Tag Archives: Medicines

China has recently unfolded the blueprints of its new healthcare reform measures, when will India do so?

Posted on by
Reply
Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:

China in 1997 took its first reform measure to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product, as it were. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China…but…:

The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicate that out of pocketl spending on healthcare services had doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.

A series of healthcare reforms was effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address this situation.

The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens. This is the pivotal core principle of the new wave healthcare reform process in China where more government funding and supervision will now play a critical role.

The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given for the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:

Chinese government will monitor the effective management and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.

It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.

Drug price regulation and supervision:

The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in its eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Healthcare scenario in India:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s, overall spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend was about 1.5 times of that of the government.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8% on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

Unlike, recent focus on the specific key areas of healthcare in China, in India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the centre and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Health insurance in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just above 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organised health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address both domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country.

Conclusion:

It is an irony that on one side of the spectrum we see a healthcare revolution affecting over 33 percent population of the world. However, just on the other side of it where around 2.4 billion people (about 37 percent of the world population) reside in two most populous countries of the world – India and china, get incredibly lesser public healthcare support and are per forced to go for, more frequently, ‘pay from pocket’ pocket type expensive private healthcare options, which many cannot afford or just have no access to.

In both the countries, expensive ‘pay from pocket’ healthcare service facilities are increasing at a greater pace, whereas public healthcare services are not only inadequately funded, but are not properly managed either. Implementation level of various excellent though much hyped government sponsored healthcare schemes is indeed very poor.

Moreover, despite various similarities, there is a sharp difference between India and China at least in one area of the healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of publicly funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not the same in India, because of various reasons.

Over a period of time, along with significant growth in the respective economies of both the countries, with China being slightly ahead of India for many reasons, life expectancy in both India and China has also increased significantly, which consequently has lead to increase in the elderly population of these countries. The disease pattern also has undergone a shift in both the countries, mainly because of this reason, from infectious to non-infectious chronic illnesses like, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis etc. further increasing the overall burden of disease.

High economic growth in both the countries has also lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.

A recently published report indicates that increasing healthcare expenditure burden is hitting the poor population of both the countries very hard. The report further says that considering ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL) at U.S$ 1.08 per day, out of pocket healthcare expenditure has increased the poverty rate from 31.1 percent to 34.8 percent in India and from 13.7 percent to 16.7 percent in China.

To effectively address this serious situation, the Chinese Government has announced its blueprint for a new healthcare reform measures for the coming decade. How will the Government of India respond to this situation? It will indeed be interesting to watch.

By Tapan Ray

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

Tackling the menace of counterfeit medicines – vested interests or petty sentiments should not make the pressing public healthcare issue irrelevant.

Posted on by
Reply
There are following three clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators are
not really very keen to effectively address and resolve this global public health issue.2. The generic companies and the drug regulators feel that the problem is not as acute as it is
projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy
campaign are trying to exploit the situation to fight against generic medicines and parallel imports.

3. Some other group, including a section of NGOs claim that an important public health sentiment is
being used by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend intellectual property rights
(IPR) to patients’ safety issue, allegedly for vested interest. These organizations have taken their arguments
to various international platforms like Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and
International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) of the World
Health Organization (WHO), for effective resolution of their grievances.

Addressing some of these concerns:

• IPR being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines:

Even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 2006 has estimated a loss to the industry towards such counterfeit medicines of US$ 30 billion, which is about 6% of the turnover of the global pharmaceutical industry.

• Magnitude of problem with counterfeit medicines has been inflated:

In the industrialized and developed nations of the world with effective regulatory control, the problem perhaps, may not be as acute. A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%.

Similar study, on the other hand, indicated that in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. It has also been reported that in South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

• Apprehension from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry:

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups within the industry to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is indeed unfounded. As from no developed countries around the world, there has been any threat to non-patent infringing legal generic medicines. And why there should be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

On the contrary generic pharmaceutical business, in almost all developed markets across the world, is growing at a much faster pace than the patented products of the innovator companies and this trend is expected to continue at least in short to medium term.

An unexplained similarity:

From the above details one will be tempted to draw a conclusion that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines are higher. IMPACT has reported counterfeit versions of all types of medicines ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensives, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, from these countries.

Various types of counterfeit medicines:

WHO has indicated following types of counterfeit medicines:

• Without active ingredients: 32%

• Wrong ingredients: 21.4%

• Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2%

• Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6%

• High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5%

• “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat poison or
road paint”

• Medicines purchased online from illegal internet sites: 50%

Factors influencing flourishing trade of counterfeit medicines:

WHO IMPACT has reported following key factors:

• Low manufacturing costs, thus higher profit margin

• Albany Law Journal reports that high pricing ratio of counterfeit medicines compared to a branded
product attracts counterfeiters

• In countries like India the risk of detection of fake medicines is quite low where the penalties for such
heinous crime even today is very lenient, as the amended anti-counterfeit law, for some strange
reasons, has not been made operational, as yet.

Global sales forecast for counterfeit medicines:

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will be around US$75 billion by the end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005.

Incidence of detection of counterfeit medicines:

A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

Volume of counterfeit seizures, the world over:

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from, were reported as follows:

• India: 31%
• UAE: 31%
• China: 20%

Conclusion:

We have, therefore, enough data to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are running to their banks, more often than ever before, with sacks full of money from this illicit trade, at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep going almost scot free, forever.

By Tapan Ray

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

Unlike China, IPR issues in India are being hijacked by the issue of ‘Access to Affordable Modern Medicines’.

Posted on by
Reply

‘Incremental innovation’, related to the pharmaceutical industry, has become a point of raging debate in India. Over a period of time ‘not really a breakthrough’ but ‘incremental inventive steps’ to discover New Chemical Entities (NCE), which would offer significant benefits to the patients, are being considered as of critical importance by the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry, the world over. Such types of innovations are being termed as ‘incremental innovation’ , with underlying implied meaning of ‘frivolous’ nature of the innovation, to some section of people.

Most innovations in the pharmaceutical industry have always been ‘incremental’ in nature:

We have been observing such ‘incremental innovation’ from ‘Penicillin era‘ with different derivatives of penicillins, right through to ‘Quinolone era’ with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin etc to ‘H2 receptor antagonists’ with cimetidine, ranitidine, roxatidine to ‘proton pump inhibitors’ with omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole etc.

We see such important ‘incremental innovation’ with many successful drugs across various disease areas. How many different varieties of ‘statins’, ‘betablockers’, ‘ace inhitors’ etc we have been prescribed by the medical profession over so many years with amazing results? This trend continues to offer better and better treatment options to the patients through the medical profession, across the world.

Unfortunately ‘incremental innovation’ has become a contentious issue in India. Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act 2005 has become a key barrier to continue with this process of innovation, in search of better and better medicines. ‘Breakthrough innovations’, which are very important though, are not as frequent in the pharmaceuticals industry, just as in many other industries, including Information technology (IT). ‘Incremental innovations’ are, therefore, the bedrock to improve the types of medications to treat various disease conditions.

A quick comparison with China:

As reported by the Department of Commerce of the U.S Government, domestic consumption of medicines both in India and China is around 70% of the domestic productions of the respective countries. These medicines are available at a very reasonable price to the local populations.

Fuelled by strong domestic demand, coupled with exports to other countries, the pharmaceutical industry in both India and China are showing impressive growth, China being ahead of India in both pace of growth, as well as in terms of market size.

Why some key IPR issues, like ‘incremental innovation’, are facing stiff opposition in India when it is not so in China?

Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) is now in place in both the countries. However, criteria of ‘patentability’, as mentioned above, still remain a contentious issue in India. The issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ is being unnecessarily dragged into the discussion of IPR related issues, where resolution of each of these two issues warrants totally different types of approaches.

The issue of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of medicines must be addressed with all earnestness by all concerned, but surely, I repeat, with a different kind and sets of measures. Mixing IPR issues with the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ sends a wrong message, which would mean that IPR is the cause of this problem in India or in other words, IPR has aggravated this problem since January 1, 2005, the day the new Patents Act came into force in India. This definitely is not the reality in our country.

As I have been saying repeatedly, why then from 1972 to 2005, when pharmaceutical products patents were not being granted, the access to affordable modern medicines were denied to 650 million population of India? The solution to this problem, in my view, lies in effectively addressing the issue of healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and healthcare financing (health insurance for all strata of society) with an integrated approach and in tandem through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

Is this issue cropping up because of intense pressure and public opinion created by over 20,000 small to medium scale producers of generic drugs, who have grown within the industry in a much protected environment created by the Government of India and had thrived in business by introducing copycat versions of innovators drugs for over three decades, during the old paradigm?

Large Indian companies are by and large in favour of IPR:

The large Indian Pharmaceutical Companies like Piramal Healthcare support the new IPR regime, envisaging the benefits that it will bring to the country in general and the domestic pharmaceutical industry in particular, in medium to longer term. These benefits will not only come from the fruits of their R&D initiatives, but also through various emerging opportunities of business collaboration in areas of their respective strengths, with the Multi National Corporations (MNCs) across the globe.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry, which had registered a double digit CAGR growth rate over the past decade, is poised to record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion by 2015, as reported by Mckinsey & Co. Even at that time patented products are expected to contribute just about 10% of the total market and balance 90% of the market will continue to be dominated by low cost branded generic drugs.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has potential to emerge as an international force to reckon with. But will it..?

Within knowledge based industries, after meteoric success of the Information Technology (IT), Indian pharmaceutical industry armed with its fast growing biotech sector, has all the potential to be a major global force to reckon with. It just needs to foster the culture of innovation. One will feel happy to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India has started taking, at least, some initiatives towards this direction.

The key issues of ‘patentability‘ together with lack of a strong regulatory framework for effective patent enforcement and data protection are becoming barriers to development of international collaboration in the space of pharmaceutical research and development in India.

Why is China different?

From the beginning of 90’s China initiated its reform processes in the IPR area, which may not be perfect though, as yet. However, since 1998 with stricter regulations on pharmaceutical manufacturing and introducing Drug Management Law, China to a great extent regulated entry of ‘fringe players’ in the pharmaceutical business. It enacted TRIPS compliant patent laws in 2002, extending pharmaceutical product patent for 20 years and regulatory data protection (RDP) for 6 years.

Currently China is focusing more on biotech drugs and has wheezed past India in terms of success in this important sector of the healthcare industry, though they have still miles to go to catch up with the developed world in this space. With the creation of innovative environment within the country, China is fast getting international recognition and collaboration, in genomic and stem cell research and technology.

In the pharmaceutical sector also China has brought in significant regulatory reforms since 2001. Because of its stronger IPR regime than India and other important regulatory reform measures that the country has been undertaking, China is racing past India to become one of the largest markets of the global pharmaceutical industry. In this process, China is attracting far more foreign direct investments (FDI) than India, almost in all verticals of the pharmaceutical industry, from R&D, clinical trials to contract research and manufacturing.

Where India scores over China:

Quality of co-operation and relationship between global pharmaceutical companies and the domestic Chinese pharmaceutical industry is believed to be not as good as what is prevailing in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. There are many reasons for such difference, language being the key reason. In China, English is still not a very popular language, in sharp contrast to India. This limits effective human interaction with the foreigners in China. In the area of, especially, pharmaceutical chemistry, Indian scientists are considered to have a clear edge over their Chinese counterparts.

Chinese policy makers are gradually trying to shed off their protectionist’s attitude in the globalization process.

Steps taken by China to encourage innovation are far more encouraging than what is being done in India. Global pharmaceutical companies are finding China more attractive than India to expand their business. As the saying goes, ‘proof of pudding is in its eating’, predominantly because of this reason, FDI for the pharmaceutical sector is coming more in China than in India.

Instead of creating drivers, is India creating barriers to innovation?

It is indeed unfortunate that the Indian law differentiates innovation based on its types and denies grant of patent for ‘incremental innovation’, which is the bedrock of progress for the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason section 3d of Indian Patent Acts 2005 does not consider the ‘salts, esters, polymorphs and other derivatives of known substances unless it can be shown that they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’, patentable.

Strong propaganda campaign unleashed by the vested interests alleging rampant violation of section 3d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is another case in point. Interestingly the aggrieved parties decided to fight this issue through media, avoiding the legal route for redressal of their grievances. They on record cited a hilarious reason for the same that no lawyer in India is coming forward to fight their cases, at the behest of the MNCs.

The way forward:

To encourage innovation within a TRIPS compliant IPR regime, as one sees in China,
stereotyping innovations as ‘breakthrough’ or ‘incremental’ will dampen the spirit of innovative culture within the country. Inventive steps in an innovative process of a pharmaceutical product are directed to satisfy some important needs of the patients. As I said before, most innovations, which are an integral part of the progress of this industry, have been ‘incremental’ in nature. Thus ignoring ‘incremental innovation’ in India could be counterproductive, in more than one way.

Investments required towards R&D that a ‘breakthrough type’ innovation would warrant are very high. Indian pharmaceutical industry will have a serious limitation in that direction. The path of ‘incremental innovation’ ably backed by a strong IPR enforcement process, would, I reckon, be the best way forward for the Indian players to compete effectively with global innovator companies, leave aside their Chinese counterparts.

Any innovation, which has gone through inventive steps, even if it is ‘incremental’ in nature, should not be considered ‘frivolous’. It demeans the very process of innovation.

Raising various public sensitive and emotive issues on product patents and combining it with issues of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of modern medicines, some powerful lobby of vested interests may seriously retard the progress of India. The Government of India should recognize that it will very adversely affect the country in its pursuit of excellence in the field of research and development, in medium to longer term.

Such emotive misconceptions are compelling the policy makers to divert their attention from the root cause, which I have enumerated above, of the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to the vast majority of Indian population.

In my earlier article, I suggested a public private partnership (PPP) model to address these critical healthcare issues. Examples of such PPP are already there in India in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Astute policy makers of the Government of India, I am sure, will soon realize that encouraging, rewarding and protecting patents through a robust TRIPS compliant IPR framework would enable India to place itself ahead of China, as the choicest destination for the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan Ray

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

From ‘Blockbuster Drugs’ to ‘Personalized Medicines’ – will it revolutionize the way the patients will be treated tomorrow?

Posted on by
Reply
Financial Times quoted Jeff Kendler, the CEO of Pfizersaying, “the era of dependence on a single or a couple of blockbuster drugs should be over. Lipitor sells U.S$ 12 billion a year. You can’t build a company predicted on the belief that you are going to find such a drug.”The argument is robust, what then are the alternatives?Rapid strides in pharmacogenomic bring in a promise of radically different way of treating diseases, as major pharmaceutical companies of the world make progress in developing much more effective medicines designed to target smaller populations. These medicines are termed as ‘personalized medicines’ and are expected to be an effective alternative to now quite unwieldy ‘blockbuster drugs’ business model.

In what way ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be different?

With ‘Personalized Medicines’ the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc, instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomic tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to such drugs.

These are expected to offer more targeted and effective treatment with safer drugs, and presumably at a lesser cost. Such medicines will also help identify individuals prone to serious ailments like, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer and help physicians to take appropriate preventive measures, simultaneously. ‘Personalized medicines’ in that process will focus on what makes each patient so unique, instead of going by the generalities of a disease.

To give a quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin, a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

‘Personalized medicines’, therefore, have the potential to bring in a revolutionary change the way patients are offered treatment by the medical profession. Genomic research will enable physicians to use a patient’s genetic code to arrive at how each patient will respond to different types of treatments.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are currently being done by many oncologists to determine which patients will be benefitted most, say by Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

What is then the aim of ‘Personalized Medicines’?

The aim of ‘personalized medicines’ is to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient.
It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, by 2010.

Expected benefits from ‘Personalized Medicines’:

1. More Accurate dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Health care: ‘Personalized Medicines’ will enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’. This would give rise to much better overall healthcare.

Role of Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:

Many research based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have taken a leading role towards development of ‘personalized medicines’ in line with their key role as healthcare enterprises. India is also taking keen interest in this science.

Some important issues:

However, there are some ethical and social issues in the development of ‘personalized medicines’ primarily in the area of genetic testing and consideration of race in the development of such medicines, which need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Can it replace the‘Blockbuster Drugs’ business model?

Realization of deficiencies in the economics of ‘block buster drugs’ R&D business model, has made ‘personalized medicines’ a reality today.

Improved efficacy and safety of treatment with ‘personalized medicines’ will prove to be cost-effective in healthcare systems. Smaller and exclusive markets for ‘personalized medicines’ are expected to be profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. But such smaller segmentation of the market may not leave enough space for the conventional ‘blockbuster model’, which is the prime mover of the global pharmaceutical industry, today.

Reports indicate that some renowned global pharmaceutical companies like, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline are making good progress towards this direction through collaborative initiatives.

Approximate cost of ‘Genome Sequencing’:

When human genome was first sequenced, the reported cost was staggering U.S$ 3 billion. However, with the advancement of technology, it came down to U.S$ 1 million, last year. Currently, the cost has further come down to U.S$ 60,000. With the rapid stride made in the field of biotechnology, combined with the economies of scale, cost of such genetic tests is expected to be around U.S$ 1,000 in near future, making it possible for people to obtain the blue print of their genetic code.

Savings on cost of Clinical trials with ‘Personalized Medicines’:

Genome sequencing will help identifying a patient population, which will be far more likely to respond positively to the new treatment. In that process, if it reduces costs of clinical trial by even 5%, expected net savings for the industry towards clinical trial have been reported to be around U.S$ 5 billion.

With ‘personalized medicines’ the innovator companies will be able to significantly reduce both time, costs and the risks involved in obtaining regulatory approvals and penetrating new markets with simultaneous development of necessary diagnostic tests. Such tests will be able to identify patients group who will not only be most likely to be benefitted from such medicines, but also will be least likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions.

Therefore, considerable cost advantages coupled with much lesser risks of failure and significant reduction in the lead time for clinical trials are expected to make ‘personalized medicines’ much more cost effective, compared to conventional ‘blockbuster drugs’.

Innovative and cost effective way to market ‘Personalized Medicines’:

With ‘personalized medicines’ the ball game of marketing pharmaceuticals is expected to undergo a paradigm shift. Roche’s model of combining necessary diagnostic tests with new drugs will play a very important role in the new paradigm.

Roche is ensuring that with accompanying required diagnostic tests, the new oncology products developed at Genentech can be precisely matched to patients.

Can ‘Personalized Medicines’ be used in ‘Primary Care’ also?

To use ‘personalized medicines’ in a ‘primary care’ situation, currently there is no successful model. However, it has been reported that in states like, Wisconsin in the U.S, initiative to integrate genomic medicines with ‘primary care’ has already been undertaken. Scaling-up operations of such pilot projects will give a big boost to revolutionize the use of ‘personalized medicines’ for precision and targeted treatment of the ailing population.

In my view, there does not seem to be any possibility of looking back now. The robust business model of ‘personalized medicines’, is now the way forward, as much for the industry as for the patients. It is a win-win game.

By Tapan Ray

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

Improving ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India –Public Private Partnership (PPP) is the way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite various measures being taken by the Government of India (GoI) from time to time, around 65% of Indian population are not having access to modern medicines. It appears, GoI is of the view that the reason for poor ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of our population is intimately linked to the issue of ‘affordability of medicines’.To make medicines affordable to the common man, the Government took a radical step in 1972 by passing a law to abolish products patent in India. The change in paradigm at that time, encouraged domestic pharmaceutical players to manufacture and market even those latest and innovative drugs, which were protected by patents, n many countries of the world. The new ball game enabled the domestic players to highly specialize in ‘reverse engineering’ and launch generic versions of most of the New Chemical Entities (NCEs)at a fraction of the innovators price, in India.This shift in Paradigm in 1972, catapulted the Indian domestic pharmaceutical industry to a newer orbit of success. India in that process, over a period of time, established itself as a major force to reckon with, in the generic pharmaceutical markets of the world. Currently, the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India caters to around one third of the global requirement of generic pharmaceuticals.

From 1972 to 2005 domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies focused on replicating all most all blockbuster drugs, like for example, major Cox2 inhibitors (Merck and Pfizer), Viagra and Lipitor (Pfizer) etc, to low price generic substitutes and that too just within a year or two from the date of first launch of these products in the developed markets of the world.

In 1972, the Market share of the Indian domestic companies, as a percentage to turnovers of the total pharmaceutical industry of India, was around 20%. During the era of ‘reverse engineering’, coupled with many top class manufacturing and marketing strategies, domestic Indian pharmaceutical players wheezed past their multinational (MNCs) counterparts in the race of market share, exactly reversing the situation in 2009.

‘Reverse engineering’ was one of the key growth drivers of domestic pharmaceutical industry during this period. In its absence, during post IPR regime, the growth rate of branded generic industry is not expected to be as spectacular. However, the low cost ‘essential medicines’ will continue to be produced and marketed in India in future, as well.

Be that as it may, from 1972 to 2005, India could produce and offer even the latest NCEs, at a fraction of their international price, to the Indian population. There were as many as 40 to over 60 generic versions of each successful blockbuster drug of the world, in India. Cut-throat competition was intense and still it is, which keeps the average price of such medicines well under control. To further tighten its grip over pharmaceutical products pricing, GoI imposed stringent price control and price monitoring mechanism simultaneously, which are in place even today. Despite competitive pricing pressure coupled with Government price control, over nearly four decades, with a key policy focus on ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained abysmal for a vast majority of the population of India?

To address this vexing problem, Industry Associations reported to have suggested a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model to the Ministry of Chemicals and fertilizers in 2006-07. At that time, the Associations seem to have offered that the Pharmaceutical Industry will supply to the GoI the essential medicines at 50% of their Maximum Retail Price (MRP), to cater to the need of the common man, especially those who are below the poverty line (BPL).

However, to make this proposal effective there is a fundamental need for the Government to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercise, initially in our primary and then in the secondary healthcare value chain. Towards this direction, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds.

Frugal budget allocation (1.12%) of the GoI towards healthcare as % of GDP of the country, suggests that Government is gradually shifting its role in this very important area, primarily from healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop it further. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure, leave aside other incentives, impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, effectively.

I have highlighted the remedial measures to be taken to address this situation in my article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/65-of-indians-do-not-have

Over 70 percent of our population are located in rural India. A relatively recent study indicates that despite some major projects undertaken by the Governments, like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals are located in urban India. Another recent initiative taken by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) called ‘Jan Aushadhi’ is also orientated towards urban and semi-urban India.

I had deliberated upon the ways to increase penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ in rural India, in another article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/jan-aushadhi-medicines-for

The net result of such policy initiatives, denies over 65 percent of Indian rural population from having access to quality healthcare services. Such lack of focus on rural areas, perhaps will explain the reason why only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to modern medicines.

Instead of trying to find a solution for this alarming ‘access to medicines’ problem, by limiting focus mainly on the issue of ‘affordability’ of medicines, for several decades, the Government is doing a great disservice to the common man, mainly located in the rural and semi-urban India. It is now high time that the GoI analyzes the available data to address the root cause of poor healthcare delivery, infrastructure and almost total lack of healthcare financing for all strata of Indian society.

Let me hasten to add that in no way I am trying to say that ‘affordability of medicines’ is no issue in India. All I am saying is that an integrated approach towards the root causes will quite effectively take care of ‘affordability’ issue and NOT the vice versa.

Even a problem of such magnitude can be converted into an opportunity. India can certainly be made a global hub for quality and affordable healthcare services, flashes of which we see in medical tourism initiatives.

Therefore, to address the acute problem of ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of the Indian population, GOI should reach all out to attract significant private and even foreign direct investments (FDI) through innovative Private Public Partnership initiatives. A strong will to have an ‘out of box’ solution to this critical problem is the crying need of the hour.

By Tapan Ray

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

‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’ project of DoP is a great idea – is it on course?

Posted on by
Reply
In mid 2008 The Government of India created a new department, ‘The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The new department came out with its following vision statement:“To enable Indian pharmaceuticals industry to play a leading role in the global market and to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices within the country, of good quality pharmaceuticals of mass consumption.”‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’:

In this article, I shall submit my point of view on the second part of the above vision statement, which articulated the responsibility of the department to ensure availability of affordable modern medicine for ‘mass consumption’.

When over 70% of Indian population lives in rural areas, one can quite easily assume that such medicines will be available adequately in rural areas of the country, as well. Obviously the question that follows this admirable vision statement is how?

To respond to this question one will try to address the following two basic strategic issues:

1. Create a workable and viable business model, which can be gradually developed over a period
of time to deliver the promise

2. Create a robust supply chain network to ensure easy access of these medicines to the common
man, located even in remote rural areas.

The first part of the strategic issue has been well addressed by the DoP, within a very short period, by creating ‘Jan Aushadhi’, the medicines for the masses. Importantly, the second point, which will determine the success of the project, has not been clearly articulated.

The objectives of the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ were stated as follows:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.)

2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through private public partnership (PPP). (I support this objective from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would argue below:why do we reinvent the wheel?)

3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality
generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market, like India.)

4. To help patients save significantly towards medicine cost with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets.

5. A national help line is believed to be able to increase awareness level of this initiative.

The statements of intent of the DoP also highlight that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

This particular decision of DoP, as I stated before, appears to be an attempt to ‘re-invent the wheel’, as it were. I shall argue on this subject, very shortly.

An open ended launch plan with inadequate market penetration compared to set objectives:

DoP announced that this scheme will be launched gradually in all the districts of India in four phases. However, for some unknown reasons, besides phase one and two, the other two phases of the launch plan have been kept by the department, as open ended as it could be, despite the Government of India’s having all wherewithals to implement this scheme with a reasonable degree of preciseness.

The four phases were decided as follows:

1. Phase 1: Amritsar Civil Hospital in November 8, 2008

2. Phase 2: Few stores in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), district hospitals in Mohali,
Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar by February 28, 2009

3. Phase 3: Other districts of Punjab and some other states to be covered during 2009 and
2010

4. Phase 4: Remaining districts of the country by 2010 and 2012

I am not surprised that with such vague launch plan and an open ended timeline, the Government seems to have faltered in Phase 2 itself, when it could not go beyond Amritsar and Shastri Bhavan, Delhi outlets, by February, 28, 2009.

Arguing for the need of a course correction:

Despite being a hardcore optimist, I now get a vague feeling that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and may remain just as another good intention of the Government of India, if a course correction is not made at this stage.

The key barrier to improve access to affordable quality generic medicine to the common man, in this particular case, is not conceptualization of a project. We all know that our Government is reasonably good at it, with a good number of brilliant minds working to give a shape to it. The main weakness to translate this laudable idea into reality, in my view, falls well within the general weakness of the Government in visualizing the key barriers to the project and at the same time missing out on some of the key drivers for the same.

In this case, there seems to be some flaw in the ‘ideation’ stage of the project, as well. This flaw lies with the plan of its delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other bodies.

If procurement of cost effective quality generic medicines is not an issue, then the DoP should carefully look within the Government system to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘mass delivery systems’:

The Government of India has two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to even far off rural areas. These two Government owned supply and delivery chains are as follows:

1. Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains and other essential commodities (Ration shops).

2. Indian Post Offices

Like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why then DoP not collaborate with PDS to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man?

Similarly, when postal department are collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas, why not DoP consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend usage of both PDS and Post Offices by the DoP for deeper penetration of such medicines especially for the benefit of those 650 million people of India who do not have any access to affordable modern medicines.

I am aware, the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system or process are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’.

We have many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure success of the project “Jan Ausadhi” – “Medicines for the common man”.

It is worth noting that this project seems to have already started limping with its vague execution plan and a delivery system, the scaling up of which to ensure access to one billion population of our country could be a serious question mark.

By Tapan Ray

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

An integrated approach towards Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives to improve access to healthcare in India is the way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population do not have access to affordable modern medicines, compared to 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore is, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades or so to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then the situation on ‘access to modern medicines’has remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population, in India?This, in my view, is mainly because; no single minister or ministry can now be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare, in India.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India records:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% by China and 1.6% by Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good but sporadic public healthcare initiatives:

The government allocation of around US$ 2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India, may encourage skepticism.

Addressing the issue of improving access to healthcare:

While addressing the issue of improving access of healthcare, following three important ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives would be most appropriate.

1. PPP to improve affordability:

To address this vexing problem, industry associations had jointly suggested a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model to the government in 2006-07, instead of a stringent price control mechanism, which has not worked thus far to improve access of modern medicines, in India. Instead, the associations seemed to have suggested that the pharmaceutical industry will supply to the government the essential medicines at 50% of their Maximum Retail Price (MRP), to cater to the need of below the poverty line (BPL) families.

It is worth mentioning, many OPPI member companies like, Novartis, GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis etc. have their own access to medicines programs in India.

Although the government did not respond to this proposal, to make it effective the ministry of health will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises, both in the primary and also in the secondary public healthcare facilities in the country. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds, for such capacity building exercises .

Frugal budget allocation by the government towards healthcare of the country, suggests that Government is gradually shifting its role in this very important area, primarily from healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop it further. If it is so, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure, leave aside other incentives, impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. Effective PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, without further delay.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is one of the well recognized strengths that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be adequately leveraged through PPP to neutralize the above weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, especially in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

Another IT enabled technology that India can widely use across the nation to address rural healthcare issues is ‘‘Telemedicine’ for distant diagnosis and treatment of ailments. Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by utilising the Government controlled distribution outlets like, public distribution system (ration shops) and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

3. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, even as compared to China, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

Out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. Converse to this scenario, in India total number of population who may have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million with penetration of health insurance at just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure.

Even after leveraging IT for ‘Telemedicine’ and improving healthcare delivery processes, together with availability of low priced quality medicines from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of society to make healthcare products/services affordable to a vast majority of the population, will remain an essential requirement for the country to address the issue of improving access to healthcare to all.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of populations cannot afford to pay for the required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

In my view an integrated approach for creating effective healthcare infrastructure throughout the country, leveraging IT in the entire healthcare space, appropriately structured ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society ably supported by well spread out ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets even in far flung rural areas, deserve careful consideration by the Government.

A PPP model in all these three areas needs to be worked out in detail to address the pressing issue of improving ‘Access to Affordable Integrated Healthcare to ALL’.

By Tapan Ray

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