Union Budget Proposal 2015-16 of India : Is Pharma Industry Now Out of Focus?

Budget Expectations:

Overall expectations of the Pharma Industry in India from the Union Budget perspective was very modest this year. The key areas were as follows:

- To encourage  innovation, in-house R&D exemption limit was expected to be raised from 200 percent to 250 percent

- Excise duty rationalization was expected on:

Formulations (5 percent)
API (10 percent)

- A reduction of MAT (20 percent) was expected on SEZ

Union Budget Proposals:

Status quo


In view of this scenario, there has been virtually no sector-specific direct impact of the Union Budget 2015-16 on the Pharma Industry. This critical sector seems to be out of focus of the Government from the budget perspective, 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.

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.


India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:



North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development


With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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


Health being a basic human right, the proposal for ‘Universal Health Coverage’ augurs well for India

“The right to health is relevant to all States: every State has ratified at least one international human rights treaty recognizing the right to health. Moreover, States have committed themselves to protecting this right through international declarations, domestic legislation and policies, and at international conferences.”

-  The Factsheet, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the WHO

Universal Health Coverage or Universal Healthcare:

In this context, “Universal Health Coverage (UHC)” is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC is also known as “Universal Healthcare” and may have different system types as follows:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.

Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010.

Global scenario for UHC:

As per published reports, all 33 developed nations have UHC in place. The United States was the only exception until recently, till President Barack Obama administration implemented the ‘path breaking’ new healthcare reform policy in the country in 2010 against tough political opposition.

The new healthcare reform measures in the US had raised a storm within the local pharmaceutical industry, as well,  at that time for various reasons.

The countries providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in  ‘True Cost’ following is the list of the countries where UHC is currently in place:


Start Date of Universal Health Care

System Type



Single Payer

New Zealand


Two Tier



Single Payer



Insurance Mandate



Insurance Mandate

United Kingdom


Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer






Insurance Mandate

United Arab Emirates


Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer






Insurance Mandate






Two Tier






Single Payer



Single Payer



Single Payer



Insurance Mandate



Single Payer

South Korea


Insurance Mandate



Single Payer

Hong Kong








Insurance Mandate




United States


Insurance Mandate

Highest per capita health spending has no relevance to the quality of health services/ outcome, but early implementation of UHC has:

The following table shows, although per capita spending on health is the highest in the US, the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per 10,000 population are highest in Cuba, UK and Japan, respectively. Japan also records the highest life expectancy at birth.Thus it appears, by and large, those countries which have an efficient UHC scheme running since quite some time from now are doing better in the health parameters as indicated below, especially, as compared to the US with the highest per capita health spending.


Per capita spending on health (US $)

Doctors/ 10,000 pop

Nurses and midwives/ 10,000 pop

Hospital beds/10,000 pop

Life expectancy at birth





























































** Highest

Source: The Guardian, Data Blog, Facts are Sacred)

The current situation in India:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop ‘a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians’.

The HLEG Report starts with:

“This report is dedicated to the people of India whose health is our most precious asset and whose care is our most sacred duty.”

The HLEG defined UHC for India as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality ( promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

Ten principles for UHC in India:

Following are the ‘Ten Principles’, which guided the HLEG for the formulation of the recommendations for the UHC in India:

  1. Universality
  2. Equity
  3. Non-exclusion and non-discrimination
  4. Comprehensive care that is rational and of good quality
  5. Financial protection
  6. Protection of patients’ rights that guarantee appropriateness of care, patient choice, portability and continuity of care
  7. Consolidated and strengthened public health provisioning
  8. Accountability and transparency
  9. Community participation
  10. Putting health in people’s hands

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learned from within India as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’, just like draft NPPP 2011:

In its recommendation no. 3.5.1, HLEG postulated price controls and price regulation especially on essential drugs, which is quite in line with the draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011). The HLEG report says:

“We recommend the use of ‘essentiality’ as a criterion and applying price controls on formulations rather than basic drugs. Direct price control applied to formulations, rather than basic drugs, is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transactions and prevent a substantial rise in drug prices. It may also be necessary to consider caps on trade margins to rein in drug prices while ensuring reasonable returns to manufacturers and distributors. All therapeutic products should be covered and producers should be prevented from circumventing controls by creating nonstandard combinations. This would also discourage producers from moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen Central and State regulatory agencies to effectively perform quality and price control functions.”

Price control on essential medicines is also in force in China:

Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’ Perhaps following the similar concept both the NLEG and NPPP 2011 have recommended price control of about 348 drugs falling under ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ of India.

Another recent report on ‘Free Medicines for All’:

Meanwhile,the working group of the Planning Commission on health, constituted for the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) headed by the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Mr. K. Chandramouli (now retired), has also submitted its report recently.

The Part II of the report titled, “Provisions of ’free medicines for all in public health facilities … recommends that health being a state subject, all the state governments of the country should adopt the successful and well proven Tamil Nadu model of healthcare procurement.

Tamil Nadu government through Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC) reportedly makes bulk purchases of drugs and pharmaceuticals directly from the manufacturers through a transparent bidding process, which reduces the cost of medicines to 1/10th and even to 1/15th of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the respective product packs.

As per this report, the total running cost for the ‘Free Medicines for All’ project during the plan period would be Rs. 28,675 Crores and an additional allocation of Rs. 1293 Crores will be required as one‐time capital costs. The contribution of the Central Government at 85 % of the total cost would be around Rs 25667 crores for the entire Plan period.


It was good to read that Ms. Nata Menabde, WHO country-head, India in her interview to ‘The Financial Express’ dated December 7, 2011 said, “We at WHO have been fortunate enough to be consulted on this (UHC). The meeting at planning commission was very productive and positive and we think the recommendations on the road map to Universal Health Coverage in the country is a step in the right direction.”

UHC, I reckon, will also be able to address simultaneously the critical issue of high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenses by the common man of the country. Implemented sooner ignoring the motivated stalling tactics, if any, by the vested interests, could usher in an era of a new healthcare reform process in the country.

That said, the proposal of the UHC in its current form does have some ‘loose knots’,which should be appropriately tightened-up through informed public discourse by the stakeholders in the healthcare space of India, sooner.

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.

Dissapointing: No proposal of ‘Healthcare Reform’ in the Union Budget of India for 2011-12: China rolled it out in 2009.

January 15, 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ in an article titled, “Learning from others” states the following:

“Having universal coverage through a public commitment does have costs, including public costs. The proportion of national expenditure on health that is met by the government is 26% in India and 45% in China. Or, to look at a related contrast, while government expenditure on health care in India is only around 1·1% of its GDP, it is around 1·9% in China. One need not be a genius to see that if the government of a country is ready to spend more on health, it could expect better results in terms of the health of the people.”

While comparing India with China, I reckon, one should take into account of larger disease burden in India as compared to China and the cost that India pays due to slow progress of reform processes in a democratic framework with open and free society and the vibrant outspoken media in the country. Further, the healthcare reform processes in China started over a decade earlier than India, resulting in a significant difference in the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and the healthcare financing systems of both the countries, over a period of time.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation:

Access to safe drinking water in India may be comparable to other emerging economies, but sanitation condition in India needs radical improvement. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) the Access to potable water and improved sanitation in those countries are as follows:

Country Drinking Water  (% population) Sanitation                     (% population)
India 89 28
Brazil 91 77
China 88 65
Mexico 95 81
South Africa 93 59

Key issues in the Public Hospitals:

The ethical issues, which the patients face, especially, in the hospitals of India, I reckon, have not been reported for China by the Transparency International.

Transparency International India (2005) had reported the following seven key issues and irregularities experienced by the patients at the Government Hospitals in India:

  1. Medicines unavailable: 52%
  2. Doctors suggest a visit to their private clinic: 37%
  3. Doctors refer to private diagnostic centers: 31%
  4. Over-prescription of medicines: 24%
  5. Bribes demanded by staff: 20%
  6. Diagnostics tests done even when unnecessary: 18%
  7. Doctors are absent: 13%

All these continue to happen in India, with no respite to patients, despite ‘Hippocratic Oath’ being taken by the medical profession and the new MCI guidelines for the doctors being in place within the country. Moreover, a miniscule spend of 1% of the GDP by the Government of India towards public healthcare of the nation, is indeed a shame.

Healthcare Reform in China:

Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:
China in 1997 took its first reform measures to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.
Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China:
The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicates that out of pocket spending on healthcare services more than doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.
Series of healthcare reforms were effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address the situation  prevailing at that time.
The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:
The core principle of the new phase of the healthcare reform process in China is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will assume a critical role.
The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.
Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines in China:
Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.
Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:
Chinese government will monitor the effective implementation and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.
It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.
Drug price regulation and supervision in China:
The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Besides Democracy, China has something to learn from India too:

The article, as mentioned above, from ‘The Lancet’ concludes by saying that unlike China, the real progress in India has come out of public discussion and demonstration within the democratic set-up in India. One such program is distribution of cooked mid-day meals to school children and selected interventions in child development in pre-school institutions. Such programs are currently not available in China for development of proper physical and mental health of, especially, the children of the marginalized section of the society

There exists a sharp difference between India and China in the critical healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of public funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite the same in India, because of various reasons.
High economic growth in both the countries has also led to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.
To effectively address the critical issues related to health of its population, the Chinese Government has already announced a blueprint outlining its new healthcare reform measures for the next ten years. How will the Government of India respond to this situation for the new decade that has just begun?

It was very dissapointing to learn from the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister of India for 2011-12 that the perspective of our Government on the importance of healthcare for the fellow citizens of India, still remains indifferent.

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.