovation As Critical As Access To Medicines For All? [Augmented By A Video]

Posted on May 12, 2014 by Tapan Ray

To make important medicines available to all in a sustainable way, the renowned philosopher Thomas Pogge in this very interesting video clipping titled “Medicines For The 99 Percent” suggested the following three simple, yet critical, steps to effectively run the healthcare system of any nation with a cost-effective and patient-centric approach:

Access to important medicines for all
A robust drug innovation model to meet the unmet needs of patients
Transparent and efficient systems to make medicines affordable to all, eliminating wastage of all kinds

To translate this process into reality Pogge proposed an out-of-box model, not just to incentivize companies for drug innovation, but also to produce those drugs in a cost-effective way . In his submission, Pogge recommended a US$ 6 billion ‘Health Impact Fund’ to revolutionize the way medicines are developed and sold. He strongly argued that the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential “Health Impact” on patients over the equivalent available generics in the respective disease areas.

As you will see in the video, the model is interesting and deserves wholehearted support from all stakeholders, despite possible resistance from some powerful quarters prompted by vested interests.

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

As the good old saying goes, “Health is Wealth”. When a person falls sick, regaining health is all-important. Medicines play a very critical role there, for all. In the ongoing battle against various types of diseases, addressing unmet needs of the patients is also equally important. For this reason, drug innovation plays just as critical a role.

However, it is now a well-known fact that medicines, as such, are not very expensive to manufacture on a relative yardstick. Abundant availability of cheaper generic medicines, post-patent expiry, with as much as 90 percent price erosion over the concerned patented drug price, would vindicate this point.

Current R&D model:

Astronomical mark-ups on the cost of goods for the innovative-patented drugs coming out of the current R&D model, restrict access to these medicines mostly to rich people of both poor and rich countries of the world, depriving majority of the have-nots. Although in an ideal situation, all these medications should be accessible to those who need them the most.

Is the model sustainable?

Innovator companies attribute ‘astronomical’ high prices of patented drugs to hefty R&D expenditure, which probably includes high cost of failures too. Unfortunately, despite ongoing raging debates, R&D expense details are still held very close to the chest by the innovator companies, with almost total lack of transparency. Many experts, therefore, believe that this opaque, skewed and unsustainable drug R&D model of the global pharma majors needs a radical makeover now, as you would yourself see by clicking on the ‘video clipping’, as mentioned above

To ensure full access to important drugs for all, there are other R&D or innovation models too. Unfortunately, none of those appears to be financially as lucrative to the innovator companies as the one that they are currently following, thus creating a challenging logjam in the inclusive process of drug innovation.

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

Some experts in this area argue that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are overstated, as the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicated that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large pharmaceutical industry association of the United States, though with dubious credibility as considered by many.

The authors of the above article had also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪ Tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D

▪ Tax write-offs that amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40 percent of the R&D cost

▪ Cost of basic research should not have been included as those are mostly undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories

The article observed that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made, if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In line with this deliberation, in the same article the authors reinforce the above point, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from the traditional model?

Echoing philosopher Thomas Pogge’s submission, another critical point to ponder today is:

Should the pharmaceutical R&D now move away from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players?

If this overall collaborative approach gains broad acceptance and then momentum sooner, with active participation of all concerned, it could lead to substantial increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser expenditure, eliminating wastage by reducing the cost of failures significantly, thus benefiting the patients community at large.

Choosing the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Making drug innovation sustainable:

Besides Thomas Pogge’s model with ‘Health Impact Fund’ as stated above, there are other interesting drug R&D models too. In this article, I shall focus on two examples:

Example I:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports: “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

The concept underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients again through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

Android smart phones with huge commercial success are excellent examples of ‘Open Source Innovation’. So, why not replicate the same successful model of inclusive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry too?

Example II - “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)” initiative:

This laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in he arena of collaborative R&D, where 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”:

As if to reinforce the concept, a recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access.

Conclusion:

Taking these points into perspective, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to all patients absolutely robust and sustainable as we move on.

Philosopher Thomas Pogge, in his above video clipping, has also enunciated very clearly that all concerned must ensure that medications get to those who need them the most. He has also shown a win-win pathway in form of creation of a “Health Impact Fund’ to effectively address this issue. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as Open Innovation and Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), to choose from.

That said, 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 drug innovation. Dove tailing business excellence with the health interest of all patients, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Bringing this transformation sooner is extremely important, as drug innovation would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity.

However, to maintain proper checks and balances between drug innovation and access to medicines for all, the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential ‘Health Impact’ on patients over equivalent available generics in that disease area and NOT by how much money, including the cost of R&D failures, goes behind bringing such drugs to the market, solely driven by commercial considerations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Media reports are now abuzz with various stories related to intense pressure being created by Big Pharma on the United States Government to declare India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ for initiating ‘Trade Sanctions’.

As we know, ‘Priority Foreign Country’ is the worst classification given by the United States to “foreign countries” that deny “adequate and effective” protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or “fair and equitable market access” to the US.

One of the key factors that infuriated Big Pharma is the ‘patentability’ criterion of the Indian Patents Act 2005 captured in its section 3(d). This denies grant of patent to those inventions, which are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy, offering no significant treatment advantages over already existing drugs.

A brief perspective:

The sole requirement for any company to enjoy market monopoly with a medicine, for a specific period, with its associated commercial advantages, is obtaining a valid patent for that new drug substance from a competent authority of the concerned country. Marketing approval process and other requirements for the same of the drug regulators do not come in the way of the market monopoly status granted to patented products.

This is mainly because the drug regulators do not require to be convinced that a new drug is an improvement or more effective than the existing ones. As a consequence of which, there has been no compulsion for the Big Pharma to bring to the market only those New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that would significantly improve efficacy of a disease treatment benefitting the patients.

Choosing the easier path:

Developing any NME that is a breakthrough in the treatment of a disease is not just difficult and time consuming, it is very risky too. For this reason, once a new innovative drug gets well established in the market, many companies decide to produce their own versions of the same and obtain patent rights for the new ‘tweaked’ molecules, as is generally believed by many.

This approach of bringing ‘me-too’ types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs into the market is considered much less risky, takes lot lesser time in the R&D process, not as expensive and most importantly, enjoys all the commercial benefits that a break through NME would otherwise derive out of its invention, especially the market monopoly with free pricing.

In his well-known book titled ‘Bad Pharma’, Ben Goldacre stated that, as very often these ‘me-too’ drugs do not offer any significant therapeutic benefits, many people regard them as wasteful, an unnecessary use of product development money, potentially exposing trial participants to unnecessary harm for individual companies commercial gain, rather than any medical advancement.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

Examples of some of the ‘me-too’ molecules are as follows:

Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)

Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)

Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

Goldacre further highlighted in his book that despite this fact, pharma market does not behave accordingly. Unlike usual expectations that multiple competing drugs in the same disease area would bring the prices down, a Swedish data showed that the drugs considered by the US-FDA as showing no advantages over the existing ones, enter the market at the same or even at higher prices than the original ones. Consequently, the outcome of such innovations adversely impacts the patients and the payor including the government, as Big Pharma takes full advantage of market monopoly and free pricing for such drugs in the garb of innovation.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

Unlike the above ‘me-too’ drugs, which are new molecules, though work in a similar way to the original ones, another kind of patented drugs have now come-up in a dime a dozen.

Goldacre defined those drugs as ‘me-again’ drugs. These are the same molecule re-launched in the same market at the same price with a different patented ‘enantiomer’. Each of a pair of such molecules is a mirror image of each other e.g. esomeprazole (Nexium) is the left-handed version of the omeprazole molecule (Prilosec), which is a mixture of both left and right handed forms.

There is no dramatic difference between omeprazole and esomeprazole in any respect. Moreover, it is worth noting that concerned constituents of Big Pharma come out with ‘me-again’ drugs only at the end of the patent lives of the original ones. What then could be the reason?

Some examples of ‘me-again’ drugs are as follows:

Enantiomer/Brand	Medical Condition	Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet)	Allergies	Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)	Depression	Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium)	Acid reflux	Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex)	Allergies	Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica)	Seizures	Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

That is indeed a good question, why do the doctors prescribe such costly, avoidable and so called ‘innovative’ drugs? Well, don’t we know that already?

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

To discourage market entry of high priced and avoidable ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of drugs that are also an outcome of so called pharma ‘innovations’, the Indian law makers very wisely introduced the section (3d), while amending the Indian Patents Act in 2005. This section, as indicated above, categorically states that inventions that are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable. This law has also passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India in the Glivec case of Novartis.

With this Act, India has unambiguously reiterated that it does not support the grant of patents for inventions that are minor modifications of the original ones, effectively blocking the usual path of patents grant as followed by Big Pharma across the world to enjoy monopolistic commercial advantages of ‘frivolous’ innovations, as called by many experts in this area.

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

This above action of Indian law makers has raised the ire of Big Pharma, as it has a huge commercial interest to protect ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of innovations in India, even if that comes at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Section (3d) of the Indian Patents Act, therefore, became a major hindrance in meeting the commercial goals of its constituents in India, as such molecules constitute a large majority of the total number of NMEs innovated globally.

As intense power-packed advocacy campaigns of the global pharma companies with the Government of India did not yield any meaningful result to get the section 3(d) amended, it unleashed the might of its well funded lobby groups having free access to the corridors of political power to play hardball with India, riding the horse of innovation and pooh-poohing patients’ interests.

Playing hardball:

The question therefore arises, would India tactfully reciprocate playing hardball or give in to the pressure of trade sanctions under ‘Priority Foreign Country’ categorization of the United States?

I reckon India would not give in. To state more emphatically, India just cannot give in now, under any circumstances.

Come May 16, 2014, the new Union Government of India would almost be ready take its position on the saddle. Thereafter, even if it prefers to give in to intense US political pressure just to avoid trade sanctions, in all practicality that would virtually be a non-starter. This is because, the new Government would unlikely to be in a position to garner enough votes in the Parliament to amend the section (3d), ignoring the general sentiment on this important public health related issue and political compulsions of many of its constituents on the subject.

Would America go to WTO?

Would the United States of America ultimately complain against India in the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for alleged violation of the TRIPS Agreement? That is exactly the question that many people are asking today.

In this context it is worth noting, India has reiterated time and again that Indian Patents Act 2005 is in full compliance of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration of 2001.

Since, no country has complained to WTO against India on this issue, as yet, despite so much of posturing and the noise generated the world over, it appears improbable that the US would now do so, though Big Pharma would continue playing hardball raising the same old bogey of protection of ‘innovation’ in a much higher pitch, cleverly camouflaging its hardcore vested commercial interests.

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

In the multilateral forum, if the WTO decides in favor of India, there is much to loose for Big Pharma.

In that scenario, the Indian example would encourage a large number of countries to enact similar model of Patents Act fully complying with the TRIPS agreement, as vetted by the WTO.

Some has termed it as a refreshingly fresh “Alternative Model of Patent Law’, going away from the dominant IP model as is being propagated by the US.

As I had indicated in the past, countries like the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favoring this alternative model that favors protection of Intellectual Property (IP) and at the same time promotes access to new inventions to a large majority of the global population.

Conclusion:

I reckon, Big Pharma’s playing hardball with India, riding the horse of ‘innovation’, could ultimately boomerang.

The Government of India, irrespective of any political color, lineage or creed, is unlikely to be bullied by Big Pharma constituents any time soon.

More importantly, even in a worse case scenario, the Government would be incapable of getting the section (3d) amended by the Indian Parliament garnering majority of the lawmakers’ support and going against strong political and public voices on this issue.

Nevertheless, Big pharma would continue to wish it to happen… and that drags me to the good old saying:

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

‘Big Pharma’ now seems to be desperately trying to gain the long lost high moral ground by pushing hard its gigantic image makeover juggernaut, maintaining a strong pitch on the relevance of stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the lives of the patients. However, even more alert media, by reporting a number of unethical and fraudulent activities of some of its constituents on the ground, is taking much of the steam out of it. As a result, the pace of erosion of all important pharma credibility is fast accelerating.

Innovation – A critical need for any science-based business:

Innovation, which eventually leads to the issue of IPR, is generally regarded as extremely important to meet the unmet needs of patients in the battle against diseases of all types, especially the dreaded ones. Thus, it has always been considered as the bedrock of the global pharmaceutical industry. As we all know, even the cheaper generic drugs originate from off-patent innovative medicines.

At the same time, it is equally important to realize that just as the pharmaceutical or life-science businesses, innovation is critical for any other science based businesses too, such as IT, Automobile, Aviation, besides many others. Since many centuries, even when there were no ‘Patents Act’ anywhere in the world, leave aside robust ones, pharmaceutical industry has been predominantly growing through innovation and will keep becoming larger and larger through the same process, acrimonious debate over stringent IPR regime not withstanding.

India has also amply demonstrated its belief that innovation needs to be encouraged and protected with a well-balanced Intellectual Property regime in the country, when it became a member of the World Trade Organization and a part of the TRIPS Agreement, as I had discussed in my earlier blog post.

Simultaneously, a recent research report is worth noting, as well. The study reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, since mid 2000, have spent around US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones. This is indeed a matter of great concern, just as a very ‘stringent IP regime’ prompts ‘evergreening’ of patents, adversely impacting the patients’ health interest.

Though innovation is much needed, obscene pricing of many patented drugs is limiting their access to majority of the world population. On top of that, business malpractices net of fines, wherever caught, are adding to the cost of medicines significantly.

Key reasons for acceleration of credibility erosion:

I reckon, following are the three main factors accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and Big Pharma in particular:

Large scale reported business malpractices affecting patients’ health interest
Very high prices of patented medicines in general, adversely impacting patients’ access and cost of treatment
Attempts to influence IP laws of many countries for vested interests

1. Accelerating credibility erosion due to business malpractices:

In the pharmaceutical sector across the world, including India, the Marketing and Clinical Trial (CT) practices have still remained very contentious issues, despite many attempts of so called ‘self-regulation’ by the industry associations. Incessant complaints as reported by the media, judicial fines and settlements for fraudulent practices of some important pharma players leave no breather to anyone.

To illustrate the point, let me quote below a few recent examples:

Global:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder. According to the Italian regulator Avastin costs up to 81 euros, against around 900 euros for Lucentis. Out of the total amount, Novartis would require to pay 92 million euros and Roche 90.5 million euros. Roche’s Genentech unit and Novartis had developed Lucentis. Roche markets the drug in the United States, while Novartis sells it in the rest of the world. Quoting the Italian regulator, the report says that the said practices cost Italy’s health system more than 45 million euros in 2012 alone, with possible future costs of more than 600 million euros a year.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges. An investigation of those former employees of Sanofi unearthed that they had made illicit payments to get more orders from pharma dealer.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US$ 3 bn in the United States after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. According to the report, the company encouraged sales reps in the US to ‘mis-sell’ three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Not so long ago, after regulatory authorities in China cracked down on GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly bribing of US$490 million to Chinese doctors through travel agencies, whistleblower accusations reverberated spanning across several pharma MNCs, including Sanofi. The company reportedly paid ¥1.7 million (US$277,000) in bribes to 503 doctors around the country, forking over ¥80 to doctors each time a patient bought its products.

All these are not new phenomena. For example, In the area of Clinical Trial, an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel reportedly uncovered in May, 2013 that erstwhile international conglomerates such as Bayer, Hoechst (now belongs to Sanofi), Roche, Schering (now belongs to Bayer) and Sandoz (now belongs to Novartis) carried out more than 600 tests on over 50,000 patients, mostly without their knowledge, at hospitals and clinics in the former Communist state. The companies were said to have paid the regime the equivalent of €400,000 per test.

India:

Compared to the actions now being taken by the law enforcers overseas, India has shown a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, as on date. It is astonishing that unlike even China, no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by Indian media has now triggered a debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry. The Government, so far, has shown no active interest in this area, either.

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

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

In the drug manufacturing quality area, USFDA and MHRA (UK) has recently announced a number of ‘Import Bans’ for drugs manufactured in some facilities of Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, as those medicines could compromise with the drug safety concerns of the patients in the US and UK. Even as recent as in late March 2014, the USFDA has reportedly issued a warning letter to another domestic drug maker USV Ltd on data integrity-related violations in good manufacturing practices occurred at the company’s Mumbai facility. This is indeed a cause of added concern.

Similarly, in the Clinical Trial area of India, responding to a PIL, the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee also had indicted the drug regulator. The Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

2. Accelerating credibility erosion due to high patented drugs pricing:

On this subject, another March 2014 report brings to the fore the problems associated with access to affordable newer medicines, which goes far beyond India, covering even the wealthiest economies of the world.

The report re-emphasizes that the monthly costs of many cancer drugs now exceed US$ 10,000 to even US$ 30,000. Recently Gilead Sciences fixed the price of a breakthrough drug for hepatitis C at US$ 84,000 for a 12- week treatment, inviting the wrath of many, across the world.

Why is the drug price so important?

The issue of pricing of patented drugs is now a cause of concern even in the developed countries of the world, though the subject is more critical in India. According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest component of expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare, as follows:

Items	Outpatient/Outside Hospital (%)	Inpatient/Hospitalization (%)
Medicines	63	43
Consultation/Surgery	-	23
Diagnostics	17	16
Minor surgeries	01	-
Private Consultation	14	-
Room Charge	-	14
Others	05	04

Probably for the same reason, recently German legislators have reportedly voted to continue until the end of 2017 the price freeze on reimbursed drugs, which was introduced in August 2010 and originally set to expire at end of 2013.

However in India, only some sporadic measures, like the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2011), that covers just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market, have been taken. On top of this, unlike many other countries, there is no negotiation on price fixation for high cost patented drugs.

If caught, insignificant fine as compared to total profit accrued, has no impact:

Many stakeholders, therefore, question the business practices of especially those players who get exposed, as they are caught and fined by the judiciary and the regulatory authorities.

Do such companies prioritize high profits ahead of patients’ lives, creating a situation for only those with deep pockets or a good health insurance cover to have access to the patented medicines, and the rest of the world goes without?

It is also no surprise that highly secretive and well hyped so called “Patient Access Programs” of many of these companies, are considered by many no more than a sham and a façade to justify the high prices.

3. Accelerating credibility erosion due to unreasonable IP related demands:

Despite some well-justified measures taken by countries like, India in the IP area, the US and to a great extent extent Europe and Japan, continuously pressured by the powerful pharma lobby groups, are still pushing hard to broaden the IP protections around the globe through various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). At the same time, Big Pharma lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel various governments to enact IP laws, which would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of Big Pharma.

Conclusion:

In the midst of all these, patients are indeed caught in a precarious situation, sandwiched between unethical practices of many large pharma players and very high prices of the available life saving patented medicines, beyond the reach of majority of the global population.

That said, accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and the Big Pharma in particular could possibly lead to a stage, where it will indeed be challenging for them to win hearts and minds of the stakeholders without vulgar display or surreptitious use of the money power.

To avoid all these, saner voices that are now being heard within the Big Pharma constituents should hopefully prevail, creating a win-win situation for all, not by using fear of sanctions as the key in various interactions, not even raising the so called ‘trump card of innovation’ at the drop of a hat and definitely by jettisoning long nurtured repulsive arrogance together with much reported skulduggery, for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

Posted on November 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The ‘Big Pharma’ prowls faltered yet again exposing the ‘fault line’ to all, when the GSK global head honcho, a pharma icon in his own right, Sir Andrew Witty supported the pharmaceutical policy of India, while in the country earlier this month. This support is quite in contrary to arrogant displeasure being expressed by his MNC counterparts against the pharma regime in India up until now.

Sir Andrew reportedly spoke against the usual pharma MNC practices of charging very high prices for patented medicines during an interview and said that multinationals need to look at things from India’s perspective.

The above comment, when analyzed especially in context of one of the recent actions of Big Pharma MNCs complaining in writing to President Obama against India’s prevailing pharmaceutical regime, the fault line gets clearly visible.

In this context, a recent report captured the anger and desperation of Big Pharma. This hostility vindicates the general apprehensions in India that MNCs are once again pushing for a stringent patent regime in the country, against the general health interest of Indian patients for access to affordable newer medicines.

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report reconfirmed the impatient prowl of the mighty lobby group in the corridors of power. This piece states, “Recent policy and judicial decisions (Glivec judgment and Nexavar) that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate.”

The ‘fault line’, thus surfaced, triggers off yet another critical debate, especially related to the slugfest on a stringent pharmaceutical product patent regime in India, as follows:

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

Global innovator companies strongly argue that stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and stricter enforcement of IP laws have strong link with fostering innovation leading to a robust economic growth for any nation.

However, another group of thought leaders opine just the opposite. They argue that strong IPR and IP laws have little, if any, to do with fostering innovation and economic growth, as there are no robust research findings to drive home the above point.

It has been noticed that the MNC lobby groups quite often very cleverly use their magic word ‘innovation’ on a slightest pretext with an underlying desire of having a ‘very strict patent regime’ in India. Thus they seem to be trying to mislead the common man, as if India is against innovation.

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India, Chairman of the National innovation Council and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development. I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable. We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

Recent Indian stand:

On March 5, 2013, the Government of India made a profound statement on the subject of ‘Innovation and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)’ at the TRIPS Council meeting covering the following points:

There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.

The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.

The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.

After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.

Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.

It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

As the Wharton professor of Healthcare Management Mark V. Pauly has been quoted saying that the link between patent protection and innovation has never been definitely proven.

However, Pauly reportedly is aware that the innovator global pharma companies do say, ‘If you don’t allow us to reap the benefits of our R&D expenditure, we won’t put as much into it, and we won’t invent as many great things’.

However, the Wharton Professor counters it by saying, “The problem is that nobody really knows how much less innovation there would be if there were less patent protection. We just don’t know what the numbers are.”

The above report says, according to Pauly, the onus to prove that patent protection matters should be on the drug industry itself.

He argues, “Rather than always just insisting you should never limit intellectual property protection, they really ought to develop some evidence to show that without that protection, there would be an impact on the rate of adoption of new products. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts.“

A French Professor’s view:

In another WIPO seminar held on June 18, 2013, Margaret Kyle, a Professor at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Université de Toulouse I in France, reportedly presented preliminary findings of a study.

This paper explored in detail the impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in various areas related to the speed of launch, price, and volume of sales of drugs across countries and across different drug products.

In this study, as the above report states, Kyle analyzed the trade-off between the dynamic and static effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The dynamic effect of IPRs was considered as an incentive for innovation based on the general belief that patent protection, through granting market exclusivity, incentivizes companies to invest in the research and development (R&D) to develop new drugs.

On the other hand, the static effect of IPRs in the short term is that granting market exclusivity often leads to innovator companies pricing their products at levels, which will be unaffordable by a large number of patients, especially in lower-income countries.

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.

The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

While highlighting that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property protection is passed by some developing countries in order to implement FTA obligations, another recent paper presents the following examples in support of the argument that there no correlation between strong IP laws and fostering innovation:

UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…Strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System. LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…No consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally. Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI. At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.” Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier. 2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies. Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier. 2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage. What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.” International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

“TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as ‘important, but not essential’ for attracting investment. Many other factors matter like, taxes, human capital, clustering, etc.”

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent article on this subject states as follows:

“Compulsory licensing and stricter patentability standards allow domestic manufacturers to produce lower-cost versions of patented NCD medications and break into lucrative therapeutic areas, such as oncology, in which multinational drug firms are heavily invested.”

The paper clearly highlights, “If patients are pitted against patents, international support for IP protection—upon which drug firms and many other developed country industries now heavily rely—will again diminish.”

Yet another article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 states:

“Patents are government-granted monopolies. As monopolies, they can drive the prices of drugs up dramatically. For example, in 2000, when only patented antiretroviral drugs for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection were widely available, they cost approximately $10,000 per person per year, even in very poor countries. Today, these same medicines cost $150 or less if they are purchased from Indian generics companies…. patents cause especially acute problems for access to medicines in developing countries – not only because of low incomes but also because insurance and price-control systems are often absent or inadequate.”

A WHO Report:

To chart the way forward at the backdrop of ongoing global debate elated to the relationship between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health, the World Health Assembly decided in May 2003 to give an independent Commission the task of analyzing this key issue. Accordingly, the Director-General of WHO established the Commission in February 2004. This report titled, “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” was published in 2006 and articulated that neither innovation nor access depend on just intellectual property rights and highlighted, among others, the following:

Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where ﬁnancial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which proﬁtable markets exist.

In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientiﬁc and technological capability inadequate.

In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.

Although the balance of costs and beneﬁts of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientiﬁc and technological infrastructure, the ﬂexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to ﬁnd a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

Trashing the anger and displeasure of pharma MNCs, as per the latest international survey, India reportedly has emerged as the most attractive global investment destination followed by Brazil and China. It is worth noting that even recently, during April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in the FDI landscape of India.

Conclusion:

In the Indian context, a 2013 paper titled, “Intellectual Property Protection and Health Innovation: Concerns for India” published by Center for WTO Studies highlights that the regime change in the patent system has not been very supportive for improving access to medicines in India. It reiterates, it has not been established yet that a stricter patent regime in the developing countries like India, has helped health innovation and access to medicines at economically viable prices.

The paper recommends, although India is trying to incorporate all the flexibilities under TRIPS in its Patents Act, the ‘Indian Policy Makers’ should not give in to the pressure of western powers to make IPR more stringent in the country.

In the backdrop of arrogance exhibited by Big Pharma MNCs, in general, against Indian policies and judicial verdicts on this subject, the comments made by Sir Andrew on the issue, as deliberated above, are indeed profound and far reaching. However, it clearly exposes the fault line in the collective mindset of pharma MNCs, without any ambiguity.

I shall not be surprised either, if clever attempts are made now by the MNC lobby groups to negate or trivialize the profoundness of this visionary statement not just in India, but beyond its shores, as well.

Further, as stated above recent emergence of India as the most attractive global investment destination with pharma leading the deck is a point worth noting, more in the context of policy and statutes that India has decided to follow.

Be that as it may, it is beyond the scope of any doubt that innovation or for that matter encouraging innovation still remains the wheel of progress of any nation.

However, have we garnered enough evidence yet, to establish that stringent IPR regime with absolute pricing freedom would lead to fostering more innovation leading to well-being of people of the developing countries, like India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on October 28, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

Mounting curiosity:

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

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

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

The ‘Power Game’:

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

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

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

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

Avoidable Expenditures:

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

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

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

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

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

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

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

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

Striking facts:

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

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

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

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

Pressure on publications:

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

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

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

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

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

Pay-for-delay deals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French Government has initiated a probe:

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

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

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

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

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

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

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

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

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

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

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

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

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

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

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

Intellectual Property (IP)
Patent
Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

That said, the question lingers:

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: innovation

Union Budget 2014-15: Ticks The ‘Top Priority’ Boxes on Healthcare

Leading Through The Challenge Of Change: Is Pharma Leadership Too Archaic?

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

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