Tag Archives: price

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Posted on by
Reply

Many poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life savings for treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as, cancer, have been virtually priced out of the access to patented new drugs, across the world. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, prices of these medicines are increasingly getting disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of these products.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, as there is not even a remote possibility of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

There is no recent worthwhile Government action either, to give shape to its an important decision on this issue, in a meaningful way. That critical decision was also scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), and was notified on December 07, 2012. On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

Just a couple of months after, on February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

Following this long overdue report, lack of any worthwhile action, both by the previous and the current Governments, possibly coming under a strong pressure of the self-serving interests of the constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade associations, is indeed glaring. I shall dwell on that in this article.

A brief recapitulation:

As stated earlier, almost a decade ago, an expert committee was constituted by the Government to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

This committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the pharmaceutical industry, including large multi-industry trade bodies like – FICCI, various NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration. Simultaneously, it had commissioned a study of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of patented drugs in many countries, across the world, for independent research based inputs for this report.

Salient features of the report:

The salient features of this expert committee report were as follows:

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only towards:

  • The Government procurement/reimbursement
  • Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries, where there are robust public health policies with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

Thus, the government should extend Health Insurance Scheme, covering all prescription medicines, to all those citizens of the country who are not benefitting under any other insurance/reimbursement plan.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

  • A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence
  • A drug that has therapeutic equivalence, but also has a therapeutic edge over the existing ones
  • A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

It recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

The Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’: 

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of the number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

  • The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.
  • In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.
  • The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.
  • The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out in India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.

The same methodology would be applicable to medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

  • If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly.
  • PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine.

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

  • PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.
  • PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documenting evidence.

This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subject to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

Pharma MNCs reportedly said that ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They also expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’. Nevertheless, from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, such as, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA), Pharmexcil, Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) and Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI), there emerged strong voices of support for this Government initiative

DIPP expressed apprehensions:

Interestingly, though the DoP had proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as below:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out, then the following issues must be ensured:

  • Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.
  • Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

The status today:

The bottom-line is, a decision on the pricing policy for patented drugs is still pending with the Government, since a decade.

Post February 2013 report, without assigning any specific reasons, the whole process, intriguingly, came back to the square one. On February 2014, the DoP reportedly again decided to constitute another inter-ministerial committee to consider the subject, and recommend the pathway for its implementation in India. Nothing tangible has happened, since the first experts’ committee submitted its report, six years after it was formed, to address this critical patient-centric issue of the country. Effective governance remains a key issue in the health care space of India, even today.

The chronicle continues. On August 23, 2016, ‘The Indian Express’ reported that: “Gross negligence, lackadaisical attitude, vested interests, are some of the terms used in a report by the Parliamentary Committee on ‘Government Assurances’ on August 11, 2016, for the DoP on the latter’s inability to regulate the prices of patented medicines even after almost a decade of deliberation on this issue. While the NDA government has been in power since 2014, the second committee is yet to submit its report, it said.

However, in the end, the Parliamentary Committee reportedly said: “The Committee would like the ministry to take the proactive steps to expedite the proper follow action to finalize the requisite mechanism of patented drugs at the earliest and in the best interest of the country so that these medicines are made available to the common people at most affordable rates.” Let’s continue to wait and watch!

Conclusion:

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ would also benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government setting the purchase of these drugs at a negotiated price.

It’s about time for all those who are responsible for framing drug and health elated policies to introspect whether ‘policy paralysis’ is continuing, even today, in this area under intense pressure of vested interests. If not, the counter question that needs to be satisfactorily answered: While several secretaries have changed in the DoP since 2013, why is the policy on patented drug pricing, mooted by the Government a decade ago, not moved forward even an inch, to safeguard the 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.

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

‘Variety is the spice of life’, as the good old saying goes. The week, just gone by, was indeed packed with a wide variety of surprises, well encompassing various important areas, some of which are as follows:

  • Effective November 08, 2016 midnight, Indian currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations ceased to remain legal tenders. This demonetization followed extensive media coverage, both national and international, on unprecedented administrative and public chaos around this otherwise bold and good intent.
  • The same day witnessed much unexpected triumph of Trump as the 45th President-Elect and the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. It is entirely a different matter though, that post-election, millions of Americans reportedly took to streets across the United states to vent their fury over the billionaire’s election victory.
  • On November 07, 2016, a well-known Indian business daily, ‘The Economic Times’, in its editorial, apparently expressed its solidarity with the pharma industry, in general, to do away with drug price control in India. The key reason for this advocacy, as I could sense, is to encourage the drug players to grow by making more profits. I respect this view of the editor will all humility. However, the point that I am unable to ferret out though, what happens to especially the poor patients in such an eventuality. With hands-on experience in the pharma industry over several decades, it appears to me that the editorial suggestions, as well, grossly lack in requisite depth of understanding of the core issue.
  • On November 09, 2016, quite opposite to what the above editorial of ‘The Economic Times’, the current global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline – Sir Andrew Witty, in an interview, strongly argued in favor of the necessity of drug price control in India, that improves access to medicines for a vast majority of the country’s population. To substantiate this point Sir Andrew said in another interview on the same day, “We’ve seen demand of products jump 45 percent after the price is cut by 20 percent. The problem arises when we don’t have supply to cater to the demand, leaving patients frustrated. A bit more predictability (on the part of government) will help.”
  • As if this diametrically opposite views are not enough, on November 10, 2016, the well-known civil society organization – ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, reportedly sent legal notices to the CEO of Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries to the Health Ministry, Department of Pharmaceuticals and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion over their talks to cut the powers of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). AIDAN has termed this Government move “anti-national” and “anti-people”, further adding that it affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to the pharma related issue of the past week, especially on the interesting advocacy through editorial, against the drug price control in India. Simultaneously, I shall also underscore its relevance in the country, primarily to improve access to medicines for millions of Indians, as articulated by one of the leading voices from the global pharma industry.

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

This particular question floats in my mind because of several reasons. One such is, almost regularly sponsoring fully paid trips for doctors, especially in an exotic foreign land, by many pharma companies. Such practices of the drug companies are generally inferred, more often than not spearheaded by a large section of the media, as dubious means of the organization to entice, or influence prescribing decisions of physicians in favor of their respective high priced brands, ignoring the health and economic interest of patients.

In similar context, just after having a quick glance over a not so important article, written on various operations at the headquarter of a global drug company situated in a beautiful locale of the world, when one focuses the fine print at the end as a disclaimer, which reads: “This reporter was in (name of the country) on an invitation by (name of the global company)…, do the readers arrive at the same conclusion on ‘gratification’, as above, and its consequent possible outcome on pharma related writings of these reporters?

Can the concerned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ possibly claim desired intellectual independence in their analysis of a situation involving such companies or their trade associations, even after the above disclaimer? Or for that matter, related publications too, which allow acceptance of such avoidable ‘gratis’ by its reporters? Shouldn’t such incidences, whenever these happen, irrespective of who availed these, be perceived in the same light?

In the current scenario, this issue is something for us to seriously ponder. This is mainly because, for following similar practices, why should there be two different yardsticks to gauge the quality of professional independence of two different otherwise highly respectable professions?

This reminds me of a great pharma reporter, writing for an internationally acclaimed business daily, mainly on the drug industry and healthcare. I met him in India a few years back on his invitation. Although, I shall not take either his or his paper’s name. This is to show respect to our free and frank interaction. He flew down to India with his employer paying all the pharma reporting work related expenses. He met with all those in the Indian drug industry that he wanted to, primarily to capture the nuances of the thought pattern of large and small Indian pharma players. I was so impressed with his intellect, and independent professional outlook, like all those who met him during his that specific visit to India. Even now, I can feel his independent perspective, as I read his articles. It would be great to experience similar feelings, while reading pharma related articles and editorials, in various publications of my own country. At the same time, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong regarding any such possibilities in this area.

That said, I shall now move on to the relevance of drug price control in India.

Any relevance of drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

No doubt, this is a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states: “Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what is euphemistically called marketing “incentive”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Further, in an ideal free-market economic model, for all approved branded generics with exactly the same formulation, having the same claimable efficacy, safety and quality standards, though marketed by different pharma companies, competitive forces should prompt some parity in their pricing.

Any generic brand with exactly the same formulation as others and offering the same therapeutic value, but costing significantly more, should ideally attract a lesser number of customers, if and where purchase decisions are taken by the consumers directly. However, for prescription medicines it’s not so. The well proven process of consumers exercising their own choice to select a brand, mostly influenced by advertising or word of mouth, does not happen at all.

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines generally unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts the huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that seven large Civil Society Organizations in a letter of August 20, 2014 addressed to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar views, as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Last week, AIDAN has also indicated that the reported Government move to curtail the power vested on the NPPA for drug price, affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

It is often highlighted that medicines cost much cheaper, if not the cheapest, in India. This is too simplistic a view on this subject. It compares the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against the prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries, only after applying the following two critical parameters:

  • Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
  • Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drug pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to the majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

‘Cannot do away with Drug Price Control’ – said the New Government:

On August 24, 2015 in an interview with a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

All stakeholders expect that there is some predictability in what the Government says. Can the stand taken by the policymakers change in just a year’s time, probably wilting under industry pressure?

Conclusion:

The drug price control in India is in vogue since 1970, uninterruptedly. The retail audit data continue to indicate that the growth of the Indian pharma industry, over the last four and half decade long price control regime, has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improved access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. Sir Andrew Witty of GSK also articulated the same view, just the last week. It’s a different story altogether that some of the industry sponsored expensive market surveys attempt to wish it away.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India in 1970, almost all the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about seven are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without frequent M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been probably higher today.

By the way, what’s the span of drug price control in India really – just about 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? Around 80 percent of the local drug market continues to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the promoter of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person in India. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control.

Keeping this in perspective, is it not baffling to fathom the reason behind a local business publication’s apparently endorsing the advocacy initiatives of pharma industry against drug price control through an editorial, when a well-regarded global pharma CEO expresses a strong favorable view in this regard?

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.

What Happens To Pharma’s Incredible Ride On The ‘Gravy Train’?

Posted on by
Reply

India continues to be one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical market of the world with its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce is exported around the world. Over half of the total exports constitute of formulations, and the balance comprises of bulk drugs. India has been consistently maintaining its supremacy in the formulation exports since my salad days.

According to Export Statistics (2014-15) published by the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharmaceutical exports with a share of 27 percent of the total, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

A red flag raised: 

Up until recently, it has almost been like walking over a bed of roses in this front for Indian pharma exporters. However, it does not seem to be so now, and at least in the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons.

The Press Release of ‘CRISIL Research’ dated May 17, 2016 has also raised a red flag in this area. The report foresees growth in pharma formulations (in US dollar terms) declining sharply to 10-12 percent annually over the next 5 years, as compared with a growth of ~19% seen in the last decade.

This adverse impact will be felt mostly in the US – the largest export destination of India, followed by the UK.

I reckon, there are three basic reasons for this changing scenario, namely, pricing, quality and lesser number of branded small-molecule blockbuster drugs going off patent.

The ride on the ‘gravy train’:

Pharma companies across the world consider that doing business in the US market would provide them a lot of money without facing any head wind, fundamentally driven by the drug pricing freedom in the country, as compared to any other market of the world.

This unfettered freedom of charging a hefty price premium in the largest pharma market of the world, on an ongoing basis, has been a critical factor of attraction for many pharma players to do business in the US, coming from various corners of the globe, including India, just as honey attracts the bees, as it were.

Thus far, it has been an incredible ride on the ‘gravy train’, as it were, for most of them.

However, ongoing activities of a large number of drug companies, dominated by blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand for the Government to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

In this article, I shall focus mainly on this point, drawing both global and local examples, as this development has a strong potential to add more to the existing miseries of many Indian drug exporters, of course in tandem with many other large MNCs.

Some recent developments: 

The April 21, 2016 issue of ‘The Financial Times’ quoted Joe Jimenez, the Global Chief Executive (CEO) of Novartis, where he said that pharma companies can no longer count on the “hockey-stick” trajectories for new products in the US. This is primarily due to the aggressive control of the drug expenses by the insurers and other healthcare payers, besides lawmakers and the public at large, of this most lucrative pharma market of the world.

As Jimenez said in the report, yesterday’s business model that pharma companies have followed since long, has now changed, slowing the pace of growth of innovative patented products in the US.

This trend is now heading north, primarily driven by the consolidation among the US insurers and healthcare providers. Consequently, the payers are making effective use of their greater bargaining power over the drug companies, especially to avail new incentives for cost savings, as provided in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the article highlights.

To give a feel of it, I am quoting the example of a Novartis drug from the same ‘Financial Times’ article. It states, “Entresto, a treatment for heart failure, launched last year on the back of stellar clinical trial results, has so far sold more quickly in Europe than the US, marking a reversal of usual patterns in the pharma industry.”

A key differentiator in global ranking:

In this emerging scenario, all global companies will be adversely impacted for increasing pricing pressure in the US market.

This factor remaining the same for all the pharma players in the world, one of the key differentiating factors that would now play even more important role, is the richness of the advanced stage R&D pipeline of each innovator company.

For example, according to ‘Evaluate Pharma World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ report, the overall R&D pipeline value of Roche is US$ 43.2 billion, far ahead of the same of Novartis’ US$ 24.1 billion and AstraZeneca’s at US$ 23.2 billion, followed by Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Celgene, Biogen and J&J and in that order. As a result, Roche is expected to overtake Novartis and Pfizer in the ranking by 2022, just when the global pharma industry would possibly cross as US$ 1Trillion mark.

Currently Novartis, though quite a small player in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) holding the rank of 23 (AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS retail audit report, MAT August 2016), is number three in the global ranking, just ahead of Roche.

Indian generic players to feel the heat:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice has sent summons this month to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ reported that some large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have also hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. This invites even more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario.

As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs has also reverberated in the ongoing Presidential campaign in the US.

The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee – Hillary Clinton has already promised, if elected in November 2016, she would constitute an ‘Oversight Panel’ to protect the consumers of her country from hefty price increases for long-available life-saving drugs.

Import bans:

In the midst of all this, import bans of a large number of formulations and bulk drugs by the US-FDA from several manufacturing facilities of Indian drug manufacturers of various scales and sizes, have further compounded the future risk potential of Indian pharma business growth in the US.

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment of the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the pharma business risks in this area:

“The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

However, this still remains a good intent. It is worth noting, for most Indian pharma exporters, the US is the single largest export market, with a stake, as high as nearly half of most of these companies’ annual revenue, and probably much more in profit, both of which are now showing a declining trend.

Price control coming in the UK:

On September 15, 2016, the Department of Health of the United Kingdom (UK) reportedly introduced a new Bill in Parliament to use its statutory power to limit the price of generic medicines where competition in the market fails, and pharma companies charge the NHS unreasonably high prices.

The Bill would also allow the government to apply penalties for non-compliance and to recover any payments owed through the courts following a right of appeal to a tribunal. The penalties can be a single penalty not exceeding £100,000 or a daily penalty not exceeding £10,000.

UK drug regulatory authorities had also announced import bans of APIs and formulations from some manufacturing facilities of a couple of leading Indian drug manufacturers, but on a lesser scale as compared to the USFDA.

Action in EU:

As reported by Bloomberg on July 22, 2016, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has called for a halt to sales of hundreds of medicines that were tested in India, after an inspection of a research site found “substitution and manipulation” of the study samples. The affected companies include both large Indian and multi-national players.

According to a PTI report of July 27, 2015, after this incident Pharmexcil estimated that exports worth US$ 1-1.2 billion are likely to be affected, if cancellation of 700 generic drugs by the EU stands.

Conclusion:

All these developments, particularly on pricing and mostly in the US, could have a retarding effect on the business growth trend of a large number of global and local pharma companies.

Focusing nearer home, the evolving scenario in the world’s top pharma market, viewed together with what’s happening in Europe, both on pricing and the data integrity fronts, send a strong cautionary signal to the Indian drug exporters, in general.

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational in nature, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin.

As I see it, ease of doing pharma business in these top export markets will no longer be quite the same as in the past. Many believe, pharma industry has invited these measures sans perceptible self-control, over a long period of time.

Is it mostly a self-inflicted injury of the industry players? The drug companies, in general, don’t believe so. Will this change be irreversible?  Only the future could unravel this. However, regarding the possibility of future US Government legislation on drug pricing, it’s now a wait and watch game for the stakeholders. On a shorter time-frame, the ghost in this area, would keep haunting globally, primarily for business in the US market, at least, till the end of this year.

However, for the Indian pharma exporters, pricing appears to be just one among several other critical issues, especially, in the two most lucrative markets of the world. The overall situation in this area, by and large, remains unchanged till today, besides expression of a plethora of good intents.

Thus, pharma analysts’ quest to ferret out an answer to the Gordian knot on the continuity of Indian pharma exporters’ incredible long ride on the ‘gravy train’, has also not been plain sailing, so far. Further mired by the local manufacturers’ prolonging errors of judgement, the status quo ante is expected to still remain elusive, at least, for now.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Looking West:

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

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

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

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

Looking East:

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

India:

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

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

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

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

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

Two broad processes for the same goal:

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

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

The justification:

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

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

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

Marketing malpractices:

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

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

India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary drug price increases:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A global CEO’s lone voice stands out:

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

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

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

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

India:

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

The core issue:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

On Serious Healthcare, Some Bizarre Decisions

Posted on by
Reply

On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported by the media that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Anant Kumar, would launch a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, on August 29, 2016.

This is an app developed by the National Informatics Centre, for android smartphones ‘that will enable patients to check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go’. It will be an extension of NPPA’s “Pharma Jan Samadhan” web-portal facility. The Indian price regulator believes that wide use of this app would successfully reduce the instances of overcharging the consumers by the pharma companies and retail chemists, especially for lifesaving, and other expensive medicines. 

India’s drug pricing watchdog is planning to introduce this app to enable the patients check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go, and expects that this measure will hold drug companies and medicine retail outlets more accountable to patients.

In the test version of the app, which has since been released for stakeholder feedback, patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), on the basis of its generic name and the state they’re buying it from.

The Chairman of NPPA, reportedly, further said, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price. At present, whatever action we take against the companies, including recoveries, the consumer does not get back the overcharged amount he or she has paid.”

Good intent with a basic flaw:

The intent of the Government in this regard is indeed laudable. However, the initiative seems to underscore the blissful ignorance of the prevailing ground realities in India.

The media report highlights that with this app, the patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines featuring in the NLEM on the basis of their generic names.

Whereas, the ground reality to make any meaningful use of this app is quite different. This is primarily because, in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), over 90 percent of drugs are branded generics. An overwhelming majority of the doctors, as well, follow this trend while writing prescriptions for their patients, in general. For any single ingredients or Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) formulation, there are as many as even 30 to 40 brands, if not more. 

In that case, when the prescriptions given to patients are mostly for branded generic drugs, how would that person possibly get to know their generic names, to be able to check their ceiling prices with the help of the new “Search Medicine Price” app?

Not just a solitary example: 

This is just not a solitary instance of ignorance of the Government decision makers on the realities prevailing in the country.

With an admirable intent of making drugs more affordable for increased access, especially, to all those patients incurring out-of-pocket health expenditure, the Government has been taking several such measures, and is also trying to create a hype around these. Unfortunately, most of these efforts, miss the core objective of increasing access to drugs at the right price, by miles. 

Another recent example: 

This particular example, in my view, is even more bizarre.

It happened on February 29, 2016, the day when the Union Budget proposal for the financial year 2016-17 was presented before the Parliament of India.

In this budget proposal, the Union Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’. 3,000 Stores under PMJAY will be opened during 2016-17.

Many consider this scheme as a repackaged old health care initiative, only adding the new words ‘Pradhan Mantri’ to it.

Just to recapitulate, Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses.

Under this scheme, Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had initially proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India.

If the initiative becomes successful, based on its inherent merit and the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional. 

More recently, according to a June 02, 2015 report, “under the new business plan approved in August 2013, a target of opening 3,000 Jan Aushadhi stores during the 12th plan period i.e. from 2013-14 to 2016-17 was fixed. As per the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers report in March 2015, till date only 170 JAS have been opened, of which only 99 are functional.”

Tardy progress:

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

  • A lackluster approach of State governments
  • Poor adherence to prescription of generic drugs by doctors,
  • Managerial/ implementation failures of CPSU/ BPPI.
  • Only 85 medicines spread across 11 therapeutic categories were supplied to the stores and the mean availability of these drugs was found to be 33.45 percent, with wide variations across therapeutic categories. 

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the earlier “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time. But, the moot question that comes at the top of mind:  Is it robust enough to work effectively in the present situation? 

Why it may not fetch the desired outcome?

Besides strong support from the State Governments, and other factors as enlisted above, making the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names would be a critical issue to make the “Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi scheme’ a success, primarily to extend desirable benefits to a sizeable section of both the urban and rural poor. Another relevant question that comes up now, how would the Government ensure that the doctors prescribe drugs in the generic names?

A critical challenge:  

Since, the generic drugs available from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ retail outlets are predominantly prescription medicines, patients would necessarily require a doctor’s physical prescription to buy those products.

Despite some State Government’s circulars to the Government doctors for generic prescription, and the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, that states: “Every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generic names and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”, the doctors, in India, prescribe mostly branded generics. It includes even many of those prescriptions, generated from a large number of the Government hospitals.

The legal hurdle for generic substitution:

In a situation such as this, the only way the JAS can sell more for greater patient access to essential drugs, if the store pharmacists are allowed to substitute a high price branded generic with exactly the same generic molecule that is available in the JAS, without carrying any brand name, but in the same dosage form and strength, just as the branded ones. 

However, this type of substitution would be grossly illegal in India. This is because, the section 65(11)(c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20[(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21[Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]” 

Thus, I reckon, the most important way to make ‘Jan Aushadhi’ drugs available to patients for greater access, is to legally allow the retailers substituting the higher priced branded generic molecules with their lower priced equivalents, sans any brand name.

A move that did not work:

Moving towards this direction, the Ministry of Health had reportedly submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration.

In this proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

Conclusion:

Considering all this, just as ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, the likes of ‘Search Medicine Price app’, apparently, are not potentially productive health care related initiatives, if not just one-offs, ‘feel good’ type of schemes for the general population. 

These are not robust enough either, to survive the grueling of reality, impractical for effective implementation, and thus, seriously handicapped to fetch any meaningful benefits for the patients, on the ground.

It is, therefore, still unclear to me, how would the needy patients, and the Indian population at large, could derive any benefit from such bizarre decisions, on so serious a subject as health care.

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.

NCDs: Any Wolf Around, In Sheep’s Clothing? 

Posted on by
Reply

Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), such as, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease, are now the leading cause of death in the world, accounting for 63 percent of annual deaths. Over 80 percent of NCDs occur in lower or middle income countries.

Moreover, wide prevalence of NCDs and inadequate patients’ access to related drugs have a profound negative impact on the economic progress of any country. According to various reports, the increase of around just one year of a country’s average life expectancy, could increase its GDP growth by around four percent.

Since long, the global drug industry has been contributing immensely to discover and bring to the market various amazing medicines to effectively treat a spectrum of NCDs. It is still happening, but with a stark different impact on the majority of the patients, across the world. 

There are many important aspects to NCDs, such as, public and private initiatives in their prevention, continuous screening, proper diagnosis, providing most effective treatment, and population’s lifestyle management for more effective disease control. However, in this article, I shall focus only on modern drug pricing, as one of the key barriers for patients’ access to modern drugs for the treatment of these ailments.

Saying something, and doing something else:

In this context, some large pharma lobby groups pontificate that the drug industry recognizes the economic and social impact of NCDs. Many of them also try to widely publicize, that they are working with various stakeholders, such as, the Governments, other payers and patients’ groups, as an active solution partner in lessening this burden. 

Yes, some of them do actively support some programs, mostly to prevent, screen and diagnose these chronic ailments. There are also instances when they try to showcase some of their occasional and complicated, so called ‘patient access’ programs.

Interestingly, a global major even wanted to reap a rich harvest by highlighting one such initiatives to win a patent litigation in the Supreme Court of India. As many would know, the Apex Court of the country did not take cognizance of its real value to patients, as projected by the concerned company, while dictating its final judgement on the Glivec case.

To many independent experts, these could most probably be part of a grand façade to justify the high drug prices, which most of the patients can’t afford, and also is an attempt to manage their fast eroding overall public image. On the other hand, they ‘religiously’ continue to keep increasing the drug prices arbitrarily, including those of NCDs. I shall dwell on it below.

Impeding patient access to modern drugs:

Despite all these developments, the issue of general affordability of most effective available drugs, even by the payers, such as, many Governments and the health insurance companies, are seriously impeding the patient access to these medicines.

Such exorbitant treatment costs with modern and more effective drugs is creating almost an impregnable barrier for access to these medicines, mostly for those patients incurring Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on health care. In a situation like this, where the volume sales do not increase significantly, to maintain the business growth the manufacturers of these drugs further hike up their product prices to a jaw dropping level, as perceived by both the patients and the payers.

This overall pricing environment is now posing a major challenge to many even in many developed countries of the world, including the United States.

Even the sky is not the limit:

Today, for a drug price increase not even the sky is the limit. Recently, the Census Bureau, Commerce Department of the United States (US) announced May 2016 sales of merchant wholesalers of various industries in the country. According to this report, the total pharma sales by manufacturers to pharmacies, hospitals, and others in the distribution chain reflected a buoyant increase of a hefty 11.3 percent from a year ago, especially when most other sectors showed sluggishness in growth.

The obvious question, therefore, that comes up, are the Americans now consuming more pharmaceutical products than in the past? The answer, however, is negative, though not very surprising to many.

In that case, is this increase in growth coming primarily from price increases of drugs, which are mostly used for the treatment of chronic ailments? The answer now will be an affirmative one. 

How much price increase is enough?

This question becomes quite relevant, when a large section of even Americans starts raising their voices against high drug price, as it is adversely impacting their access to those drugs. 

If this question is put slightly differently, such as, when Apple Inc. can take an annual price increase of around 10 percent for its iPhones in the Unites States (US), how much drug price increases the pharma companies are possibly taking every year in the same country? This interesting point was deliberated in an article published in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on July 14, 2016. 

Price increases driving growth:

According to this article, pharmaceutical prices in the US rose by 9.8 percent from May 2015 through May 2016. This is the second-highest increase among the 20 largest products and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, with investment services ranking first.

Majority of pharma companies keeps increasing prices also for a large section drugs used in the treatment of NCDs, which require almost lifelong therapy for the patients to lead a normal and meaningful life.

I am trying to give below a flavor of such drug price increases, both for NCDs and communicable diseases, quoting a few examples from the above WSJ article:

  • Biogen Inc. reported a 15 percent increase to US$ 744.3 million in US sales of its Multiple Sclerosis (MS) drug Tecfidera in the first quarter, primarily due to price increases. The local revenue for Biogen’s other biggest-selling products, Avonex, used in the relapsing form of multiple sclerosis, and Tysabri used in multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease, also benefited from higher prices.
  • The sales of Giliead Science’s Truvada, used as a preventive treatment for HIV rose 16 percent in the quarter, on the back of higher prices, and also increased use as a preventive treatment for HIV.
  • Global sales of Amgen Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Enbrel rose 24 percent in the first three months of the year, driven primarily by a higher net selling price.
  • US sales for AbbVie Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Humira rose 32 percent in the first quarter, due to price increases and higher prescription volume. 
  • Pfizer Inc.’s US price increases and, in some cases greater prescription volume, helped drive higher revenue for nine drugs representing US$2 billion in US revenue.

Payers have started reacting:

Responding to this development, Express Scripts’ National Preferred Formulary (NPF) of the US, which is one of the most widely used drug list in the United States, providing prescription drug coverage guidelines for 25 million Americans, has excluded many drugs from its 2017 list. This exclusion covers some brands, such as, Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster GLP-1 diabetes drug Victoza and two of its top-selling insulins.

Similarly, another large American retail and health care company CVS Health’s 2017 formulary does not feature, among many other drugs, Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin Lantus along with its follow-up Toujeo, making it the largest commercial product ever excluded from a formulary. 

‘The playbook used for a number of years is over’:

In an article of August 04, 2016 titled, “Drug lobby plans a counterattack on prices”, a senior director of the public affairs firm APCO Worldwide, which represents several drug companies, and a former HHS official under President George W. Bush was quoted saying, in the context of pharma companies and their lobby groups that, the reality, the message and the playbook used for a number of years is over. The industry can no longer defend high drug prices by pointing to the pricey research and development that goes into innovative medicines. They have to move on, he added.

Indian scenario:

The Indian scenario is much worse, with OoP expenditure on drugs being around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. It could be even more, if only NCDs are considered. This situation raises a red flag, especially considering the WHO report released on January 20, 2015 that highlights NCDs are estimated to have accounted for 60 per cent of the deaths in India in 2014.

Some of the examples are as follows:

  • An ICMR-INDAIB study, published in September 2011, on diabetes prevalence in India indicate that the epidemic is progressing rapidly across the nation, and has already affected a total of 62.4 million persons in 2011. With proper diagnosis and screening this figure may increase to a dangerous level in India.
  • According to WHO, almost 2.6 million Indians are predicted to die due to coronary heart disease (CHD), which constitutes 54.1 percent of all CVD deaths in India by 2020. 
  • A March 2012 ‘The Lancet’ study found that nearly six lakh Indians die of cancer every year, with 70 percent of these deaths between the ages of 30-69 years.
  • A report titled “Dementia in Asia Pacific Region” released in November 2014, at the 17th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) states that by 2050, the number of people in India suffering from dementia will rise to over 12 million.

Carefully assessing the enormous pharma business opportunity, mainly due to increasing health awareness and fast growing per capita income in the country, pharma players operating in India have become very active in the NCD area, in different ways. However, one strategy remains unchanged, which is continuous increase in modern drug prices, even at the cost of volume increase, frequently taking them beyond affordability of a large section of patients in India. 

Indian Government also reacted:

Recognizing, and basically to address this critical problem, just as what has is now happening in other parts of the globe too, the Union Ministry of Health was compelled to take strong measures, especially in the absence of Universal Health Care (UHC) in India. The Government recently revised the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) by adding many more modern drugs for NCDs in the list, to facilitate bringing them under the drug price control mechanism of the country.

Many company’s evading drug price control:

The Union Chemicals and Fertilizers minister Mr. Ananth Kumar informed the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament on July 28, 2016 that various drug price regulatory measures taken by the government have helped consumers save Rs 4,988 crore over the last two years.

This saving may well be just on the paper. On the ground, have the consumers been really benefited out of these measures, and if so, to that much extent? 

The answer wouldn’t be too ferret out, when one takes into account the reply of the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, Mr. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir to the Lok Sabha of the Parliament on March 08, 2016. The Minister informed the lawmakers that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is trying to recover a whopping Rs 4,551 crore, including interest, from various pharma companies for overcharging as of February 2016. Out of this total amount, Rs 3,698.32 crore, representing about 82 per cent of the total outstanding amount, is under litigation in various High Courts and Supreme Court spreading across 1,389 cases, the Minister further said.

The question, therefore, arises, how much benefit of the drug price control of essential medicines is actually benefitting the patients, and how much is being evaded by the pharma players?

Price increases driving Indian pharma industry growth:

In India too, a large number of pharma companies are increasing prices, including a large proportion of those drugs, which are used in the treatment of NCDs, requiring almost lifelong therapy for the sufferers to lead a normal and meaningful life.

The exorbitant treatment cost for many NCDs, with the modern and more effective drugs, is seriously impeding the patient access. As a cascading effect, the manufacturers of these drugs are further jacking up their prices to a much higher level for achieving their business growth objectives. This is very similar to what is happening also in the developed countries, including the US. 

That price increases are primarily driving the growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) is vindicated by the following table, which has been compiled from the monthly retail audit reports of the well-reputed organization AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Private Limited:

IPM growth through price increases versus volume (July 2015 to June 2016):

Growth % Jun 16 May April Mar Feb Jan 16 Dec 15 Nov Oct Sept Aug July 15
Price 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.2 1.0 13.2 9.9 13.2 12.9
Volume -0.6 -4.4 3.2 -5.3 3.7 1.3 2.8 5.0 5.5 1.4 1.6 3.3

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

Conclusion:

Around the world, arbitrary drug price increases almost on a continuous basis, including in the low inflation countries that may now include India, has sparked-off a raging global debate. Even the Presidential nominees for the forthcoming general election in the United States are taking keen interest on the subject.

As highlighted in a recent issue of the magazine Politico, powerful pharma lobby groups are also gearing up to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to counter this ‘threat’, as perceived by them.

A number of hectic activities in this area, apparently, have started in India too, mainly to divert the focus of the stakeholders from arbitrary drug price increases to other important areas such as, NCDs. This usually happens by making the vested interests eulogizing how much good work these pharma companies are doing in this particular area, only to serve the patients’ health interest. 

Many global pharma players seem to still believe that the same old message from the same old playbook would work even today, at least in India, to defend high drug prices on the contentious ground of pricey R&D that goes into innovative medicines. I reckon, almost gone are those days, even in India.

NCDs need to be fought, unitedly, with effective public, private initiatives and without any self-serving agenda of any participants. The issue needs to deliberated not in the five-star hotels, neither in front of a captive audience, nor with an intent of getting favorable media coverage, but on the real ground, along the general population, both in the urban and the hinterlands of India.

These initiatives would appear praiseworthy to many, when the ultimate aim of any stakeholder, including the doctors and the pharma players, won’t be to make the consumers consume more of high priced medicines, in many cases even by selling their frugal assets. The key aim, I believe, should be to facilitate prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment with affordable modern medicines, and finally to help manage the ailments well, through the rest of the life of any sufferers.

In the battle against NCDs, it is also important to know well and segregate, if there is any wolf around, in sheep’s clothing.

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.

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones. 

Hurdle creation and the core intent: 

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.  

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry. 

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether. 

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry. 

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar. 

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics. 

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever. 

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification: 

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

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

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

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

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

The supporting data: 

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

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

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

Not many takers:

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

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

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

  • The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”
  • The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged. 
  • Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.
  • Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.
  • In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.
  • The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children. 
  • The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.
  • One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.
High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

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

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

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

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

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

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

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

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

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

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

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

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

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

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

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

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

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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.