Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company	Location	Biosimilar mAbs	Development Status
BioXpress	Switzerland	16	Preclinical
Gene Techno Science	Japan	6	Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla	India	5	Preclinical
PlantForm	Canada	3	Preclinical
BioCad	Russia	3	Preclinical
Celltrion	South Korea	2	Phase 3
LG Life Sciences	South Korea	2	Preclinical
Gedeon Richter	Hungary	2	Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma	Switzerland	1	Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical	South Korea	1	Preclinical
PharmaPraxis	Brazil	1	Preclinical
Probiomed	Mexico	1	Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics	South Korea	1	Preclinical
Novartis	Switzerland	1	Phase 2
Teva	Israel	1	Phase 2
Zenotech	India	1	Phase 3
Spectrum	US	1	Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan	India/US	1	Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

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

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Tapan Ray

“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:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type

Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2010	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.
Country	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
USA	6719**	26	94	31	78
UK	2815	23	128**	39	80
Russia	698	43	85	97	66
Japan	2581	21	95	140**	83**
Italy	2631	37	72	39	82
Germany	3465	34	80	83	80
France	3420	34	80	73	81
Cuba	674	59**	74	49	78
China	216	14	10	22	74
Canada	3673	19	101	34	81

** 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:

Universality
Equity
Non-exclusion and non-discrimination
Comprehensive care that is rational and of good quality
Financial protection
Protection of patients’ rights that guarantee appropriateness of care, patient choice, portability and continuity of care
Consolidated and strengthened public health provisioning
Accountability and transparency
Community participation
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.

Conclusion:

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.

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

	Company	Brand
1	Forest Laboratories	Lexapro
2	Takeda Pharmaceuticals	Actos
3	Bristol-Myers Squibb	Plavix
4	AstraZeneca	Seroquel
5	Eli Lilly	Zyprexa
6	Pfizer	Lipitor*
7	Merck	Singulair
8	Novartis	Diovan
9	Teva Pharmaceuticals	Provigil
10	Abbott Laboratories	TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand, has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company	Target company	The deal: $billion	Products
Roche	Genentech	47	Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis	Genzyme	20	Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca	MedImmune	15.6	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Serono	13.5	Biologics
Takeda	Millennium	8.8	Velcade, Oncology
Lilly	ImClone	6.0	Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis	Chiron	5.8	Vaccines
Teva	Cephalon	6.2	Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis	American BioScience	4.2	Oncology
Astellas	OSI Pharma	4.0	Tarceva, oncology
Eisai	MGI Pharma	3.9	Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene	Pharmion	2.9	Oncology
Celgene	Abraxis	2.9	Oncology
Gilead	Myogen	2.5	Biotechnology
BMS	Medarex	2.4	Monoclonal antibodies
J&J	Crucell	2.3	Vaccines
Amgen	Abgenix	2.2	Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim	MacroGenics	2.1	Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead	CV Terapeutics	1.4	Cardiovascular
Genzyme	Osiris	1.4	Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK	ID Biomed	1.3	Biologics
AstraZeneca	Cambridge Antibody Technology	1.3	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Sirna	1.1	RNAi
Amgen	BioVex	1	OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011: A flawed recipe

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The ‘Drug Price’ has always remained one of the critical factors to ensure greater access to medicines, especially in the developing economies like India, where predominantly individuals are the payers. This point has also been widely accepted by the international community, except perhaps the diehard ‘self-serving’ vested interests.

Just to cite some key examples, in the “ACCESS TO MEDICINES” report, the ‘Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)’ of ‘Swiss Centre for International Health’ has highlighted, “Affordability is one core issue at the center of debates about medicine use in international health.”

An article appeared on “This is Africa”, a new publication from the ‘Financial Times’ dated November 11, 2011 wrote: “The BRIC countries have redefined affordable drugs, making access to medicines possible for millions in low income regions. Yet changing priorities for major generic drug producers, such as India, could reshape the African pharmaceutical landscape. Access to medicines has improved dramatically over the last decade, driven by the rise of cheap pharmaceuticals from Asia, domestic efforts by governments of developing countries, commitment from donors, and price cuts from brand producers.”

Even the Director General Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in his address to the 11th Annual International Generic Pharmaceutical Alliance Conference in Geneva on 9 December 2008, said that since the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, “access to medicines has been improved through a major reduction of prices, enhanced international funding, a greater recognition of the need to find a balance within the intellectual property system, as well as the use of some of the TRIPS flexibilities by certain WTO Members”.

Similarly, the global pharmaceutical major GlaxoSmithKline (GsK) in its 2010 ‘Corporate Responsibility Report’ indicated: “Pricing is one factor that impacts on access to medicines and vaccines.”

Echoing similar sentiment the Swiss Pharma giant Novartis in its website articulated: “The issue of access to medicines is complex, involving factors such as development and health policies, health system infrastructure and best practices, pricing, rational use of drugs and adequate funding.”

‘Drug Price’ control alone cannot improve access to medicines:

As we have seen above, drug price is indeed one of the critical factors to improve access to modern medicines. It is for this reason, Governments in countries like Germany, Spain, UK, Korea and China have recently mulled strict price control measures in their respective countries.

Thus, I reiterate, drug price is certainly an important factor to improve access to modern medicines, but definitely not the only factor to focus on, as is being done in India by its successive governments.

In India, we have witnessed through almost the past four decades that drug price control alone would do little to improve access to modern medicines to the common man significantly, especially in the current socio-economic and healthcare environment of the country. Continuation of poor access to modern medicines even after 40 years of stringent drug price control vindicates this point.

Draft NPPP 2011:

A reform-oriented ‘Drug Policy’ of India, was languishing as a ‘prisoner of indecision’ of the policy makers, since quite a while.

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011) has just been announced by the government with the ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control. The stakeholders have been requested to give their views on the same.

The draft policy seems to have taken some bold initiatives in terms of criteria and mechanics of price control, especially, moving away from the age old and non-transparent ‘Cost Based Pricing (CBP)’ to a more transparent ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ model of Pronab Sen Committee of 2005.

However, in my view, NPPP 2011 has failed yet again to go beyond price control by effectively addressing other key issues for inadequate access to modern medicines by the common man, in a comprehensive and holistic way.

HSPH article of 2007 echoes the basis of Draft NPPP 2011:

‘Harvard School of Public Health’ in an article of July 2007 titled, ‘How Effective Is India’s Drug Price control Regime?’ had commented that in the present form, DPCO 1995 is inadequate in its coverage and does not serve the purpose that it had intended to.

The article recommends that there is an urgent need to replace the existing criteria for price control using monopoly and market dominance measures with the criteria of ‘essentiality’ of drugs, which would have a maximum spill-over effect on the entire therapeutic category.

In addition the paper says that this critical change is also ‘likely to prevent the present trend of circumventing price controls through non-standard combinations and at the same time would discourage producers moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs’.

Just as mentioned in the draft NPPP 2011, the ‘Harvard School of Public Health’ article of 2007 reiterates that direct price control should be applied on formulations rather than basic drugs, which is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transaction.

The paper also points out, “Huge trade margins are a rule rather than exceptions in Indian drug industry. In view of this, there is a need to fix ceiling on trade margins which could lead to significant downward influence on medicine prices. Finally, we argue that to ensure drug security in India, a strong regulatory institutions need to be established.”

It is interesting to note that NPPP 2011 draws so much similarity with the ‘Harvard School of Public Health’ article published way back in 2007.

Basic objectives of a Drug Policy:

The ‘Drug Policy 1986’ clearly enunciated the basic policy objectives relating to drugs and pharmaceuticals in India, as follows:

Ensuring abundant availability of medicines at reasonable price and quality for mass consumption.
Strengthening the domestic capability for cost effective, quality production and exports of pharmaceuticals by reducing barriers to trade in the pharmaceutical sector.
Strengthening the system of quality control over drug and pharmaceutical production and distribution.
Encouraging R&D in the pharmaceutical industry in a manner compatible with the country’s needs and with particular focus on diseases endemic or relevant to India by creating an conducive environment.
Creating an incentive framework for the pharmaceutical and drug industry which promotes new investment into pharmaceutical industry and encourages the introduction of new technologies and new drugs.

After having completed around 25 years since then, it is high time for the government to ponder and assess whether the successive drug policies have delivered to the nation the desirable outcome as enunciated above.

Even the draft NPPP 2011 does not seem to have made any conscious attempt to make any amend in these areas either.

The draft NPPP 2011 offered another opportunity for a robust beginning:

Many of us will know that the 2002 Drug Policy was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued stay on the implementation of the Policy. This order was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 but observed as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated 15.2.2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and life saving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and life saving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

When nothing tangible happened thereafter, in October 2011, the honorable Supreme court against another Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asked the Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) to submit separate affidavits to the court on November 17, 2011 explaining their seriousness to bring the essential drugs under price control.

As a result of the November 17, 2011 order of the Supreme Court, it now appears that to put a new pharmaceutical policy in place in an unprecedented hurry, with the ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control, the Government lost another golden opportunity for a new and robust beginning with a comprehensive and well thought out national drug policy.

Draft NPPP 2011: Is it just to satisfy the Supreme Court of India?

The overall objective of any ‘Drug Policy’ is indeed to help accelerating all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and to make it a force to reckon with, in the global pharmaceutical arena. At the same time, the policy should help creating an appropriate ecosystem to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price by the entire population of the nation.

As stated above, in NPPP 2011, fixing Ceiling Price (CP) based on ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ approach for 348 drugs falling under National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and not beyond, could make sense, especially keeping in mind the direction given by the honorable Supreme Court of India on March 2003 and October 2011 on the subject, as indicated above.

However, just one pronged approach with the drug price control mechanism to address the issue of improving access to modern medicines in no way can be considered as a holistic approach to achieve objectives of a Drug policy. Isolated and incoherent initiatives of price control (though important) in the draft NPPP 2011, without taking the big picture into consideration, appears to be foolhardy.

A lurking fear creeps in though, has NPPP 2011 been drafted by the Government just to satisfy the Supreme Court of India with the incorporation of ‘essentiality’ criteria for price control medicines?

12^th Five Year Plan increases public spending towards health:

In the 12^th Five Year Plan of India commencing 2013, the country is expected to spend 2.5% of its GDP for health. Currently, public spending on health as a percentage to the GDP being at 0.9% is among the lowest in the world and against 1.8% of Sri Lanka, 2.3% of China and 3.3% of Thailand, just to name a few.

Recently another expert committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Srinath Reddy suggested that high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure of the people of India, should be significantly reduced by doubling the public spending on health. The committee also commented, “Increasing public health spending to our recommendations will result in a five-fold increase in real per capita health expenditures by the government from Rs 670 in 2011-12 to Rs 3,432 by 2021-22.”

Health coverage for ‘outpatient treatment’ in India is a necessity:

It is important to note from the above report that outpatient treatment in India accounts for around 78% of the ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses, with medicines accounting for 72% of the total outpatient health expenditure. Unfortunately, there is hardly any cover available to the common man for outpatient treatment in India, even by those holding some form of health insurance coverage.

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

Following is a comparison between ‘out of pocket’ expenses between India and its closer neighbors:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

Taming drug price inflation has not helped improving access to medicines:

It is quite clear from the following that food prices impact health more than medicine costs:

Year	Pharma Price Increases	Food Inflation
2008	1.1%	5.6%
2009	1.3%	8.0%
2010	0.5%	14.4%

Source: CMIE

Over one third of Indian population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the draft NPPP 2011, the Government should have kept in mind that a population of around 35% in India, still lives Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure even towards essential medicines.

Adding more drugs in the list of essential medicines and even bringing them all under stringent price control will not help the country to resolve this critical issue.

Why 40 years of stringent price control failed to make medicines ‘affordable’?

In my view, there is no ‘one size fits all’ type of definition for affordability of medicines, just like any other essential commodities, especially when around 78% of healthcare expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ in our country. Any particular price point may appear affordable to some, but will still remain unaffordable to many, especially in a country like India.

The initiatives taken by the government for price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut throat market competition.

Unfortunately, this solitary measure has failed to improve access to modern medicines to the common man significantly due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion as price control.

Despite so many drug price control orders, even today 47% and 31% of hospitalization in rural and urban areas, respectively, are financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals.

Multi-dimensional approach to improve access to affordable medicines:

Access to healthcare and affordable medicines can be improved through an integrated and comprehensive approach of better access to doctors, diagnostics and hospitals, along with an efficient price regulatory mechanism for each component of healthcare cost including medicines. We should not forget that in India over 46% of patients travel beyond 100 km to seek medical care even today. (Source: Technopak & Philips (2010) Accessible Healthcare: Joining the Dots Now, New Delhi).

Healthcare infrastructure in India is severely constrained by lack of trained healthcare professionals, limited access to diagnostics/treatment and availability of quality medicines. Consequently, the supply of healthcare services falls significantly short of demand.

The current figure of 9 beds per 10,000 population in India is far from the world average of 40 beds per 10,000 people. Similarly, for every 10,000 Indians, there are just 6 doctors available in the country, while China has 20 doctors for the same number of population. Without proper equipment and doctors to diagnose and treat patients, medicines are of little value to those who need them most.

Thus, drug price control alone, though important, cannot improve access to healthcare without creation of adequate infrastructure required to ensure effective delivery and administration of medicines, together with appropriate financial cover for health.

Encourage healthy competition among healthcare providers:

Effective penetration of various types of innovative health insurance schemes will be one of the key growth drivers for the inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as desired by many in India.

Simultaneously, there is a need to promote tough competition within those healthcare providers to make them more and more cost-efficient while providing greater patients’ satisfaction. In that process, all elements of healthcare expenditure like physicians’ fees, diagnostic tests, hospital beds and medicines could be made affordable to the common man.

In such competitive environment, the patients will be the net gainers, as we have seen in other knowledge based industries, like the telecom sector with incredible increase in the tele-density of the country.

The drug policy should also include an equally transparent system to ensure that errant players within the healthcare sector, who will be caught with profiteering motives for manipulation of drug formulations and dosage forms to avoid price control, are brought to justice with exemplary punishments, as will be defined by law.

The Government won’t be able to do it all alone:

The Government needs to partner with the private sector to address India’s acute healthcare challenges through various Public-Private-Partnership (PPPs) initiatives.

Recent examples of successful PPP in the health sector include outsourcing ambulance services, mobile medical units, diagnostics and urban health centers to private NGOs. PPP should adequately cover both primary and specialty healthcare, including clinical and diagnostic services, insurance, e-healthcare, hospitals and medical equipment.

Conclusion:

‘Drug price’ is universally recognized as one of the important elements, though not the sole element, to improve access to modern medicines. India is no exception.

This time around, the draft NPPP 2011 has come out in the public domain again with a flawed recipe, though the policy makers have tried to include some welcoming changes in it. The authors of the draft policy seem to be still preoccupied and obsessed with addressing the symptoms of ‘affordability of medicines’ rather than focusing on the larger issue of ‘access to modern medicines’ in a holistic way.

By not addressing the all important ‘access’ related critical issues in the draft NPPP 2011 rather comprehensively, dismantling the operational ‘silos’ and inter-ministerial administrative boundaries, the architects of NPPP 2011 seem to have missed the bus, yet again, in their endeavor to help achieving a significant dimension of the long overdue ‘health for all’ objective of the nation.

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since quite some time global pharmaceutical majors have been operating within the confines of high risk – high reward R&D based business model with blockbuster drugs (annual sales of over US$ 1 billion).

Blockbuster brands, mostly in the chronic-care segments have been driving the business growth, since long, of the global R&D based pharmaceutical companies. Many such blockbuster drugs are now at the end of their patent life like, Lipitor (Atorvastatin) of Pfizer.

Patent expiry of such drugs, especially in the environment of patent cliff, could make a severe adverse impact on the revenue and profit stream of many companies, leading to drastic cost cut including retrenchment of a large number of employees.

In addition ballooning costs of R&D failure coupled with the decisions of the governments all across the world, including the US , EU and even in Asia, to contain the healthcare cost – the recent examples being Germany, Spain, Korea and China, have become the major cause of concern with the business model of blockbuster drugs.

Availability of low cost and high quality generics coupled with increasing consumerism, growing relevance of outcome-based pricing model are making the global pharmaceutical business models more and more complex.

The need to realign with the new climate:

Accenture in its report titled, “The Era of Outcomes – Emerging Pharmaceutical Business Models for High Performance” had commented, “Unless pharmaceutical companies act now to adjust to the new climate, they will be pressured to sell their proprietary drugs at low profits because the market will no longer bear the premium price”.

‘Blockbuster drugs’ business model is under stress:

Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made the global pharmaceutical industry a high-margin/high growth industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs, with reasonable investments on R&D, have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits mostly involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for ‘cure’ of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call and enormously expensive.

Thus the blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relying on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve their business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations is becoming more and more challenging. It is well known that such business model will require a rich and vibrant R&D pipeline, always.

The changing scenario with depleting R&D pipeline:

The situation has started changing since quite some time from now. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved off due to patent expiry by the year 2016.

IMS reports that in 2010 revenue of more than U.S. $ 27 billion was adversely impacted due to patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent by the end of 2011.

According to IBIS World, the following large brands will go off patent in 2011 and 2012:

Patent Expiry in 2011	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Lipitor	cholesterol	Pfizer	5.3
Zyprexa	antipsychotic	Eli Lily	2.5
Levaquin	antibiotics	Johnson & Johnson	1.3

Patent Expiry in 2012	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Plavix	anti-platelet	Bristol-Myers Squibb / Sanofi-Aventis	6.2
Seroquel	antipsychotic	AstraZeneca	3.7
Singulair	asthma	Merck	3.2
Actos	type 2 diabetes	Takeda	3.4
Enbrel	arthritis	Amgen	3.3

Proactive shift is required from ‘Blockbuster’ to Niche buster’ model:

Companies with blockbuster-drug business model without adequate molecules in the research pipeline may need to readjust their strategy even if they want to pursue similar R&D focused business model effectively.

Brand proliferation, though innovative, within similar class of molecules competing in the same therapy area, is making the concerned markets highly fragmented with no clear brand domination. In a situation like this, outcome based pricing and competitive pressure will no longer help attracting premium price for such brands anymore.

Being confronted with this kind of situation, many companies are now shifting their R&D initiatives from larger therapy areas with blockbuster focus like, cardiovascular, diabetes, hypertension and more common types of cancer to high value and technologically more complex niche busters in smaller therapy areas like, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinsonism, rare types of cancer, urinary incontinence, schizophrenia, specialty vaccines etc.

This trend is expected to continue for quite some time from now.

Generics to continue to drive the growth in the emerging markets:

It is expected that the global pharmaceutical market will record a turnover of US $1.1 trillion by 2014 with the growth predominantly driven by the emerging markets like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Turkey and Korea growing at 14% – 17%, while the developed markets are expected to grow just around 3-6% during that period.

The United States of America will continue to remain the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, with around 3-6% growth.

IMS predicts that over the next five years the industry will have the peak period of patent expiry amounting to sales of more than US$ 142 billion, further intensifying the generic competition.

The experts believe that the growth in the emerging markets will continue to come primarily from the generic drugs.

Integrated combo-business model with ‘niche busters’ and generic drugs:

Some large companies have already started imbibing an integrated combo-business model of innovative niche busters and generic medicines, focusing more on high growth emerging pharmaceutical markets.

The global generic drug market was worth US $107.8 billion USD in 2009 and is estimated to be of US$ 129.3 billion by 2014 with a CAGR of around 10%. However, there are some companies, who are still ‘sticking to knitting’ with the traditional R&D ‘blockbuster drugs’ based business models.

The process of innovative and generic drugs ‘combo-business model’ was initiated way back in 1996, when Novartis AG was formed with the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. At that time the later became the global generic pharmaceutical business arm of Novartis AG, which continued to project itself as a research-based global pharmaceutical company. With this strategy Novartis paved the way for other innovator companies to follow this uncharted frontier, as a global ‘combo-business strategy’. In 2009 Sandoz was reported to have achieved 19% of the overall net sales of Novartis, with a turnover of US$ 7.2 billion growing at 20%.

Other recent example of such consolidation process in the emerging markets happened on June 10, 2010, when GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that it has acquired ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $ 253 million. With this acquisition, GSK gained full ownership of ‘Phoenix’ to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly another global pharma major Sanofi is now seriously trying to position itself as a major player in the generics business, as well, with the acquisition of Zentiva, an important player in the European generics market. Zentiva, is a leading generic player in the markets like, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Romania, Poland and Russia, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

With this Sanofi announced, “Building a larger business in generic medicines is an important part of our growth strategy. Focusing on the needs of patients, Sanofi has conducted a regional approach in order to enlarge its business volumes and market share, offering more affordable high-quality products to more patients”.

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, even Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical player of the world, has started curving out a niche for itself in the global market of fast growing generics, following the footsteps of other large global players like, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott.

Yet another strategy – splitting the company for greater focus on both generic and innovative pharmaceuticals:

In the midst of the above trend, on October 19, 2011 Chicago based Abbott announced with a ‘Press Release’ its plan to separate into two publicly traded companies, one in diversified medical products and the other in research-based pharmaceuticals. The announcement said, the diversified medical products company will consist of Abbott’s existing diversified medical products portfolio, including its branded generic pharmaceutical, devices, diagnostic and nutritional businesses, and will retain the Abbott name. The research-based pharmaceutical company will include Abbott’s current portfolio of proprietary pharmaceuticals and biologics and will be named later. Both companies will be global leaders in their respective industries, the Press Release said.

Such splits are based on the belief of many that in the pharmaceutical business two entirely different business models of new drug discovery and generics will need different kind of business focus, which may not complement each other for the long term growth of the overall business.

OTC Switch of prescription drugs will continue:Prescription to ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ switch of pharmaceutical products is another business strategy that many innovator companies have started imbibing from quite some time, though at a much larger scale now.This strategy is helping many global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the Europe and the US to expand the indication of the drugs and thereby widening the patients’ base.Recent prescription to OTC switches will include products like, Losec (AstraZeneca), Xenical (Roche), Zocor (Merck), etc. Perhaps Lipitor (Pfizer) will join this bandwagon soon.

Conclusion:

PwC in its publication titled “Pharma 2020: The Vision” articulated:

“The current pharmaceutical industry business model is both economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets. In order to make the most of these future growth opportunities, the industry must fundamentally change the way it operates.”

Quite in tandem a gradually emerging new ‘pharmaceutical sales and marketing model’ has started emphasizing the need for innovative collaboration and partnership within the global pharmaceutical industry by bundling medicines with patient oriented services. In this model, besides marketing just the medicines, as we see today, the expertise of a company to effectively deliver some key services like, patient monitoring and disease management could well be the cutting edge for business excellence. In this evolving scenario, those companies, which will be able to offer better value with an integrated mix of medicines with services, are expected to be on the winning streak.

Be that as it may, effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model, is expected to be “The Game Changer’ in the new ball game of the global pharmaceutical industry in the years ahead.

Does India need an equivalent of ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the US for transparency in pharmaceutical marketing?

Posted on November 14, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Currently a strong and palpable public sentiment against corruption has engulfed India albeit more than what we witness in movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ against systemic corruption not only in the US but in a large number of cities across the world.

Long suppressed public sentiment against corruption is fast spreading like a wild fire in India and has now become all pervasive and almost irreversible, as it were.

That said, this strong sentiment is not just against corruption, but also for greater transparency and clean governance both in the government and corporate sectors of the country.

In a situation like this, there is a wide spread belief within the civil society not just in India, but across the world that the pharmaceutical companies try to skew the ‘prescription decision making process’ of the doctors towards their respective brands largely through different types of allurements and not based solely on robust health outcome criteria.

The key reason:

The entire issue arises out of the key factor that the patients do not have any say on the use/purchase of brand/brands that a doctor will prescribe.

It is generally believed by the civil society that doctors predominantly prescribe mostly those brands, which are promoted to them by the pharmaceutical companies in various ways. Thus, in today’s world and particularly in India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services, as reported often by the media, has reached a new high, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices in the rat race of unlimited greed, want and conspicuous consumption.

Growing discontentment:

Many within the civil society feel, as a result of fast degradation of ethical standards, moral and the noble values, just in many other areas of public life, in the healthcare space as well, the patients in general have started losing their absolute faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies, by and large. However, health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest against the vested interests.

Growing discontentment of the patients both in the private and public healthcare space in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media all over the world, including reputed medical journals like, ‘The Lancet’ to help arrest this moral and ethical decay with demonstrable and tangible proactive measures.

A global issue, not just local:

For quite some time from now this issue has indeed become a global phenomenon. Many countries, including India, have seriously taken note of such examples of socioeconomic decay.

Just the other day, the November 3, 2011 edition of ‘The Guardian’ reported, “British drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3bn (£1.9bn) to settle a series of old criminal and civil investigations by the US authorities into the sales and marketing of some of its best-known products”.

The Scenario in India:

The current scenario in India though not very much different, in terms of seriousness of the issue, from what is being reported in the US, the evolving regulatory standards in the US on this subject are definitely more robust and far superior to what we see India.

In India over 20, 000 pharmaceutical companies of varying size and scale of operations are currently operating. It has been widely reported in the media that the lack of regulatory scrutiny is prompting many of these companies to adapt to ‘free-for-all’ types of aggressive sales promotion and cut-throat marketing warfare involving significant ‘wasteful’ expenditures. Such practices reportedly involve almost all types of their customer groups, excepting perhaps the ultimate consumer, the patients.

It has been well reported that industry’s gifts to physicians in India can range from expensive cars, dinners in exotic locations, pricey vacations at various places of interest of the world and sometimes with the doctors’ families to hefty consulting and speaking fees.

Unfortunately in India there is no single government agency, which is accountable to take care of the entire healthcare needs of the patients and their well-being, in a holistic way.

The pharmaceutical industry of India, in general, has expressed many a time, the need for self-regulation of marketing practices in the absence of any regulatory compulsion, as is not uncommon in many other countries of the world, in various ways.

Be that as it may, after a protracted debate on the alleged ‘unethical marketing practices’ by the pharmaceutical companies, in May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCMP)’ to address this issue squarely and effectively in India. It has been reported that the final draft of UCMP is now lying with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India for its clearance.

This decision of the government is the culmination of a series of events, covered widely by the various sections of the press, at least, since 2004.

However, many activists groups and NGOs still feel that the bottom-line in this scenario is the demonstrable transparency by the pharmaceutical companies in their dealings with various customer groups, especially the physicians.

“Market malpractices is a barrier to healthcare access”: The WHO report of 2006:

A 2006 report of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) and ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India’ titled ‘Options for Using Competition Law/Policy Tools in Dealing with Anti-Competitive Practices in Pharmaceutical Industry and Health Delivery System’ states:

“The right to health is recognized in a number of international legal instruments. In India too, there are constitutional commitments to provide access to healthcare. However despite the existence of any number of paper pledges assuring the right to health, access to health remains a problem across the world”.

“There are several factors that are responsible for such deprivation. Market malpractices in general, and in particular, anti-competitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry and the health delivery system are also among them.”

The scenario in the US:

Like in India, a public debate started since quite some time in the US as well, on allegedly huge sum of money being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to the physicians on various items including free drug samples, professional advice, speaking in seminars, reimbursement of their traveling and entertainment expenses etc. All these, many believe, are done to adversely influence their rational prescription decisions for the patients.

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into a raging public debate, making disclosure of all payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ is being made mandatory by the Obama administration, as a part of the new US healthcare reform process of the last year.

Some global pharmaceutical majors have set examples by taking absolutely voluntary measures to make their relationship with the physicians transparent. Eli Lilly, the first pharmaceutical company to announce such disclosure voluntarily around September 2008, has already uploaded its physician payment details on its website.

US pharma major Merck followed suit and so are many other large companies like, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

Cleveland Clinic and the medical school of the University of Pennsylvania, USA are in the process of disclosing details of payments made by the Pharmaceutical companies to their research personnel and the physicians. Similarly in the UK the Royal College of Physicians has been recently reported to have called for a ban on gifts to the physicians and support to medical training, by the pharmaceutical companies.

The New York Times (NYT) in its April 12, 2010 edition in an article titled, “Data on Fees to Doctors is Called Hard to Parse”, reported that though some big pharmaceutical companies have started disclosing payments to doctors who act as consultants or speakers, many still find it far too difficult to follow the money trail.

NYT reported in the same article, “Senate researchers have found that some prominent doctors at academic medical centers have failed to disclose millions of dollars in drug company payments, despite university requirements that they do so. Federal prosecutors say some payments are really kickbacks for illegal or excessive prescribing”.

‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’:

To address this issue effectively in the US, ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’, which was originally proposed in 2009 by Iowa Republican Charles Grassley and Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, became a part of the US healthcare law in 2010. This Act came as an integral part of the healthcare reform initiatives of President Obama to reduce healthcare costs and introduce greater transparency in the system.

The Act requires all pharmaceutical and medical device companies of the country to report all payments to doctors above US $10. As stated earlier, the industry’s gifts to physicians in the US, reportedly, can range from expensive hospitality/dinner in exotic locations, pricey golfing vacations in various places of interest to consulting and speaking fees. After the Act comes in force with all its rules in place, failure to provide such details will attract commensurate penal provisions.

However, on November 1, 2011 Reuters reported that the Department of Health and Human Services of the US Government missed the October 1, 2011 deadline for drafting the regulations for ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ to outline procedures for the concerned companies for reporting the requisite information and sharing the same with the public.

US health officials will now delay the enforcement of the Act to ensure that they can implement the statutory goals of the Act with minimal regulatory burden on the pharmaceutical and the medical device companies.

Last year, ‘The New York Times (NYT)’ in its April 12, 2010 edition commented that come 2013, under the new ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’, disclosure of such database will become mandatory for all pharmaceutical and medical device makers, who will then be subjected to stricter disclosure requirements aimed at making their marketing practices much more transparent.

Conclusion:

In the US, ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ is now in place, though its effective implementation has got delayed. It appears that Obama Administration, with the help of this new law, will make the disclosure of payments to physicians by all pharmaceutical and medical device companies transparent and effective as the rules and procedures for the same are being worked out.

If President Obama administration can take such an important regulatory step with the enactment of ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ to ensure transparency in pharmaceutical marketing practices, will Dr. Man Mohan Singh government stay much behind in taking similar measures or give the self-regulatory mechanism, as is being charted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, one last chance?

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Posted on November 7, 2011 by Tapan Ray

It appears that the government has accepted the submission of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ made to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommending prescription of medicines by their generic names.

It has now been reported that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has already considered the proposal to amend the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India for approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient only in the generic names by the State Licensing Authorities. The proposal to publish the draft rules has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for necessary approval. The Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) will be kept out of the purview of this amendment.

This recommendation of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ appears to be based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, includes ‘very high sales and marketing expenditure’, which can easily be eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

The generics and the branded-generic drugs and their value proposition: As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to a chemical name in their value proposition.

Some other countries are also taking similar steps:

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government recently enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Quality standards of both generic and branded generic drugs are no different:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic or branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance. Thus when a generic drug is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically accept that it has met the required standards with respect to identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during manufacturing process for both branded generic and generic drugs and for that matter it is applicable to all drugs. However, all formulations of both types of these drugs manufactured by different manufacturers do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, all formulations of both generic and branded drugs must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will be the same.

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21)2514-2526]‘.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78% of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Points to ponder and resolve in the current Indian situation:

While the intention of the Government is indeed good, some practical issues must be considered before its implementation, which are as follows:

1. Increased chances of error while dispensing:

Chemical names of medicines are complex. In case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. There could be differences even within single ingredient formulations:

Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Price differences between branded generics and generic generics may not exist:

It is intriguing to fathom, just for a switch over from the brand name to the generic name how will the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a single ingredient formulation, bearing only the generic name, come down. Currently, MRPs printed on the product packs of generic formulations without any brand name, as available in the retail outlets, are similar to comparable branded generic formulations. In that case, what benefits that Government will expect a patient to get out of this well hyped change?

4. Manufacturers may switch from single ingredient formulations to FDCs:

There is a theoretical possibility that to retain brand names, the pharmaceutical companies may be encouraged to change their formulations from single ingredient to FDCs. In that situation, single ingredient formulations may not be available and comparable FDCs could cost more to the patients.

5. The key decision will shift from physicians to retail chemists:

The major issue with prescriptions by the chemical/generic names is that retail chemists will then be the sole decision makers to choose the prescribed product from within a whole lot of over 30 to 40 manufacturers for a particular product.

What then will prompt the retailers to buy, store and sell different generic formulations of various companies and what could possibly be the key selection criteria for such drugs by them?

I reckon, there could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select only those which will give them highest margin of profits.

In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists. This could make the situation far worse for the patients.

In interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks and ensure that patients are not adversely impacted in any way.

Conclusion: Viewing purely from the Indian perspective, while the generic drugs per se are not bad for the patients, weighing all the above issues and possible risk factors against expected benefits, I reckon, without effectively addressing the above issues to start with, if the prescriptions of single ingredient formulations are made mandatory only in generic names, it could seriously jeopardize patients’ safety and interest.

In any case, when single ingredient formulations contribute just around 30% of the total prescriptions in India, how could then prescriptions of all single ingredient formulations only in generic names address the stated concern of the government, in a holistic way?

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.

Should India follow the US way to regulate all types of lobbying in the country?

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Currently, India is one of the fastest-growing economies of the world along with China. Even during the recent global financial meltdown process both India and China could register a very impressive average GDP growth of around 7% consistently during the last so many years. This growth is over three times more than that of the developed countries like the US, which has been growing just around 2% in the recent years.

India growth story, I reckon, is now attracting a large number of companies across the industries from all over the world including India to lobby hard and participate in the process of spectacular growth across many industry sectors. Such lobbying activities in India are expected to increase by manifold in the years ahead.

As per newspaper reports the large corporations involved with these activities, besides pharmaceuticals, include the world’s largest retailers, the coffee shop giants, financial services, insurance companies and technology majors in addition to chemicals, telecom, defense and aerospace giants.

Currently, many US-based companies, as reported in the lobbying disclosure reports filed by them with the US Senate, are lobbying for various issues ranging from facilitating the market access to easing of foreign direct investment caps in retail, insurance and other financial services sectors in India to facilitate their business expansion in the country.

Indian Pharmaceutical sector is becoming more and more attractive to many:

Keeping pace with other high growth industries of the country, Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) with the current domestic turnover of around US$ 12.1 Billion has been registering a scorching pace of CAGR growth of around 15%, since over a decade. The domestic pharmaceutical industry now caters to about 20% of global requirements of high quality and affordable generic medicines of all types.

IPM is, therefore, a global success story and India has already established itself as a major force to reckon with, especially in the development and manufacturing of high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as well as in Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS), in the pharmaceutical industry of the world.

IPM is creating newer jobs:

As per reports, in roughly around 20,000 pharmaceutical organizations and its ancillary units over one million people are currently employed by the Industry. As mentioned above, though India has globally established itself as a producer of high-quality medicines available at reasonable prices, predominantly due to a very high of around 80% ‘Out of Pocket’ expenses towards healthcare in India, ‘common man’ still finds it extremely difficult to bear the cost of illness. Such critical public health interests India can ill afford to ignore.

Spectacular progress of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

India, during its independence on August 15, 1947 inherited the patent system of its British colonial masters. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals used to be largely imported from the developed world in that period with local production being absolute minimal.

This abysmal trend and pattern of the IPM of pre-independent India took another 20 years to make any significant change worth mentioning. It will be quite difficult even for the staunchest skeptics to brush aside the fact that the Indian pharmaceutical industry started blossoming since 1970, mainly due to abolition of product patent act and government encouragement with various fiscal and tax incentives paving the way for the emergence of a vibrant high quality drug manufacturing sector in the country. However, that was the need of the 70’s and certainly not for now.

It is good to know that so far as national self-sufficiency in pharmaceuticals is concerned, as per Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA), it is far above 70% despite many tough challenges.

Patent regime of many ‘developed economies’ had a stormy beginning:

While deliberating on product patents, it should be noted that in many industrial nations of the world, the protection of inventions through patents started taking place in around the last 40 years.

For example, pharmaceuticals product patents in Switzerland came into effect only since 1978. History tells us that at the fag end of the 19^th century the pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland fought vehemently against the enactment of a patent law to be able to imitate foreign drugs, such as Aspirin of Bayer. Mainly because of this reason, at that time, Germany used to consider Switzerland a ‘state of robber barons’. Similarly, France used to be known as a ‘country of counterfeiters’.

Some historians have written that exactly in the same way like India, as mentioned above, the economies of Korea, Taiwan and the ‘land of the rising sun’ – Japan were able to thrive in their formative years due to absence of patent protection in those countries.

Young India is possibly crossing, if not has already crossed that stage much sooner than many others.

Innovation is the ‘Wheel of Progress’ of any nation:

However, it is an undeniable fact that ‘innovation’ is the wheel of progress of any nation. Without innovation, it is virtually impossible for any country to make significant economic progress. The Prime Minister of India has thus termed the current decade of 2010 as the ‘decade of innovation’ for India.

It has been well established by now that ‘Technology Transfer’ from the developed nations not only brings profit to those countries from patent protection and shields them from low-cost competition, but also helps the developing nations to add requisite speed to their growing economy.

However, most developing nations want access to such technological innovations at an affordable and lesser cost without any possible future risk of oligopoly and ‘technological recolonisation’.

New Product Patent regime in India came much after China and Brazil:

India signed the WTO agreement to become its member in January 1, 1995 and following a 10-year transition period, on January 1, 2005 the country amended its national patent legislation to usher in the product patent regime. The lose knots, if any, in the amended Patents Act of India are widely expected to get strengthened as the domestic innovators will feel the need for the same and possibly not due to any extraneous pressure.

Compared to India, product patent came much earlier in China and Brazil. China enacted its first patent law on March 12, 1984. However, it provided little protection to pharmaceutical and chemical inventions. In 1992, China amended the 1984 patent law in compliance with an agreement between China and the United States, as well as to join the WTO. Similarly, the new patent law came into force in Brazil way back on October 6,1999, which also has the provision of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL).

International independent domain experts feel that it will take some more time for India to gauge the real benefits of product patents for the country.

Public interest for ‘Health and Nutrition’:

The philosophy of India since decades has been to ‘promote the principle of relying on one’s own strength’, especially in the critical and a very sensitive areas of public interest for ‘Health and Nutrition’. Many independent experts in this field both from India and abroad have opined that India seems to be following this path without compromising on its TRIPS compliance status. However, there are some dissenting voices in this area, who feel that a more rigorous and robust patent regime in India is in the best interest of the country.

Should the government regulate lobbying activities?

Considering the fast emerging environment, as mentioned above and arising out of some recent very sensational lobbying related financial/policy scams in India, the moot question, as is being raised by many across the country is: “Should the government regulate the lobbying activities in India?”.

Even in the Pharmaceutical Industry, some instances of lobbying activities carried out both within and outside India, had led to raging debates and controversies.

To cite an example, not so very long ago, some consumer activists from the civil society vehemently protested against the ‘Intellectual Property Conferences’ held in India, which were allegedly sponsored by some interested groups in a guise to influence the policy makers and the judiciary of India.

It was widely reported that the consumer activists viewed these IP summits, organized by the George Washington University Law School of USA as ‘attempts to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues that are pending in Indian courts.’

In a letter dated February 26, 2010 addressed to Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India, over 20 NGOs demanded transparency and more information on such meetings and wanted the government of India ‘to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with Indian judges and policymakers to promote their own requirements for intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases currently pending before, various courts and the Indian Patent Office,”

In raising their concerns, the civil society groups argued that the posture adopted by the lobbyists and their supporters is to “force India to adopt greater standards” of IP protection “beyond the mandatory levels” required by the WTO, which may go against public health interest in India.

Lobbying activities are expected to gain further momentum:

It is quite logical to expect that lobbying activities in such and many other areas both ‘for’ and ‘against’ are expected to gain momentum in the times to come. However, it is widely believed that long-term interest of India is expected to ultimately prevail in this closely watched ball game.

Lobbying is legal in many countries like the US with the government ground rules firmly in place:

We all know that in many countries like the US, lobbying is a legal activity. Many Indian companies, including the government of India have been lobbying in the US since so many years to present their cases and argument with the American law and policy makers.

When President Obama came to power in the US, it was reported: ‘one of the first acts of the Obama administration in office was to have an executive order which prohibited the Obama Administration either from hiring lobbyists – those who had lobbied within two years of joining the administration or allowing people who had left the Obama administration to service lobbyists for two years. The idea is that you want to break the chains where there is undue influence of special interest groups upon the government’.

However, there are no government ground rules still in place for lobbying in India either for the local or the global companies and their lobbyists, across the industry sectors.

Surrogate lobbying:

It was discussed somewhere about ‘surrogate lobbying’ in many industries from various parts of the world. I have really no idea about what these are and the legality of such activities without appropriate well-drafted government specified disclosures in place, for public interest.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, in the US such activities are required to be intimated to the US senate by the companies concerned and their lobbyists highlighting their activities in form of a quarterly disclosure reports detailing not only the issues, but also the concerned government departments and institutions and the related expenses.

Let me hasten to add that despite a long history with regulated and legalized lobbying in the US, still there has been severe criticism in that country of the way lobbying has worked there in the past so many years. India has plenty to learn from such experiences.

Thus, as a part of following the global ‘public interest best practices’, a large section of the civil society in India has been voicing in so many ways, mainly after the recent financial and policy related mega scams, that it may be a good idea, if the government also puts system driven adequate checks and balances in place for lobbying activities in India, sooner.

It is believed by many that such regulations will ensure perfectly legal lobbying initiatives in India always maintain complete transparency and follow appropriate processes/procedures of disclosures to maintain a right balance between long-term public interest and the growing requirements of a healthy business ecosystem to accelerate the inclusive economic growth of the nation.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Ray

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

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

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011: A flawed recipe

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model

Does India need an equivalent of ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the US for transparency in pharmaceutical marketing?

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Should India follow the US way to regulate all types of lobbying in the country?