Tag Archives: Medicines

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

Posted on by
Reply

Today, although a number of new and state of the art drugs is regularly being developed, and brought to the market at a reasonably rapid pace, their access to the majority of the global population has still remained a huge challenge. One of the key access barriers continue to remain exorbitant prices of these drugs.   

Keeping commensurate pace with gradual improvement in the pinpointed diagnosis of various diseases with modern diagnostics, processes, devices and techniques, fueled by increasing health awareness within a sizeable section of the population, more patients are now aspiring for access to a better quality of life, and greater productivity at work. This is happening all over the world, though with varying degree and magnitude. 

Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for healthcare, which has caused a huge bottleneck in the overall healthcare delivery process, for various reasons. The huge gap between the availability of high-tech drugs/healthcare services, and their access to the general population, mostly due to affordability reasons, is going north at a rapid pace. 

Two-pronged cost containment pressure:

This unfettered ascending trend is creating primarily the following two types of cost containment pressure: 

  • Being driven purely by the economical reasons, the Governments and other payers have started taking stringent cost-containment measures, bringing huge pricing pressure, especially on the drugs and medical device manufacturers.
  • In countries, such as, India, where the ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on healthcare in general, and the medicines in particular, is hovering around 70 percent, the patients, several Governments have started announcing drug price control policy to protect the health interest of patients. 

However, currently, only some piecemeal measures are being initiated, including in India, where a holistic approach for all, such as, Universal Health Care (UHC) and several other similar options, are long overdue.

Three different remedial measures:

In my view, consideration of either of these three following approaches, or an innovative blend of these, would enable the Governments to address this pressing issue, remove the existing bottle neck, and thereby bridge the healthcare access gap, holistically:

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC).

B. Closer look at the entire Pharmaceutical Value Chain with a resolve to work out innovative, game-changing solutions to reduce cost of each of its critical components, significantly.

C. Effectively addressing the emerging need of Patient-Centricity.

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC):  

I have already discussed UHC in one of my articles titled, “Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?”, published in this Blog on November 9, 2015.

B. Cost containment with 3D printing:

A report of IMS Health, published on November 18, 2015, forecasts the increase of  total global spend for pharmaceuticals by US$ 349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with US$182 billion during the past five years. It also indicated, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where the use of medicine will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020, up from 31 percent in 2005, as the “medicine use gap” between the developed and the emerging markets narrows. 

This steep ascending trend would eventually affect the pharma ‘Value Chain’ in a significant way, throwing open several path-breaking high-technology based options, with impressive favorable impact on the general costs of medicines. 3D-printing technology is expected to play a significant role in this initiative.

Before proceeding further, let me zero-in on a few critical components, as follows, of the pharma ‘Value Chain’, as I see visualize these: 

  • Drug innovation (R&D)
  • Manufacturing
  • Marketing
  • Supply Chain

According to my understanding, at least in 3 of the above 4 ‘Value Chain’ components, there is an immense potential of leveraging 3D printing technology effectively, and in a big way.

In my article of January 11, 2016, published in this Blog, titled “3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma  Business”, I have already discussed the game changing impact of 3D Printing technology on the drug discovery process, drug manufacturing strategy, and supply Chain effectiveness in the pharma business. 

Hence, I prefer not to dwell on those areas, yet again, here. Instead, I shall briefly deliberate on the application of 3D Printing technology to effectively address the emerging need of ‘Patient-Centricity’ with an interesting and a very recent example. 

C. Improving ‘Patient-Centricity’ with 3D printing: 

At this stage, there is a need to understand what exactly is the ‘’Patient-Centricity’. It seems to be a popular buzzword now with the health care related companies, primarily to give an impression that they are really focusing on ‘Patient-Centricity’.

However, there does not seem to exist any universally accepted definition of this terminology, just yet. Nevertheless, one appropriate definition could well be: “A focused and transparent approach to providing maximum possible benefits to a patient from a drug, device, technology, or health care services.” 

I briefly focused on a part of this basic issue in my article titled, “‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’- An evolving trend’, published in this Blog on January 7, 2013.

As I said before, in this article, to explain ‘Patient-Centric’ approaches with 3D printing, I would quote from a very recent, and a path-breaking work in this area.

On May 25, 2016, ‘The Straits Times’ reported, the researchers at the National University of Singapore have found a way to use 3D printers to create low-cost tablets. With the help of this technology a tablet can be so personalized to respond to individual patient’s needs that the drug can be customized to take on different release profiles, such as, constant release, pulsed release, increasing or decreasing release, and any arbitrary interval as required by the patient. However, the most striking is, different drugs with different release profiles can also be combined in a single pill.

Once administered, the tablet dissolves layer by layer over a period of time, releasing the drug at a controlled rate. The duration can be altered by changing the chemical composition of the liquid.

It is worth noting here that the conventional tablets are only capable of a constant rate of release, requiring the patient to manually control the dosage and release rate, by taking doses according to a prescribed schedule, given by the doctor. In this scenario, if a patient requires different drugs with different dosages and intervals, it can become inconvenient to keep track and potentially dangerous, especially when the patient misses a dose, the report highlighted. 

The commercially available printer used in the project costs just S$2,000.

The Assistant Professor Soh Siow Ling, who leads the project, reportedly, expects that the low cost will allow it to be used in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. He further explained, “Every single person is different, based on many factors such as genetics, age, body mass and so on. Different people also have different activity levels and consumption habits, which affect their needs. It is, (therefore), not desirable to use the same drug to treat different illnesses which have similar apparent symptoms.”

The report indicated that in October, 2015, these findings were published in an issue of Advanced Materials, which is a peer-reviewed materials science journal.

A patent for the tablets was filed last year, and they are currently in talks with multinational corporations, and medical professionals to identify potential applications, the article highlighted. 

Changing role of doctors:

From the above developments, it appears that unleashing the full potential of 3D printing technology in the pharma industry, would also enable the medical profession to move further towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in its true sense.

This technology would empower them offering to each patient, the right drug or drug combinations, with most suitable drug delivery system, and exactly the way individual patients would prefer, with a very high degree of precision.

Thus, from overall disease treatment perspective, especially with medicines, this approach offers a great potential to be significantly more effective, and convenient to individual patients, as compared to the conventional approaches. 

I reckon, over a period of time, professional competitiveness would drive the doctors further honing their effectiveness in the disease treatment process, and that too with a high degree of precision. In that situation, many doctors may decide to setup on-demand 3D drug-printing facilities even at their clinics.

The gradual embodiment of this brilliant technology by the doctors, is expected to throw open new vistas of opportunity, also to personalize the shapes, colors and flavors of any medicine, according to individual patient’s choice. This, in turn, would improve patient compliance, ensure a predictable relief from the disease, and demonstrate ‘Patient-Centricity’ of a high order by the medical profession, in general. 

Conclusion:

For the first time ever, with Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States getting approval of the US-FDA on August 3, 2015 for the market launch of a 3D printed prescription drug for oral use by the epilepsy patients, dawns a new paradigm in the global pharma business horizon.

Effective application of this ‘disruptive innovation’ could well be a game changer not just in the ‘value chain’ of conventional pharma business models, across the world, but also for taking a giant leap towards ‘Patient-Centricity’. The doctors are also expected to be very much an integral part of this process. 

Besides all the above benefits, 3D printing can also encourage low-volume production, whenever required, and a wide variety of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, to meet any immediate demand, mostly for use in research and developmental work. 

Thus, noting the ongoing significant progress in this area, I reckon, leveraging 3D printing technology in pharma, not just to address the cost containment pressure, effectively, but also to ensure a tangible and visible move towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in true sense. All-round success in the innovative application of this cutting-edge technology in the global pharma industry, would eventually separate men from boys in pursuit of business excellence. 

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.

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

The facade of high cost of drug innovation: 

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

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

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

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

The moot questions:

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

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

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

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

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost: 

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

The façade has started crumbling:

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

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

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

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

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

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

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

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

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

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

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

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

A. The search for a new target:

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

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

B. Desk research and discovery:

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

C. Animal testing:

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

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

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

D. Human Trial:

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

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

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

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Posted on by
Reply

Arbitrary drug pricing has now become a subject of a raging debate, all over the globe. It involves both patented and generic drugs, as we have recently witnessed in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States.

In many countries the same issue is inviting the direct intervention of the Government to protect health interest of a vast majority of the populations. India, I reckon, belongs to this group of countries. 

In this article, I shall discuss this issue, citing examples from both the global and local recent developments.

Most high drug price increases defy logic: 

Published in March 2016, the ‘Express Scripts 2015 Drug Trend Report’ points out, in the perspective of the United States, that over the last 30 years more and more dollars are spent on specialty, rather than on traditional medications.

Most drug development and spend in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, used to be on traditional, mostly small-molecule oral solid drugs, used to treat conditions, such as, peptic ulcer, depression, hypertension and diabetes. Today, 37.7 percent of drug spends go for specialty medications, with the number expected to increase to 50 percent by 2018, and continue to grow further, thereafter. 

The report also states that there are 7,000 potential drugs in development, with most aimed at treating the high-use categories of oncology, neurologic disorders and infectious diseases.

High-cost therapies for non-orphan conditions, particularly for cancer, high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease, will continue to increase the population of patients with high annual drug expenditures.

‘Express Scripts Exclusive Prescription Price Index’ reveals a brand-price inflation in the United States, nearly doubled between 2011 and 2015, with the greatest impact seen in more recent years. Compared to 2014, brand prices in 2015 were 16 percent higher. Brand medications have increased in price by 164 percent between 2008 and 2015, the report highlighted.

Similar trend, though may not be of similar magnitude and proportion, has commenced in India too. In this emerging situation, the patients with high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on medicines have started feeling the pinch too. This is becoming more intense as the disease pattern has started shifting from short-term infectious and parasitic diseases to almost lifelong non-infectious chronic ailments.

The pressure started building up:

The drug industry is likely to come under increasing scrutiny on product pricing, to alleviate the ‘pressure cooker’ situation for the patients, in general, especially during chronic and life-threatening disease conditions. 

May 10, 2016 issue of ‘Bloomberg’, in an article titled, “Mutual Fund Industry to Drug makers: Stand Up and Defend Yourself”, reported: “In a sign of how U.S. political pressure to rein in drug pricing is weighing on pharmaceutical companies and their investors, a group of major funds called an unusual meeting with top biotech and pharma lobbyists, urging them to do a better job defending their industry.” This is indeed unusual, and I reckon, should happen in India too. 

The article also states: “Investors are stepping up pressure on pharma lobbyists at a critical time for the industry, as drug pricing has become a potent political issue on the presidential campaign trail and in Congress. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sent biotech stocks tumbling last year when she first talked about ‘price gouging,’ and Donald Trump has suggested that Medicare should negotiate with manufacturers.”  

It also reported that responding to this emerging pressure situation, the global pharmaceutical lobbying organizations, such as, PhRMA in the Washington, DC has already set up a dedicated webpage called “Costs in Context” with infographics and fact sheets. It has also tried to peg responsibility on insurance companies for making it hard for patients to access medicines. 

Patients’ can no longer be taken for granted:

That patients’ can no longer be taken for granted with costly drugs, backed by high profile marketing campaigns, is evident from a recent study.

In May 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, published a poll result on “Americans’ Attitudes About Changing Current Prescription Drug & Medical Device Regulation”. 

Among many other related issues, the study reflected that around 57 percent of the poll participants believe that pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowed to advertise prescription drugs on television. This is because of interesting reasons. The respondents believe that ads for prescription medicines sometimes encourage and persuade the patients to ask for costlier drugs that may not be appropriate for them. 

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that on November 17, 2015 the American Medical Association (AMA) also called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices, including television advertisements. 

According to a statement released by the group, “member physicians are concerned about a growing proliferation of ads driving demand for expensive treatments, despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.” 

Hence, the bottom-line is, even the American patients, most of whom are covered by health insurance of different kinds, are now feeling the bite of increasing medicine prices.

Many patients seem to be realizing that such unfair price increases, driven by the respective pharma manufacturers, are avoidable. This serious concern may assume a snowballing effect, notwithstanding high voltage lobbying and campaigns to negate these general stakeholders’ feelings by the top global pharma lobbying organizations, across the world, India included.

Premium pricing of MNCs’ branded generics arbitrary?

One gets its reflection even in the Indian branded generic market, where the MNCs usually market their generic single molecule or FDC brands at a huge premium price. Such high priced products are backed by intense marketing of all kinds. The MNCs’ justification of charging a high premium stand on the promise of adherence to world-class drug quality standards, unlike many domestic generic manufacturers.

There are not enough evidences either to accept or ignore this claim. However, it has received a big jolt even recently, raising similar suspicion as I briefly raised in my article titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”, published in this blog on March 28, 2016. 

On May 12, 2016 Reuters reported that Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India, in the notices posted on its website in February and also in April, has made it public that it has found some batches of Sanofi’s ‘Combiflam’ (FDC of paracetamol and ibuprofen) to be “not of standard quality”, as they failed disintegration tests. 

According to the US-FDA, this particular test is used as an integral part of quality-assurance measure in pharmaceuticals, and its non-conformance makes the drug ‘sub-standard’. 

Hence, huge premium charged for all those branded generics, which are outside DPCO, and mostly by the MNCs, may be construed by many as baseless and arbitrary.

Premium pricing, with payment to doctors is a winner?

This has again been vindicated in a recent study.

A paper, published in the May 09, 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, establishes that: ‘Pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians may affect prescribing practices and increase costs, if more expensive medications are prescribed.’

Although no such credible study has been published in the Indian context, it is widely believed, the prevailing situation in this regard, within the country, is no different. Nevertheless, arbitrarily high drug pricing, even for the branded generics, is considered as a winning strategy by many pharma companies. 

When the Government steps in:

It happened in India recently, yet again.

As we know, the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ came under intense public criticism, as it did not include many modern drugs for chronic and lifesaving diseases under its fold, for inclusion in the drug price control order of the Government.

The Experts Committee formed for this purpose recommended addition of a number of drugs for a variety of serious diseases, such as, cancer, hepatitis C, diabetes, cardiovascular, and HIV in the NLEM, to make them more affordable to patients. 

Acting on this proposal, the Union Ministry of Health replaced the NLEM 2011 by NLEM 2015 in December 2015. This increased the span of drug price control from 684 to 875 medicines.

According to the well-reputed pharma market research organization – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt Ltd., with NLEM 2015, still only 18 percent of Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by value will now come under price control, against 17 percent with NLEM 2011. 

On May 12, 2016 the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ started with revising prices of 54 recently included essential medicines in the NLEM 2015, in some cases bringing them down up to 55 percent, in conformance with the DPCO. Again on May 19, 2016 another set of 27 formulations,  which, among others, include the treatment for epilepsy, infections and diabetes, were brought under price control.

Does ‘free market economy’ work in pharma industry?

As the NPPA has articulated a number of times, with umpteen number of examples, that arbitrary and wide variation in pricing for the same kind of branded generics is a result of ‘market failure’.

We all are living in a unique situation, where the consumers are unable to participate in the process of an affordable drug selection, much unlike any other consumer goods in a ‘free economy’. 

I deliberated this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”, published in this Blog on April 27, 2015.

Conclusion: 

Arbitrary drug pricing is increasingly attracting the ire of many Governments, other payers, patients and even some important investors, as we have seen in the United States. Most Indian fund houses and other investors are probably taking stock of the possible emerging situation. A large number of them are, by and large, going by the same old and traditional way of evaluating a pharma business.                                                                                 

Pharma companies, across the world, instead of trying to find out an innovative way to douse this fire for the benefit of all concerned, are getting more and more desperate to rationalize their arbitrary drug pricing, in whatever way they possibly can.

The approach taken by them is convincing none, instead, adding further fuel to the fire. Getting favorable views from some handful of seemingly spoon-fed write-ups, would possibly not help resolve this raging issue or protect public health interest, in any way. 

All concerned should try to realize that a utopian ‘free market economy for medicines’, with patients exercising their informed choices, backed by active support from the treating doctor, does not exist in the real world, not just yet. 

Thus, arbitrary pricing for essential drugs, where market competition is made irrelevant by many drug makers, allegedly by unethically influencing the prescribers in various ways, merits state intervention, unquestionably, solely to protect patients’ health interest.

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.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

Would future be always a replica of the past?

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

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

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

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

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

A new research report:                

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

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

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

A. Declining R&D productivity: 

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

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

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

C.  Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

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

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

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:             

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

  • Big companies: 54 percent
  • Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent
A fear of failure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on by
Reply

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”        

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging: 

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages: 

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug Approved Indication Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole) Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin) Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive) Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine) Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine) Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety: 

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

  • Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.
  • Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world. 

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs: 

  • On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  
  • On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. 
  • On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.
  • On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far. 
  • On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.  This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million.  Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.
  • On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol. 
  • On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.
  • On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals. 

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused. 

A conflict of interest? 

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed.  In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.” 

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs.  Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

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.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:

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

  • Products included under Drug Price Control Order  2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) 
  • Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013
  • Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate

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

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

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

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

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

Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?

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

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

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

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

Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some examples:

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

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

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

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

Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?

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

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

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

Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A safeguard for patients?

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

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

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

Conclusion: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, the hope lingers!

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Health Care in India: Disrupt The Status Quo

Posted on by
Reply

Over decades, we have been trying to ferret out the unfeigned reasons of failure for India to provide access to reasonably affordable, quality health care to all its citizens, but in vain. The quest to know its rationale becomes more intense, as we get to know, even some developing countries in Asia, Africa and Middle East are taking rapid strides to catch up with the health care standards of the developed countries of the world.

In the last few years many such countries, such as, Thailand, Turkey, Rwanda and Ghana, besides China, have successfully ensured access to quality and affordable healthcare to their citizens through well-structured national initiatives. Governments of economically poorer countries, such as, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too are making rapid progress in this direction. All these commendable health care initiatives are protecting the most vulnerable populations in their respective countries from getting swept away by extreme poverty.

No more than just assurances:

In India, economic and social costs of public health care infrastructural inadequacy, consequent low access and inefficient delivery mechanism keep going north, unabated, barring a small number of States. Over decades, Union Governments of all political dispensations have been making no more than incoherent promises and that too in bits and pieces on reform in public health care services. As on date, no Union Government has articulated a comprehensive pathway to achieve this goal, in tandem with the States, specifying required time-frames and making commensurate budgetary allocations.

Despite the legacy factor, the incumbent Government as well, has not taken any tangible measure in this direction, just yet, besides giving similar in-coherent assurances. Nor has it clearly articulated that providing access to quality health care for all, at a reasonable cost, is one of its top areas of priority in the widely publicized ‘National Development Agenda’.

Agonizing wait continues:

That the Government is now in the process of drafting a National Health Policy to meet the rising demand for sustainable healthcare across the country, was announced by the Secretary – Health & Family Welfare on September 1, 2014. The first draft of The National Health Policy 2015 was placed in the public domain seeking inputs from the stakeholders in January 2015.

That said, agonizing wait of the patients with unfathomable patience still continues for better days of high quality and affordable health care services in India. Palpable feeling of long standing apathy of the decision makers in this area keep lingering simultaneously.

Two critical admissions:

Besides others, following are the two critical and unambiguous admissions in the draft National Health Policy 2015:

  • “The failure to attain minimum levels of public health expenditure remains the single most important constraint.”
  • “Over 63 million persons are faced with poverty every year due to health care costs alone, it is because there is no financial protection for the vast majority of health care needs.”

In my article of January 12, 2015 published in this Blog, titled “National Health Policy 2015 Needs Wings To Fly ”, I deliberated on the draft National Health Policy 2015.

No commensurate budgetary provisions:

Despite being aware of the above facts, the Union Budget for 2015-16 allocated just below Rs. 30,000 Crore for health care in India, without unveiling any longer term picture in this regard, not even a ‘broad brush’ one.

To give a perspective regarding how meagre is this budgetary allocation on so critical an area, I quickly add that on August 19, 2015, Prime Minister Modi announced an allocation of Rs.1.25 lakh crore for the development of only Bihar, just prior to the state going for the assembly election.

Untenable reason:

The Finance Ministers reasoned in his budget speech that post devolution of resources to the states following the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, the states will address the issue of healthcare in their respective geographical jurisditions.

However, it does not make much sense to me, if at all. This is mainly because, though health is a state subject, it is still a very critical national issue with an overall dismal performance of the country against most of the ‘Millennium Development Goals’.

Only a ‘National Health Plan’ funded jointly and adequately by both the center and the States with clear budgetary provisions and executed immaculately against clearly measurable performance parameters with specifically assigned accountabilities, could salvage the disastrous consequences of further neglect in the health care space of the country.

Not just deployment of financial resources:

The core issue, I reckon, is not just inadequate deployment of financial resources, but continuation of lack of effective governance in the Union Ministry of Health, as well. And, this is indeed a deadly combination. It has been pushing a large number of patients in India embracing abject poverty every year, as admitted in the draft National Health Policy 2015 of the incumbent Government, but with no visible rectifying measures, as on date.

Dangling carrots, as it were, to the patients by different Union Governments in shedloads, such as, ‘free medicines for all’, ‘free health insurance for all’, ‘free diagnostics for all” and what not ‘for all’, has been continuing forever, with patients having no other choices but to have patience in plenty and probably in perpetuity.

When Primary Health Care itself is a critical issue… :

In such deteriorating heath care environment, when primary health care still remains a key issue mostly in rural India, yet another interesting and tentative assurance reportedly comes from no less than the Union Minister of Health himself on August 18, 2015, when he said:

“The government is working both in secondary and tertiary medical sector and I believe that we need to work out a module in PPP mode to lessen the healthcare burden of common man.”

Having said that, when it comes to providing healthcare services to the poor and the needy, the Honorable Minister, expressed his vision in a notably interesting way, which is reportedly as follows:

“How will we be able to give the healthcare facility to helpless is one question that is unanswered…. All stakeholders should answer this question. Enhance the teaching, the training should be at much higher, speed, scale and skill and above all there should be better communication.”

Going beyond just allopathic treatment:

To answer the Health Minister’s above question – “How will we be able to give the healthcare facility to helpless”, one of the many important ways for the Government, I reckon, is to make a decisive and robust move much beyond Allopathic treatment, just as what China has done with its ‘traditional medicines’.

The strengths of traditional Indian medicines need to be properly leveraged with requisite intervention of science and technology and supported by effective awareness building campaigns.

Expand the role of ‘Traditional Medicines’:

Treatment with traditional medicines in India for many well-tried common diseases, has the potential to play an important role in providing access to health care for all, at least in the public health care space of the country, where AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) needs to be promoted and encouraged, actively.

It is expected that the new National Health Policy 2015 would have a much greater focus on the traditional systems of medicine – AYUSH, for the treatment of many common diseases.

It appears from various reports, AYUSH system that calls for not very sophisticated technological inputs for diagnosis of common diseases and preparation of medicinal substances, could be made an integral part of the entire healthcare spectrum, starting from the primary health centers.

As a basic preparatory measure to achieve this goal, the rejuvenated ‘Department of AYUSH’ should work, in consultation with the respective domain experts, to chart out an effective and implementable pathway for the development of education and research in Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy systems.

Need to increase focus on AYUSH:

It has been widely reported that the use of herbs to treat various common ailments is almost universal among many societies, as these are quite often more affordable than buying expensive modern allopathic medicines.

According to the World Health Organization, around 80 per cent of the population of some Asian and African countries currently use traditional medicines to address their health care needs.

I thought the same holds good for India, as well.

However, from a very recent and credible survey report, I find that the above impression is not quite true for India. Penetration of traditional AYUSH systems of treatment, even within the rural population of India, is currently abysmally low.

According to NSSO’s (National Sample Survey Office) Household Expenditures on Health Survey, conducted between January and June 2014, usage of Allopathy for “spells of ailment” is unusually high both in urban and rural India, as follows:

Category Allopathy Treatment %
Rural Males 90.6
Rural Females 88.7
Urban Males 90.4
Urban Female 91.0

(Source: NSSO 2014-15)

In the absence of adequate access to safe and cost-effective treatments through public health care infrastructure and delivery systems, be it Allopathic or AYUSH, more number of patients are compelled to seek expensive private healthcare services for their “spells of ailment”, as follows:

Category Private Doctors Private Hospitals
Male 51.3 24.3
Female 49.7 23.9

(Source: NSSO 2014-15)

AYUSH could play an important role to address such issues, appreciably.

An intriguing recent media report:

On August 19, 2015, I read an intriguing media report that highlights the following two points on apparently a ‘recently overhauled draft’ of the National Health Policy 2015, as follows:

  • “The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government plans to increase public investment in health from 1.04 per cent of GDP (gross domestic product) to 2.5 per cent by 2020, with 70 per cent of this being dedicated to primary health care. This target has been set in the overhauled draft National Health Policy that now emphasizes on substantially ratcheting up government investment in public health care facilities across the country.”
  • “Of the total funds required, the Union government would provide 40 per cent, which could be shored up through a health cess on the lines of an education cess. The cess fund to be used specifically for public health investments could be partly shored up by imposing additional duties on tobacco, alcohol, fatty, salty and sugary products that are considered unhealthy by experts.”

Why is this media report so baffling?

This news really baffled me…a lot, as another more than six month old media report of January 1, 2015 stated just the same on the same two points, exactly quoting the very first draft (not the ‘overhauled’ one) of the National Health Policy 2015 , as follows:

  • “The draft National Health Policy, 2015 has proposed a target of raising public health expenditure to 2.5 % from the present 1.2% of GDP. It also notes that 40% of this would need to come from central expenditure.”
  • “The government is also keen to explore the creation of a health cess on the lines of education cess for raising money needed to fund the expenditure it would entail. Other than general taxation, this cess could mobilize contributions from specific commodity taxes such as the taxes on tobacco, and alcohol, from specific industries and innovative forms of resource mobilization.”

Be that as it may, I would urge you to please read both the old and new original media reports on the same draft National Health Policy 2015 and draw your own conclusions, as you deem appropriate.

No change on the ground:

The media reports, such as above, elaborately detailing a significant increase in the health care expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the so called “overhauled” draft of the National Health Policy 2015, gave me an impression that the status quo, at least, in the public health care expenditure scenario has now been disrupted, which in reality has not, at all.

Such reports make patients continue ‘counting colors in the rainbow’, as it were. They keep expecting that getting access to quality and affordable health care for all would soon become a reality, with the Government thinking afresh to raise the public health care expenditure significantly. In reality, the status quo on the ground continues and it can’t be just wished away.

Deserves ‘Infrastructure Status’:

To achieve the basic health care goals of the nation, the Government would require to set the national priorities right. Health care has to be placed at the top rungs of its ‘National Development Agenda’ just as ‘infrastructure’- disrupting the prevailing status quo.

Considering its critical social and economic impact on the progress of the nation, it is about time that ‘Health Care Sector’ be given the ‘infrastructure status’ in India, not just to give a further boost to the industry, but also to make health care products and services affordable to all.

Conclusion:

Making health a ‘Fundamental Right’ for Indian Citizens, as narrated in the draft National Health Policy (NHP) 2015 of Narendra Modi Government, is indeed profound in its both content and intent. However, inordinate delay in its finalization and commencement of implementation process is rather disturbing.

Overhaul and expansion of public health care infrastructure, services and the effective delivery mechanism, undoubtedly, are very necessary requirements for the length and breadth of the country, excepting a very small number of states, which are doing so well in this area.

That said, the real issue is much more deep seated. As the well-known economist Subir Gokarn wrote in one of his articles that in health care “the consequence of inaction is a vicious circle between morbidity and poverty.”

This ‘vicious circle’ has to be broken, sooner. Many developing countries, including much poorer nations, have successfully demonstrated that access to basic quality healthcare can be provided to all, at an affordable cost.

Well-crafted robust national health care plan and policy, which are integrated with similar initiatives of the States should soon be put in place. Effective implementation of a comprehensive, well-integrated and time-bound health care strategic plan, with requisite budgetary allocations and periodic review, assigning specific accountabilities to individuals, are the needs of the hour. Otherwise, the social and economic consequences of the status quo in the health care space of India, would impede the sustainable growth of the nation, seriously.

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.

Evolving Trend Of Patient Engagement In Treatment Decisions

Posted on by
Reply

Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.

Today, Internet is increasingly becoming a great enabler for the patients to get to know, learn and obtain more and more information about their fitness, overall health, illnesses, disease symptoms, various diagnostic test results, including progress in various clinical trials, besides drugs and their prices…and all these just with clicks.

As a result, equipped with relevant information from various dependable and user-friendly sources in the cyberspace, patients have started asking probing questions about the risks and benefits of various types of treatment decisions and diagnostics tests, recommended by the doctors. At times, such interactions even lead to changes, additions or deletions in choice of therapy, including drugs, devices and diagnostics tests.

Hence, this change, which could well be a game changer, assumes even commercial importance for the pharma companies and other healthcare players in this area.

The emerging trend of patients’ demand for engagement in the treatment decision making process by the doctors needs encouragement by all concerned, especially, doctors, marketers of pharma products and healthcare services.

This process would not just be more balanced, fair and humane; it would make the entire healthcare value chain more efficient and cost-effective, as it would also involve managing expectations of informed patients. Alongside, it would encourage outcomes based evaluation of healthcare process with commensurate pricing, making the system accountable and efficient more than ever before.

In an emerging situation like this, are the pharma companies connecting the evolving dots and re-strategizing their marketing game plans accordingly? In this article, that’s what I shall try to dwell on.

Pharma marketing still remains tradition bound:

Despite this gradually transforming scenario, which would possibly lead to a paradigm shift, especially in the way of making treatment decisions for the patients, most pharma players do not seem to be thinking so, as they continue to be tradition bound in their overall marketing approach.

Even today, to generate product prescription demand by influencing treatment decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies provide them with not just product information through their respective sales forces, but also drug samples and a variety of different kinds of gifts, besides many other prescription influencing favors. This approach is working very well, albeit more intensely, in India too.

Be that as it may, this trend is a potential ‘Game Changer’.

Data vindicates continuation of traditional pharma marketing:

Broad types of marketing expenditure of the pharma industry vindicate that drug companies are still not deploying adequate resources for ‘patient engagement’ initiatives in creative ways.

According to a November 11, 2013 report of ‘The Pew Charitable Trusts’ titled, “Persuading the Prescribers: Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing and its Influence on Physicians and Patients”, pharma industry spent more than US$27 billion on drug promotion in 2012. Out of this expenditure, more than US$24 billion was incurred on marketing to physicians and over US$3 billion on advertising (mainly through television commercials) to consumers, wherever permitted by a country’s regulator.

This approach is traditional and is designed to promote drugs by influencing only the doctors’ prescription decisions and not so much towards ‘patient engagement’ for the same, as appears to be the emerging need of the time.

Expenditure by type of pharma marketing in 2012: 

A. Direct Marketing:

According to Cegedim Strategic Data, U.S. Pharmaceutical Company Promotion Spending (2013), expenditure by type of pharma marketing in 2012 was mainly as follows:

Type of pharma marketing Expenditure in US$
1. Detailing face-to-face to doctors 15
2. Free samples to doctors 5.7
3. Educational and Promotional Meetings 2.1
4. Promotional mailings 1.2
5. Journal and Web Advertisements 0.9
6. Direct-to-Consumer Advertising 3.1

B. Indirect marketing:

As indicate in the earlier mentioned report of ‘The Pew Charitable Trusts’, indirect marketing of US$2.35 billion incurred by the pharma companies were mainly in the following areas:

Continuing Medical Education (CME):

In 2011, the pharmaceutical and medical device industries provided 32 percent of all funding for CME courses in the United States, amounting to US$752 million out of $2.35 billion.

It is worth mentioning that to prevent these courses from functioning as veiled marketing, the Accreditation Council for ‘Continuing Medical Education’ regulates them.

However, a 2007 Senate Finance Committee report found that “drug companies have used educational grants as a way to increase the market for their products in recent years.”

Grants to Health Advocacy Organizations (HAO):

In this initiative, patient advocates can mobilize large numbers of people for an event on a specific disease related issue, which often goes to the benefit of pharma companies that manufacture related drugs.

A study found that organizations that had received grants from pharmaceutical manufacturers often endorsed the companies’ positions, while groups that had received minimal financing focused their advocacy on the drugs’ potential side effects.

Thus, the bottom-line is, in the marketing bandwidth of the pharma players, ‘patient engagement’ initiatives targeted towards patients’ benefits did not occupy a significant space.

Need to move beyond drugs and doctors:

From the above reports, it appears that while strategizing the marketing initiatives; pharma players start with products or brands and use doctors as the main decision makers to generate prescription support for those brands.

As stated earlier, though some global pharma companies are now talking about ‘patient centric’ approaches, but not much about ‘patient engagement’ approaches to harvest rich benefits out of the emerging new paradigm, in a win-win way.

Going beyond the drugs and the doctors, deploying significant resources to actively engage with the consumers to satisfy their needs and expectations, and in that process influencing patients’ behavior favorably towards the products or brands, need to be a critical part of the pharma marketing warfare, as we move forward.

Influencing patients’ behavior is challenging:

Influencing patients’ behavior through patient engagement is indeed more challenging. It calls for a multi-pronged approach involving all concerned stakeholders.

Besides innovative use of the cyberspace, digital Health Apps, among others, could well fit in nicely to achieve this goal.

I discussed this subject in my article dated March 30, 2015 in this Blog titled, “Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs”.

In that direction, I reiterate that keeping pace with today’s ‘technology revolution’, rapid advent of various game-changing and user-friendly digital platforms, including Health Apps for consumers, are showing immense potential in this area. To usher in a refreshing catalytic change in the overall landscape for ‘patient engagement’ in healthcare, these platforms could emerge as key differentiating factors from the pharma players’ perspective.

Informed patients would want getting more and more engaged:

Currently, relatively smaller numbers of patients are keen to get engaged in their disease treatment decisions of the doctors or with the pharma companies on this subject, directly or indirectly.

Still a much larger number of patients, for historical reasons, remain passive while seeking treatment from the doctors.

This is changing and would change even faster with growing knowledge and awareness of digital power and its fast penetration in the hinterland along with increasing usage of smartphones.

As the patients would try getting more and more engaged in their respective treatment decision process, it would eventually hold the key to rapid progress of healthcare all over world. It has to happen in the ‘Smart Cities’ of  ‘Digital India’ too, which is just a matter of time.

An institutional patient engagement initiative:

Without any direct and significant involvement of pharma industry, there are already some exemplary organized moves towards this direction in several parts of the world. One such institution has recently been established through 2010 ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ of the United States, known as ‘The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)’. It helps patients in making informed healthcare decisions to significantly improve healthcare delivery and outcomes.

Active promotion of high integrity, evidence-based information that comes from intensive research, ably guided by patients, caregivers and the broader healthcare community, forms the bedrock of this Institute. PCORI ensures that, patients and the public at large have information that they can use to make decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes and other expectations.

This move can be termed as one of the key steps towards ‘Patients Engagement’ in the United States, setting a good example for many other countries to follow, across the world.

Meeting with the challenge of change:

To effectively respond to the challenges posed by the need of ‘Patients Engagement’ in the disease treatment process, some pharmaceutical companies, especially in the United States, have started developing more direct relationship with the patients. Besides innovative use of digital Health Apps, creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks would help addressing this issue properly.

Global pharmaceutical majors, such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Becton, Dickinson & Co and Merck are now directly engaging with the customers through social media, such as, Twitter and Facebook. Some of them have also started experimenting with the Health Apps, as well; though in India not much green shoots are seen in this area.

Just to cite an example, I quote from the The Annual Review 2014 of Pfizer that captures the following:

“People today are able to access and exchange more information than ever before, and it’s no surprise that health is an area where information sharing is exploding. As patients become more informed, they become more involved – more active in their own care and the care of others, and in medical research.

This is the era of “patient-centricity,” where patients are far from passive subjects of study or treatment. Laypeople are taking starring roles in designing clinical trials; tracking and managing their personal health data; and, crowdsourcing new insights and solutions with diverse, far-reaching communities.”

This effort of Pfizer, by all means, is highly commendable, which leaves enough room for others in the pharma world to emulate, may be even more creatively.

Conclusion:

To achieve the objective of meaningful ‘patient engagement’ in the treatment decision making process, there is a primary need for the pharma players to put in place a credible, informative and interactive communication platform.

Today’s world prompts that this platform should ideally be digital and must be an outcome of extensive research on the information needs of patients in the identified areas. Patients’ queries and comments require to be appropriately answered by experts with compassion, remaining within the regulatory framework of the country.

Inputs and resources provided by the concerned pharma companies to the patients through these platforms would help strengthen the quality of their ‘patient engagement’ campaigns. This in turn would enable the patients to properly understand the disease, the rationale of treatment decision of the doctors, subsequent follow up steps and further treatment, if any, thereafter.

With such engagements, the image of the concerned pharma companies would grow by manifold in the eyes of the beholder – the patients. It would then expand much beyond just the buyer and seller relationship for drugs, transcending in the space of well-respected pharma institutions that helped patients in arriving at precise and most cost-effective treatment decisions for a better quality of life.

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.