Chasing the “Holy Grail”: Reasonably affordable healthcare for all

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The Healthcare industry of the world as a whole with a size of several trillion US$ is growing at a fast pace in many countries for various reasons. The industry can be broadly divided into six categories as follows:

Managed Health Care, like the US and many other OECD countries providing ‘Universal Health Coverage’
Medical Equipment and Devices
Pharmaceuticals
Bio-pharmaceuticals
Health Insurance
Health Support Services

Though BRIC countries and other emerging markets are showing promising growth potential, United States of America (USA) still remains the largest entity within the global healthcare industry, followed by European Union (EU) and Japan.

Success requirements:

The most important success requirements for the Global healthcare industry may be listed as follows:

Proficiency in early capturing of the key market trends
Leveraging technology in all areas of business
Continuous product and service innovation
Meeting customer needs even before they feel for the same
Cutting-edge, well-differentiated and well-executed market and marketing strategies
Always in touch with customers with win-win business objectives
Outpacing competition with continuous proactive moves

India:

The success factors for excellence in the healthcare sector of India are no different from other emerging markets. However, some key components of this sectoral space, like optimal infrastructure and efficient delivery mechanisms, especially in the hinterland and rural areas of the country, are still in ‘Work In Progress (WIP)’ stages of development.

Healthcare growth drivers in India:

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

In addition, from the allocation made for health (2.5 percent of the GDP) in the 12^th Five Year Plan Document of India, it appears that the country will clock a mid to high-teen growth in its healthcare spending during this period, mainly due to the following reasons:

Economy to turn stronger
Massive public healthcare expansion through projects like Universal Health Coverage (UHC), expanded National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), new National Urban Health Mission (NUHM)
Expanded Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojojana (RSBY) for Below Poverty Line (BPL) population
Growing middle income households both in the urban and rural areas
Increasing life-style related health issues
Improving penetration of Health Insurance

Key Challenges:

The path ahead will not really be strewn with the beds of roses. The rural healthcare infrastructure will continue to pose a key challenge, at least in the near term, some of the facts being as follows:

A. Status of Rural Healthcare Infrastructure in India:

Infrastructure and Services	Villages [%]
Connected with Roads	73.9
Having any Health Provider	95.3
Having trained birth attendant	37.5
Having ‘Anganwadi’ Worker (Child Care Center in rural areas)	74.5
Having a doctor	43.5

(Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)

B. Hospital Beds per 1000 of population:

Country	Hospital Beds Per 1000 Population
India	> 0.7 [Urban: 2.2 and Rural 0.1]
Russia	9.7
Brazil	2.6
China	2.2
World Average	3.96

(Source: Kshema)

Needs more innovative business models:

Being supported by the monetary and other fiscal incentives of the Government, Tier II and III cities of India will continue to attract more investors for their future growth potential. At the same time, anticipated lower profit margins from these areas, predominantly due to relatively lower affordability threshold of the local population and inadequate health insurance penetration in these areas, is expected to make these healthcare providers to plan for no-frill innovative business models, like much talked about ‘the hub-and-spoke model’, as practiced in many other industries.

Some of the key players of the healthcare industry of India like, Apollo and Fortis have already started expanding into tier-II and tier-III cities of the country, prompted by increasing demand for high-quality specialty healthcare services at reasonably affordable prices in the smaller towns of the country.

Meanwhile, Frontier Lifeline Hospital is reportedly in the process of setting up India’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for healthcare, ‘Frontier Mediville’ at Elavoor, near Chennai.

Areas of caution:

While looking at the big picture, the following factors should also be taken note of:

At least in the short to medium term, it will be unrealistic to expect that India will be a high margin / high volume market for the healthcare sector in general.
The market will continue to remain within the modest-margin range with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
The government focus on reasonably affordable drug prices may get extended to medical devices / equipment and other related areas, as well.

India is taking strides:

I. According to the Rural Health Survey Report 2009 of the Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, in rural India during the last five years:

The number of primary health centers has increased by 84 per cent to 20,107.
Around 15,000 health sub-centers and 28,000 nurses and midwives have been added.

II According to RNCOS December, 2010 report:

Indian health insurance market is currently not only the fastest growing, but also second largest non-life insurance segment in the country.
The health insurance premium in India is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 25 per cent from 2009-10 to 2013-14.
By end 2013 India is expected to curve out a share over 3 per cent in the global medical tourism industry with a CAGR in the number of medical tourists to over 19 per cent, during 2011-2013 period.

III. According to PwC, the medical technology industry of India is expected to grow from US$

2.7 billion in 2008 to US$ 14 billion by 2020.

IV. Leveraging cutting edge technology, digital bio-surveillance projects are being initiated to

generate data on the prevalence of various diseases and to create actionable databases on healthcare needs in rural India by several private players like, Narayana Hrudayalaya and the Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Centre.

V. Major healthcare players of India like, Manipal Group, Max Healthcare and Apollo are now

reportedly venturing into new segments such as primary care and medical diagnostics.

Job creation  in healthcare sector:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following details:

The Healthcare sectors in India recorded a maximum post recession recruitment to a total employee base of 33,66,000 with a new job creation of 2,95,000, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2010’.
Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.
With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sector of India in the years ahead.

Pharmaceutical Industry:

McKinsey & Company in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance realizing true potential” estimated that the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will grow to US$ 55 billion by 2020 and the market has the potential to record a turnover of US$ 70 billion with a CAGR of 17 per cent.

Currently India:

Ranks 4th in the world in terms of pharmaceutical sales volume.
Caters to around a quarter of the global requirements for generic drugs.
Meets around 70 per cent of the domestic demand for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API).
Has the largest number of US FDA approved plant outside USA
Files highest number of ANDAs and DMFs
One of most preferred global destinations for contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS)

Conclusion:

Despite all these, the healthcare Industry of India is still confronted with many challenges while striking a right balance between public health interest and expectations for a high margin ‘free market’ business policies by a large section of players in the healthcare sector of India, across its sub-sectors, both global and local, quite unlike many other emerging sectors, like telecom and IT.

Moreover, pharmaceuticals come under the ‘Essential Commodities Act’ of the country, where government administered pricing is common.

That said, without further delay, all stakeholders, along with the Government, should now join hands, to collectively resolve the critical issues of the healthcare sector of the nation, like:

Creation and modernization of healthcare infrastructure leveraging IT
Universal Health Coverage
Win-win regulatory policies
Creation of employable skilled manpower
Innovation friendly ecosystem
Reasonably affordable healthcare services and medicines for the common man through a robust government procurement and delivery system
Right attitude of all stakeholders to find a win-win solution for all issues, instead of adhering to the age-old blame game in perpetuity, as it were, without conceding each other’s ground even by an inch.

Now is the high time for India, I reckon, to reap a rich harvest from the emerging lucrative opportunities, coming both from India and across the world in its healthcare space. This, in turn, will help the country to effectively align itself with the key global healthcare need of providing reasonably affordable healthcare to all.

In pursuit of this ‘Holy Grail’, the nation has all the success ingredients in its armory, as mentioned above, to play a key role in the global healthcare space, not just as a facilitator to help achieving reasonable corporate business objectives of the healthcare players, but more importantly to alleviate sufferings of a vast majority of the ailing population, living even beyond the shores of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game

Posted on April 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical innovation has always been considered the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical industry and very rightly so. However, many studies do point out that such innovation has benefited the developed world more than the developing world.

Product Price and Access:

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “the attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socio-economic and political requirements.

The Doha Declaration:

Many independent experts in this field consider the Doha Declaration as an important landmark for recognizing the primacy to public health interest over private intellectual property and the rights of the members of WTO to use safeguards as enumerated in TRIPS, effectively.

To protect public health interest and extend access to innovative medicines to majority of their population whenever required, even many developed/OECD countries do not allow a total freehand for the patented products pricing in their respective countries.

Early signals of global empathy:

While expressing similar sentiment ‘The Guardian’ reported that Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, has decided to slash prices on all medicines in the poorest countries, give back profits to be spent on hospitals and clinics and more importantly share knowledge about potential drugs that are currently protected by patents.

Witty further commented that he believes, drug companies have an obligation to help the poor patients getting appropriate treatment and reportedly challenged other pharmaceutical giants to follow his lead.

An interesting study:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

The most plausible explanation for the lack of a relationship between the burden of disease in the developing countries and pharmaceutical innovation, as pointed out by the study, is weak incentives for firms to develop medicines for the diseases of the poor.

Point – Counterpoint:

A contrarian view to this study argues that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

The counterpoint to the above argument articulates that health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

A solution emerging:

Responding to the need of encouraging pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health interest, in 2006 the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)‘ created the ‘Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)‘. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

Declining R&D productivity:

Declining R&D productivity adds another dimension to this raging debate with a snowballing effect, as it were.

Over a period of decades, the business models for small-molecule based blockbuster drugs have 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 very many ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

The impact of the above scenario also gets reflected in the status of International patent filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of the ‘World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’ as follows:

A. Last five years, PCT filings:

The last five years’ PCT filing status does not seem to be encouraging either.

Year	PCT Filings	Change %
2007	159,926
2008	163,240	2.1
2009	154,406	(5.4)
2010	164,316	6.4
2011	181,900	10.7 *(E)

* Estimate

B. Country-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

While having a closer look at the data, it becomes quite evident that in terms of percentage increase in the PCT filings two Asian countries, China and Japan, have registered their overall dominance. However, in terms of absolute number USA still ranks first.

County	No. Of PCT Filings	% Increase
USA	48,596	8
China	16,401	33.4
Japan	38,888	21
Germany	18,568	5.7
South Korea	10,447	8

C. Technical-field-wise PCT Filing in 2011:

In terms of the technical fields, pharmaceuticals ranked fifth in 2011.

Rank	Industry	No. Of PCT Filings
1.	Electrical Machinery, Apparatus, Energy	11,296
2.	Digital Communication	11,574
3.	Medical technology	10,753
4.	Computer technology	10,455
5.	Pharmaceuticals	7,683
6.	Organic fine chemistry	5,283
7.	Biotechnology	5,232

D. Biotech/Pharma companies featuring in WIPO’s Top 100 filers list:

Very few biotech and pharmaceutical companies featured in the Top 100 PCT filers’ list of WIPO as follows:

	Company
1.	Procter & Gamble
2.	Sumitomo Chemical
3.	DuPont
4.	Dow Global
5.	Novartis AG
6.	Roche
7.	Merck GmbH
8.	Sanofi-Aventis GmbH
9.	Bayer CropScience AG

E. The top five university PCT filers in 2011:

Universities of the US dominated among the PCT filings by the Academic institutions as follows:

University	No. Of PCT Filings
University of California, US	277
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US	179
University of Texas System, US	127
Johns Hopkins University, US	111
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea	103

Need to encourage pharmaceutical innovation:

Based on the WIPO data, as mentioned above, the current status of the global pharmaceutical innovation does not seem to be very encouraging.

That said, in the environment of declining R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, there is indeed a strong requirement to encourage pharmaceutical innovation across the globe, based on the socio-economic environment of each country, together with adequate safeguards in place to protect public health interest.

Why protect patent?

The pharmaceutical major Eli Lilly has very aptly epitomized the reason for patent protection in their website called ‘LillyPad’, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies continue to invest in innovation not only because it is good for business, but it is what patients expect. If we want to continue to have breakthrough products, we need patent protection and incentives to invest in intellectual property. The equation is simple, patents lead to innovation – which help lead to treatments and cures”.

Conclusion:

Currently, various socio-economic expectations, demands and requirements, not just for the poor, but also of the powerful growing middle class intelligentsia are gradually getting unfolded on this subject from many parts of the globe. These collective demands cannot be either wished away or negotiated with a strong belief that the future should be a replication of the past.

There should be full respect, support and protection for innovation and the product patent system in the country. This is essential not only, for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population, effectively.

At the same time, available indicators point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socio-economic status of the local population. Some experts have already opined that prices of life saving innovative drugs, unlike many other patented products, will no longer remain ‘unquestionable’ in increasing number of countries.

Thus, even at the time of declining pharmaceutical R&D productivity, striking a right balance between a strong patent regime and safeguarding overall health interest of its population, particularly of those with a very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare, will indeed be a crafty gutsy ball game for a country.

By: Tapan J Ray

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

Posted on April 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Currently both China and India, the two most populous nations of the world are also the front runners of the global economy in terms of the pace of GDP growth. The economies of the two countries are greatly influenced by their respective sociopolitical environment. However, the economy of China is more robust ranking second in the world, against eleven of India. The dragon is indeed breathing fire.

A comparison of the economy of the two countries, as reported by ‘MapsofIndia.com’ updated in July 2011, is as follows:

Facts	India	China
GDP	US$1.31 trillion	US$ 4.90 trillion
GDP growth	8.90%	9.60%
Per capital GDP	US$1124	US$7,518
Inflation	7.48 %	5.1%
Labor Force	467 million	813.5 million
Unemployment	9.4 %	4.20 %
Fiscal Deficit	5.5%	21.5%
Foreign Direct Investment	US$12.40 billion	US$9.7 billion
Gold Reserves	15%	11%
Foreign Exchange Reserves	US$2.41 billion	US$2.65 trillion
World Prosperity Index	88th Position	58th Position
Mobile Users	842 million	687.71 million
Internet Users	123.16 million	81 million.

Global pharmaceutical ranking:

As reported by IMS, in global ranking, China was ninth largest pharmaceutical market against thirteenth of India in 2004, became fifth largest in 2009 against thirteenth of India and is expected to be the third largest by 2014 against tenth of India, growing at a much faster pace.

	2004 Rank		2009 Rank		2014 Rank
1	United States	1	United States	1	United States
2	Japan	2	Japan	2	Japan
3	France	3	Germany	3	China
4	Germany	4	France	4	Germany
5	Italy	5	China	5	France
6	United Kingdom	6	Italy	6	Brazil
7	Canada	7	Canada	7	Italy
8	Spain	8	Spain	8	Canada
9	China	9	United Kingdom	9	Spain
10	Brazil	10	Brazil	10	India
11	Mexico	11	Russia	11	Russia
12	Australia	12	Mexico	12	United Kingdom
13	South Korea	13	India	13	Venezuela
14	India	14	Australia	14	Turkey
15	Netherlands	15	Turkey	15	South Korea

Source: IMS Health MIDAS, Market Prognosis September 2010; Market size ranking in constant US$

Healthcare coverage:

In China, out of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million are covered by health insurance, another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance.

Against these statistics of China, in India total number of population who have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.1% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China in this respect mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure and regulatory challenges by China.

Commitment to globalization:

A very high level of commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional global hub for pharmaceutical R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is now paying rich dividends.

Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India (GoI) also expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. Unfortunately, this cannot be achieved with just good intent of investments of couple of million US$ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, as announced by the DoP earlier.

A strong commitment of the GoI to hasten regulatory reform processes with visible action will be the deciding success factor. IPR regime in the pharmaceutical industry has been put in place, but an appropriate to foster innovation in the country is yet to be created.

Healthcare Infrastructure:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that China’s infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to accelerate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country.

It has been reported that China has not only better healthcare infrastructure as compared to India, but they are also more open to of foreign trade and investments to improve these further in their country.

R&D Comparison:

Talent Pool and no. of Patents granted:

According to WIPO, China has better R&D talent pool and grants more patent per year than India as follows:

	India	China
R&D Talent Pool	45,000	56,000
Patents Granted (2008-09)*	16,061	48,814

*Patent Granrted in India during 2009-10:6168

Source: FE Bureau / WIPO / IPO

Scientific Publications:

India also lags behind China in the number of scientific publications as follows:

	Pre 2000 (A)	Post 2000 (B)	B/A*
India	3,04,737	4,98,394	1.64
China	2,30,154	19,94,706	8.67

*Multiple of Post-2000 over Pre 2000

Between pre-2000 and post-2000 era, China’s count of scientific publications rose more than eight times compared to India’s 1.6 times. (Source: Search on Scopus Sciverse (Database from Elsevier)

Based on ‘WIPO PCT’ applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China.

Biology Research:

China is taking faster strides in the Biology Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Only about five companies with proven skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research focused on bioinformatics and bio-chips

3. Limited biology talent pool owing to historic focus on generics1. Established skills in basic molecular biology and protein expression

2. Innovative research in stem cells, bio-chips, and gene sequencing

3. Expanding biology talent pool

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Clinical trials:

In the area of clinical trial, though by amending the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in line with ICH GCP, India has already put in place the Good Clinical Practices (GCP), China has, on the other hand, brought its GCP, GLP, and GMP standards in line with ICH guidelines.

May be because of all these reasons ‘A.T. Kearney’ in its ‘Country Attractiveness Index’ (CAI) for clinical trials has given 6.10 to China against 5.58 to India.

BCG compared India with China in the Clinical Trial space as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Experienced CROs with full service range and output of similar quality to that of developed markets.

3. Limited FDA approved hospitals

4. Shorter trial approval times than in China

5.Uneven infrastructure and shortage of clinical research assistants

Experienced CROs and growing vendor pool providing full spectrum of services
High quality FDA-approved hospitals
Low-cost and efficient enrollment compared to the US and Europe
Trial approvals lengthy and complex

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Despite all these, both India and China pose challenges to both global and the local pharmaceutical players in dealing with subjects of wide cultural diversity within the country besides illiteracy and poverty. Many cases of conflict between ethics and natural justice have been reported from both countries during recruiting process of the subjects for clinical trial.

Pharmaceutical outsourcing:

In terms of attractiveness for outsourcing among the emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, India and China are outpacing others with their cutting edge offering of high quality services at lower cost together with large pool of skilled manpower.

India has the potential to be a contender of supremacy for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types with all the required success ingredients. However, putting these ingredients together for effective use to make it happen has indeed become a real challenge.

On the other hand China is racing ahead to effectively avail the global opportunities and in that process fast distancing itself from India, widening the competitive performance gap between the two countries. Brain drain:

Korn/Ferry International has reported that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Where India is a high flier:

Chemistry Research:

India is globally considered as a more mature place for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Aurigene, Advinus, Divis Lab and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

BCG report, ‘Looking Eastward’ compared India with China in the Chemistry Research area as follows:

INDIA	CHINA
1. Large pool of vendors with full services and track record of strong capabilities

2. Generally better IP protection than in China

3. Trend toward project based alliances and emerging build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts

4. Vast pool of skilled and low cost chemists

Capabilities residing mostly with government institutes; only a few small private companies with a track record
Established basic chemistry skills moving to more complex offerings, but no end to end capabilities
Large and growing pool of raw talent, but limited English language skills still an issue

(Source: BCG report, Looking Eastward)

Earlier reform in China: It is important to mention that healthcare reform process started much earlier in China. The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that time China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centers, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on economies of scale, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many others, will vindicate this point.

On other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20 percent of global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Even in ANDA and DMF filings, India is currently ahead of China.

Conclusion:

While comparing India with China one should also take into consideration that not only the sociopolitical structure of India and China are quite different, but the difference exists also in their commerce and industry related political decision making process.

Moreover, the average age of Chinese population is much more than Indians and continues to increase rapidly. The factor of aging population may have an adverse impact on the overall productivity of their people in the coming years constraining the economic growth of China. In contrast, the percentage of young working people in India is expected to keep increasing through 2030, offering a very critical demographic advantage to the country in the years ahead.

Though China will continue to have aging population and India the younger ones, both countries will have to deploy greater resources to cater to the growing healthcare needs for altogether different reasons. The net gainer will indeed be the pharmaceutical industry in both the countries.

That said, just a wishful thinking of the Government of India, sans expeditious and prudent regulatory and other related policy reforms, will helplessly make India watching the gap between the pharmaceutical industry of the two countries fast widening, making the dragon keep breathing fire, unabated.

By: Tapan J Ray

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Drug Price Control has remained the key feature of all Drug Policies of India, since their inception in early 70’s. Most of these policies continued to remain behind their times consistently, without any exception.

That said, the Drug Policy 1994 and the consequent Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO ’95) have now become the largest ‘Dinosaur’ of all Drug Policies. However, the most intriguing point though, both these have still been kept operational by the government and the very concept of a new and a more contemporary one is languishing in a labyrinth since over a decade, for reasons of anybody’s guess.

Drug Price Control system in India:

It appears that the drug price control system in India is here to stay, at least in the short to medium term and that too in a seemingly best case scenario.

The key reasons:

As we know, the key reasons of price control for pharmaceuticals in India are the following:

To contain cost of medicines, particularly the essential ones, at a reasonably affordable level, which is a very important part of the total healthcare expenditure of the common man.
To provide greater access to medicines to all, especially in view of very high ‘out of pocket expenditure’ for health for a vast majority of population in the country.

The economic factors:

Some of the economic factors, which may cause impediments in achieving these objectives are the following:

Sub optimal public healthcare infrastructure, leaky delivery system and high cost of private healthcare services
This is fueled by, as stated above, unabated increase in ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ on healthcare in general and medicines in particular at 78 per cent, as compared to 61 per cent in China, 53 per cent in Sri Lanka, 31 percent in Thailand, 29 per cent in Bhutan and 14 per cent in Maldives (Source: The Lancet)
High expenses on drugs for outpatient care

Though very important, drug cost alone, however, does not determine quality of access to healthcare.

Global scenario for drug price control:

As per published reports, all 34 developed nations of the world have ‘Universal Health Coverage’ mechanism in place in various different forms, including mandatory medical insurance requirements, to effectively address the issue of high access to healthcare including pharmaceuticals in their respective countries, significantly reducing ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards health.

All these 34 countries belong to ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the governments of which, in some way or the other control and regulate drug prices.

The Governments/payors of most of these countries implement the price control measures by playing the role of a dominant market force directly, while negotiating a favorable price from the manufacturers, which are much lower than their equivalent free market prices.

Many other OECD governments set the drug reimbursement prices right at the time of introduction of new drugs through hard negotiation, which are also well below free market prices and acts as the bench mark market prices, in many ways.

In addition to all these mechanisms, the governments in many OECD countries periodically reduce the prices of already marketed drugs quite significantly.

A contrarian view on Drug Price Control:

Some industry experts feel that there is a hidden consequence for the ‘Drug Price Control System’, especially with the cost based one.

The cost based price control as is currently practiced by the government in India compels the pharmaceutical manufacturers to restrict to:

Minimum acceptable quality standard rather than maximum possible quality standards for the patients
Does not encourage innovation in formulation development like novel galenic formulations for better patient acceptance and compliance
Indirectly discourage innovation in product packaging
Ceiling Price mechanism does not encourage advanced anti-counterfeit measures for patients’ safety

These experts also feel that adverse consequences of price control will have a significant negative impact on the pharmaceutical players to plough back fund towards R&D projects to meet the unmet needs of the patients and thereby reducing the range of treatments that could be made available to the patients in the years ahead.

What is China doing?

On March 28, 2011 Reuters reported that China had cut the maximum retail price for more than 1,200 types of antibiotics and the drugs for the circulatory system by an average of 21 percent.

It has also been reported that the Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’

Supreme Court directive on ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

It is worth noting in this context that in 2003, the Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the Drug Policy 2002 directed the government to work out effective mechanism to bring all essential and life-saving medicines under price control.

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Even in its report the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ in India, set up by the Planning Commission of India under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, under recommendation no. 3.5.1, postulated price control and price regulation 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.”

Types of drug price regulations in India:

Cost based price control: e.g. as specified in the Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO 95)
Marked based price control: e.g. as was suggested by ‘The Pronab Sen Committee’ in 2005
Price Monitoring with a cap on annual price increase: e.g. as is currently followed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) for all products which are outside DPCO ’95

The weaknesses of cost based pricing mechanism:

The key criticism of cost based pricing mechanism flows from the following arguments:

This system is not followed by any developed or developing countries worth mentioning, which follow drug price control mechanism in any form
A Complex, intrusive and inefficient system of pricing medicines
Does not consider important variations in the level of GMP standards and the quality of input costs
The conversion cost and packing norms are determined through a sample survey of less than one per cent of pharmaceutical manufacturing units

Pronab Sen Committee report – the basis of price control in the draft NPPP 2011:

The draft NPPP 2011 is based on the ‘Recommendations of the Task Force constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Pronab Sen to explore issues beyond Price Control to make available Life-saving Drugs at reasonable prices’ to all.

‘Pronab Sen Committee’ suggested the following principles of Price regulation to achieve part of the above objective:

1. The National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) should form the basis of drugs to be considered for intensive price monitoring, ceiling prices and for imposition of price controls, if necessary.

2. The government should announce the ceiling price of the drugs contained in the NLEM (other than the drugs procured by hospitals directly and which an individual does not have to purchase from the market) on the basis of the weighted average prices of the top three brands by value of single ingredient formulations prevailing in the market as on 01.04.2005. In cases where there are less than three brands, the weighted average of all the existing brands would be taken. The Org–IMS data set can be used for this purpose initially with a 20 per cent retail margin provided. There is, however, a need to improve the available data coverage, which should be taken up with ORG-IMS or any other data provider.

3. For drugs which are not reflected in ORG-IMS data, the NPPA should prepare the necessary information based on market data collection.

4. During the transition period (i.e. till the time ceiling prices are fixed and notified) prices of all essential drugs may be frozen.

5. The Government should specify the reference product in terms of strength and pack size for each product which would form the basis for price determination. The price ceiling would be specified on a per dosage basis, such as per tablet/per capsule or standard volume of injection. Where syrups and liquids are sold in bottles the ceiling price may be fixed on individual pack size.

6. Price relaxations may be permitted for non-standard delivery systems, packaging and pack sizes through applications to the negotiations committee, which should become applicable for all similar cases.

7. In the case of formulations which involve a combination of more than one drug in the NLEM, the ceiling price would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of its constituents.

8. For formulations containing a combination of a drug in the NLEM and any other drug, the ceiling price applicable to the essential drug would be made applicable. However, the company would be free to approach the price negotiations committee for a relaxation of the price on the basis of evidence proving superior therapeutic effectiveness for particular disease conditions.

9. In order to determine the reasonableness of the ceiling prices fixed as above, the prices quoted in bulk procurement by Government and other designated agencies may be examined for use, provided that the system of bulk procurement meets certain minimum prescribed standards. Recognizing that retail distribution has costs not reflected in bulk procurement, a markup of 100 per cent over this reference price is recommended.

10. NPPA should set up a computer based system which would scan the price data provided by companies against the ceiling prices determined as above and identify formulations which breach the relevant price ceiling. The company manufacturing or marketing such a product would be required to reduce its price or to face penal action.

11. Companies should be permitted to represent for any price increase on valid grounds, which should then become applicable to the entire class of products.

12. The NLEM should be revised periodically, say every 5 years, in order to reflect new drugs and significant changes in pattern of drug sales within the therapeutic categories. However till the time the new list is finalized the existing list will continue to be valid for the purpose of price control.

13. In the case of drugs not contained in the NLEM, intensive monitoring should be carried out of all drugs falling into a pre-specified list of therapeutic categories. Any significant variation in the prices (say above 10 per cent) would be identified for negotiation.

The stakeholders’ comments on NPPP 2011:

About 60 stakeholders have commented by now on the draft NPPP 2011. The views are quite divergent though. It is interesting to note that the new draft pricing policy, in its current form, has been rejected by all key stakeholders, like the Industry, Ministry of Health, Expert Groups, WHO, NGOs and reportedly even by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, on quite different grounds.

As widely reported in the media, the pharmaceutical industry, though in favor of the marked based pricing mechanism, feels that the draft NPPP 2011 will increase the span of drug price control to over 60 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM). This means over eight times increase in the span of price control from its current level, making the task unwieldy for even the NPPA.

Majority of other stakeholders including the Ministry of Health, on the contrary, are arguing in favor of cost based price control. They commented that the price control system of the draft policy would give legitimacy to high drug prices in India, leading to increase in the overall prices of medicines. This group feels that the top three brands in majority of cases will be the most expensive ones.

Two interesting observations by the World Health Organization (WHO) on ‘Trade Margin’:

The WHO in their observations on the draft NPPP 2011 has made the following interesting comments:

“The new price regulation uses a margin of16% to calculate the retail prices. This is a lower margin than currently – based on the market data 1.1 and 3.3 I calculated a current retail margin of 22%. So the new price regulation implies a margin reduction of 6%, alternatively the CP might be set at a 6% lower price than currently is the case.”

If the WHO observation is correct, there is a scope to reduce the price of essential medicines by 6 per cent only through proper regulation of the trade margin.

WHO also comments that IMS data, the basis of all such calculations by the NPPA, has severe limitations as “Their data does not take into account the discounts, rebates and bundling deals and when the data is collected at the level of the wholesaler they estimate the retailer and patient prices”.

If such is the case, what could possibly be the basis of all calculations as captured in the draft NPPP 2011?

Observation of a distinguished Parliamentarian:

Dr. Jyoti Mirdha , a Member of the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) commented as follows:

“Under this policy the weighted average of three top selling brands will be the ceiling price. There is no logic in restricting the formula to just three brands. Why not five? Why not 10 to arrive at a more representative and reasonable figure? Besides why base on sales figures? In any pricing policy the parameter should be the price. Why not weighted average of 10 least priced brands?”

This could well be a pertinent question.

How to break the logjam now?

Taking on from Dr. Mirdha’s argument , WHO observations and Pronab Sen Committee report, one could possibly try to resolve this logjam by exploring various other available alternatives like for example, the following broad points, to ascertain whether a win-win situation can be created for all through the new drug policy:

What happens if ‘Weighted Average Price’ is calculated based on all brands, instead of top three or bottom three with some exclusion criteria, if required?
When inclusion criteria for price control in the new draft NPPP 2011 is ‘essentiality’ of drugs, it sounds logical that price control should be restricted to National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). Only possible extension could perhaps be taking the entire molecule, instead of specified strengths of the same molecule.
Enough non-price control checks and balances to be put in place to ensure proper availability of NLEM 2011 drugs to the common man and avoidance of any possible situation of shortages for such drugs.
As commented by WHO, trade margin should be rationalized, the MRP needs to be reduced accordingly and the consequential benefits to be passed on to the patients.

Conclusion:

The issue of the new National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy should be resolved sooner than later and that too by conforming to the directive given by the Supreme Court on essential medicines. At the same time, all the stakeholders must feel comfortable with the new drug policy.

The four points, as mentioned above, are just an illustration for choosing an alternative solution. If it works, let us move on. If it does not, let us search for the pathfinder who can break the decade old labyrinth rather quickly, without losing the way yet again.

However, the bottom-line remains that the solution should be a win-win one, both for the patients and the industry alike, benefiting the healthcare space of the country in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Tapan Ray

On March 12, 2012, the Patent Office of India, in its landmark ruling, granted its first ever Compulsory License (CL) for Bayer’s patented kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar (Sorafenib), to the generic pharma player Natco, broadly citing the following reasons:

Reasonable requirements of public under Section 84 have not been satisfied.
The Patented Drug was not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price as per Section 84 (1) (b).
Patented invention is not worked in the territory of India as per Section 84 (1) (c)

The 62 page order of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) granted the CL to Natco for the rest of patent life of sorafenib in India at the high end of the UNDP 2001 royalty guidelines at 6 percent.

Sorafenib:

Sorafenib was co-developed and co-marketed by Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of advanced renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma. The drug got its first regulatory approval from the US FDA for advanced renal cell carcinoma in 2005.

National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of UK had indicated that the drug extends life of the kidney cancer patients by three months on an average.

As stated earlier, in March 2008, Indian patent for Sorafenib was granted to Bayer by the CGPDTM. Thereafter, in December 2010 Natco had requested for a voluntary license from Bayer, which was rejected by the patentee.

It has been reported that sorafenib was registered as an ‘orphan drug’ in the US. The R&D cost of sorafenib was partly subsidized by the US Orphan Drug tax credit.

Mixed reaction:

Though the research based pharmaceutical industry across the world expressed its disappointment over the judgment, many experts and NGOs from different parts of the globe have opined that CGPDTM has set a right precedence by granting a CL for sorafenib, which will ensure, in the times to come, that patent monopolies are kept limited, especially when the patented products are not “reasonably affordable”.

Many people, therefore, envisage that the grant of the first ever CL by the Indian Patent Office could ultimately open the door for other generics players of India to apply for the same on similar grounds and mainly for ‘non-working of patents’, as many patented medicines are now imported into India by the respective global players.

Granting CL should be the last resort:

While none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to innovative and lifesaving medicines, as will be required for their medical treatment, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine issue of CL by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve this critical issue on a long term basis. Grant of CL, if any, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Working of a patent:

In this particular case, it has been decided by the CGPDTM that working of a patent will require the concerned company to manufacture the drug in India in a reasonable quantity. The argument of the CGPDTM in this respect, many experts believe, is quite a stretch of an interpretation of the statute.

This is mainly because, as one of the signatories of TRIPS, India has a national commitment for adherence to this important international agreement. It is, therefore, widely believed, if importation is not considered as working of patent, the country could expose itself to the risk of violation of the Article 27.1 of TRIPS, both in letter and spirit.

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS:

The Article 27.1 of TRIPS on ‘local working of patents’ indicates as follows:

“1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.”

Thus as per Article 27.1 of TRIPS, if commercialization of products patented in India, is done locally either through imports or local manufacturing, should be considered as ‘local working of patents’.

Form 27 vindicates the fact:

Form 27 of the Indian Patents Act, which is a statement regarding the working of patented inventions on commercial scale in India, in its point number 3, under ‘if worked’ states as follows:

“If worked: quantum and value (in Rupees) of the patented product:

Manufactured in India
Imported from other countries (give country-wise details)”

Thus, when Form 27 itself accepts importation as ‘local working of patent’, it is indeed intriguing why was the decision to the contrary taken by the CGPDTM?

Moreover, it is worth noting that the term ‘manufacture in India’ was deleted from the earlier Section 90 (a) of the Patents Act.

A statutory requirement:

CGPDTM through a circular dated December 24, 2009, directed all Patentees and Licensees to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Local Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act.

It will be interesting to know, whether CGPDTM in response to Form 27 submissions of Bayer had informed them earlier that the Nexavar Patent has not been worked in India. If not, what is then the sanctity of Form 27 filing?

Delhi High Court Judgment:

Further, it has been well reported that in the legal case of ‘Telemecanique & Controls (I) Limited Vs. Schneider Electric Industries SA 94(2001)DLT865’ on working of patents, the Delhi High Court had concluded that importation would amount to working of Patents.

India specific pricing for innovative drugs is not uncommon:

At this stage, it is worth mentioning that India specific pricing for innovative drugs are not uncommon in the country at all. Following are some good examples:

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals has already announced its differential pricing system for India and will sell its innovative drugs at prices 25% to 40% less than what those are in the US.
MSD has already introduced its India specific price for patented products. Their patented cervical cancer drug Gardasil is being sold in India at 75% -80% less than the global prices.
Moreover, MSD’s patented anti-diabetic drug Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate) is locally sourced and marketed at one-tenth of the global price.
In 2008 Novartis reportedly tied up with the domestic pharma major USV to market its patented anti-diabetic drug Galvus (Vildagliptin) by pricing it lower than Januvia. According to reports, Novartis markets Galvus in the metros, while USV markets the same brand in tier two and three cities of India.
Roche has recently collaborated with the domestic pharma player Emcure Pharmaceuticals to manufacture its two well-known biologics Herceptin and MabThera not only to cater to the domestic needs, but also for export to other developing markets.

Manufacturing of a small quantity locally – an issue:

As quoted in the order of the CGPDTM there are around 8842 eligible patients for sorafenib in India. All these patients put together will require Nexavar ranging from 27000 (Bayer’s figure) to 70000 boxes (NATCO’s figure) per year. Thus, the moot question remains: even for such small annual requirements, should global companies set up manufacturing facilities in all the countries like, India.

Another question: if other smaller markets of the world also make local manufacturing mandatory for any pharmaceutical products that will be sold in their respective countries, will the Indian players find those markets attractive enough to expand their business? In that case who will be the net losers?… Patients?

Conclusion:

If the issue of whether importation will be considered as ‘local working of patents’ or not is not answered conclusively under higher judicial scrutiny in conformity of Article 27.1 of TRIPS and CL is granted to local manufacturers for commercial benefits under similar situation, availability of life saving innovative products in the Indian market for the patients of India could be in a real jeopardy.

The objective of improving access to innovative medicines is a very desirable one for any country like ours. However, if India routinely starts granting CL for this purpose before exhausting all other avenues to achieve this goal, it would risk sending a very wrong signal to the outside world that the country is shirking its responsibilities to create an appropriate ecosystem to foster and support pharmaceutical innovation to offer better quality of lives to the citizens of the country in particular.

In the absence of both collaboration and foreign direct investments by the global innovators in the field of pharmaceutical research and development, India may feel handicapped, especially when our neighbor China is surging ahead in this field with longer strides.

Thus, routine grant of CL, as is being envisaged by many in India, on a similar situation could, on the contrary, make the issue of access to innovative medicines by the common man even more challenging, in the longer run.

By: Tapan J Ray

Are Preventive Medicines always cost effective to be an area of focus in healthcare management?

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Tapan Ray

American Board of Preventive Medicine defines ‘Preventive Medicine’ as follows:

“Preventive Medicine is the specialty of medical practice that focuses on the health of individuals, communities, and defined populations. Its goal is to protect, promote, and maintain health and well-being and to prevent disease, disability and death.”

The most basic examples of preventive medicines are known to be hand washing, breast feeding and immunization.

Simple preventive measures, such as, increasing awareness against tobacco smoking, misuse of alcohol or unprotected sex, especially in an emerging economy like India, will go a long way to prevent and control such habit related diseases, help saving significant expenditure of the nation towards healthcare.

The purpose:

The primary purpose of preventive medicines could well have dual objectives as follows:

Disease prevention of a large section of the population
Reduce the healthcare expenses

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention:

As stated above, primary disease prevention usually would include vaccination against specific disease types, whereas secondary and tertiary prevention are usually done through early detection process and screening of the target population.

Relevance to chronic diseases:

A World Health Organization (WHO) report, titled, “Preventing Chronic diseases – a vital investment” argues that globally of the 58 million deaths in 2005, approximately 35 million were due to chronic diseases, which were expected to increase by 17% in the next 10 years thereafter.

It points out that 80% of all premature heart disease, stroke and diabetes are preventable. This assumes greater significance as 80% deaths due to chronic disease occur in low and middle income nations where most of the world population lives, against only 20% of the same in the high income countries.

The report, therefore, articulates that it is absolutely necessary for the countries to review and implement a comprehensive and integrated preventive public health strategy.

Regular preventive measures:

Experts recommend following regular preventive measures, which are very relevant to India:

Counseling on hygienic life style
Routine primary vaccinations
Counseling on quitting smoking, alcohol misuse, protected sex, losing weight, eating healthy food, treating depression etc.
Regular general health check-up
Cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies

Immense potential in India:

In a country like India, with high prevalence of many preventable diseases involving a large section of the nation’s population, preventive medicine promises immense potential to reduce the healthcare expenditure of the country significantly and at the same time would promise a much better quality of life to its population.

A counter point:

Another school of thought, primarily US based, advocates that preventive medicines, on the contrary, would raise the healthcare expenditure.

Preventive Medicine increases healthcare cost:

In support of this contrarian view, a paper published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’ on February 14, 2008 based on 599 studies between 2000 and 2005 infers that though disease prevention in some cases may reduce the cost of healthcare, more preventive medicines in many cases could, in fact, increase the overall healthcare expenditure.

Screening cost is more than savings:

It says that screening cost of a disease for a large section of the population may far exceed the savings from treatment avoidance in those cases where only a small part of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures.

Treatment with medicine offers greater value:

The article also points out that:

“The drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money, if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.”

Preventive medicine more expensive:

The authors argue that preventive medicine will be more expensive where to make a small populations free from a particular disease, preventive measures are taken involving a large population, most of whom even otherwise would not have suffered from that illness.

Conclusion:

Coming back to the WHO report which categorically says, contrary to the belief of some section of the society, especially in the USA that measures for control and prevention of chronic diseases are really not too expensive for any nation, not even for the low and middle income countries.

In reality, even chronic diseases can be prevented and effectively controlled to reduce the disease burden of any country very significantly. The WHO article also says that expensive patented medicines are no longer required for prevention of, for example, even cardiac ailments. The cheaper generic drugs, if used along with counseling on life style changes, will be quite affordable to a vast majority of population even in the middle and low income countries.

Weighing all pros and cons, WHO aims to reduce the death rates from all chronic diseases by 2% per year through preventive medicines, which would mean prevention of 36 million deaths due to chronic disease by 2015, mostly in the low and middle income countries.

These statistics will more than vindicate the argument that preventive measures and medicines are cost effective, in the long run for any nation, particularly for a country like India.

By: Tapan J Ray

Healthcare Industry of India: Being catapulted from a labyrinth to an accelerated growth trajectory

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Tapan Ray

As reported by the ‘World Health Statistics 2011′, India spends around 4.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, which is quite comparable with other BRIC countries like, China and Russia.This has been possible mainly due to increasing participation of the private players in the healthcare sector.

The following table will highlight this point:

Health Expenditure:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Exp. on Health (% of GDP)	8.4	4.8	4.2	4.3
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	44	64.3	32.4	47.3
Pvt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	56	35.7	67.6	52.7
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Govt. Exp.)	6	9.2	4.4	10.3
Social Security Exp. on Health (% of General Govt. Exp. on Health)	-	38.7	17.2	66.3

However, the following healthcare indicators suggest quite clearly that the total expenditure on healthcare by a country is not always directly proportional to its health outcome. This holds good for many countries across the world, including the USA, as the overall healthcare system and more importantly its cost effective delivery mechanism are the key determinants of success:

Health Indicators:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Life Expectancy at birth	73	68	65	74
Neonatal Mortality Rate (Per 1000)	12	06	34	11
Infant Mortality Rate MDG 4 (Per 1000)	17	11	50	17
Maternal Mortality Rate MDG 5(Per 1000,000 birth)	58	39	230	38

Source: World Health Statistics 2011

Fueled by the increasing participation of private players, coupled with a hefty hike in public expenditure on health to 2.5 percent of GDP during the 12^th Five Year Plan Period, the Indian healthcare sector, currently at US$ 65 billion, is expected to reach US$ 100 billion by 2015 (Source: Fitch), increasing the total spend of the country on health to around 6.8 percent of GDP during this period.

The expenditure towards healthcare infrastructure is expected to grow by 50 percent from its 2006 number to reach US$ 14.2 billion in 2013, as reported by KPMG.

Growth Drivers:

The key growth drivers are expected to be as follows:

A hefty hike in Government expenditure as a percentage to GDP for health
1% of the growing population coming above the poverty line every year
Growing middle class population
Increasing incidence of non-infectious chronic illnesses and other life style diseases
Reasonable treatment costs due to intense competition and government intervention on health related issues
Large public healthcare projects like, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), National Urban Health Mission (NUHM), ‘Universal Health Coverage’, distribution of free medicines through Government hospitals
Expansion of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
Increasing penetration of private health insurance
Increasing direct procurement of medicines both by the Central and also the State Governments
A boom in medical tourism

The basic Challenge:

Following areas will throw a tough challenge for a sustainable growth in healthcare:

To reach a doctor population ratio of 1 doctor and 2.3 nurses per 1000 population by 2025 from the current 0.06 doctors and 1.3 nurses.
To reach a ratio of 2 beds per 1000 population by 2025 from the current 1 bed, which means India would require creating additional 1.75 million beds by that time.
An investment of US$ 86 billion will be needed to achieve 1 doctor, 2 beds and 2.3 nurses per 1000 population by 2025
Although the health insurance had a penetration to a meager 2.3 percent of the population in 2007, the sector is expected to cover just around 20 percent of the population by 2015 (Source: ICRA).

Key Developments:

As per the Rural Health Survey Report 2009 of the Ministry of Health, the rural healthcare sector in the country is registering an appreciable growth with the addition of the following during the last five years:

- 15,000 health sub-centers

- 20, 107 primary health centers

- 28,000 nurses and midwives

According to a report by research firm RNCOS, the health insurance premium is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 25 per cent from 2009-10 to 2013-14.
India will curve out a share of 3 percent of the global medical tourism industry (Source:RNCOS)
Medical technology industry of India is expected to reach US$ 14 billion by 2020 from US$ 2.7 billion in 2008, according to a report by PwC.
E-healthcare in rural areas is gaining popularity with the involvement of both public and private players like, ISRO, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center and Narayana Hrudayalaya. Some telecom companies like, Nokia and BlackBerry are also contemplating to extend the use of mobile phones for remote disease monitoring as well as diagnostic and treatment support. Introduction of 3G and in the near future 4G telecom services will further enhance opportunities of e-healthcare through mobile phones.
Expansion of major healthcare players in tier-II and tier-III cities of India like, Apollo, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Max Hospitals, Aravind Eye Hospitals and Fortis will help improving access to affordable healthcare in the smaller places, significantly.

Examples of expansion in smaller places:

According E&Y report of November 2010, following key players are expanding their presence in tier II and tier III cities, besides metro and tier I cities:

Company	No. Of beds	Presence
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd	8,500	Chennai, Madurai, Hyderabad, Karur, Karim Nagar, Mysore, Visakhapatnam, Bilaspur, Aragonda, Kakindada, Bengaluru, Delhi, Noida, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, (Mauritius), Pune, Raichur, Ranipet, Ranchi, Ludhiana, Indore, Bhubaneswar, (Dhaka, Bangladesh)
Aarvind Eye Hospitals	3,649	Theni, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore, Puducherry, Madurai, Amethi, Kolkata
CARE Hospitals	1,400	Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Nagpur, Raipur, Bhubaneshwar, Surat, Pune, Visakhapatnam
Fortis Healthcare Ltd	5,044	Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata, Mohali, Noida, Delhi, Amristar, Raipur, Jaipur, Chennai, Kota
Max Hospitals	800	Delhi and NCR
Manipal Group of Hospitals	+7,000	Udupi, Bengaluru, Manipal, Attavar, Mangalore, Goa, Tumkur, Vijaywada, Kasaragod, Visakhapatnam

Source: E&Y, November 2010

Healthcare sector is attracting FDI:According to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), the healthcare sector is undergoing significant transformation and attracting investments not only from within the country but also from overseas.The Cumulative FDI inflow in the healthcare sector from April 2000 to November 2011, as per DIPP publications, is as follows:

Sector	FDI inflow (US$ million)
Hospital and diagnostic centers	1100
Medical and surgical appliances	472.6
Drugs and pharmaceuticals	5,033

(Source: Fact Sheet on FDI (April 2000 to November 2011), DIPP)

Government Policy:

Government has also started focusing on increasing investments towards creation of a sustainable medical infrastructure, especially in the rural areas. The following policy initiatives could help facilitating this process:

100 per cent FDI for health and medical services.
Allocation of US$ 10.15 billion to the National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) for upgradation and capacity building of rural healthcare facilities.
Allocation of US$ 1.23 billion to create six AIIMS type medical institutes and upgradation of 13 existing Government Medical Colleges.

Overseas players started participating:

BCG Group will open shortly a multidisciplinary health mall that would provide a one-stop solution for all healthcare needs starting from doctors, hospitals, ayurvedic centers, pharmacies including insurance referral units at Palarivattom in Kochi, Kerala. BCG’s long-term plan, as reported in the media, is to set up a health village spanning across an area of a 750,000 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of US$ 88.91 million.

Along the same line, to set up more facilities for diagnostic services in India, GE Healthcare reportedly has planned to invest US$ 50 million for this purpose.

Examples of initiatives by State Governments:

In southern India, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has implemented a Health Management Project funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK costing US$ 59.68 million. It has been reported that many other State Governments of India are planning to go for similar Health Management models in their respective States.

Improving access to modern medicines in India:

Ten year CAGR in terms of volume of the domestic pharmaceutical industry has been around 15 percent, which clearly signals significant increase in the consumption of medicines, leading to their improving access to the general population of both rural and urban India.

Extension of focus of the Indian pharmaceutical Industry, in general, to the fast growing rural markets further vindicates this point.

The rate of increase in access to medicines may not be directly commensurate to the volume growth of the industry during this period, but a major part of the industry growth could certainly be attributed towards increasing access to medicines in India, which should cover over 60% of the population of the country, by now.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend of access to medicines in the country. Official communications of the government still quote the outdated statistics of 1998 (published in 2004), which states that 65% of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today. No wonder, why many of us still prefer to live on to our past.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, around 40% of the population still does not seem to have adequate ‘Access to Medicines’ in India. This issue though attracted attention of the policy makers, has still remained mostly unresolved and needs to be addressed following a holistic approach with the newer plans.

A robust model of healthcare financing for all socioeconomic strata of the society with plans like, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ and continuous improvement of healthcare infrastructure and delivery systems, as are now being planned by the astute brain trusts of India, are expected to bring significant reform in the healthcare space of India.

Let us also note at the same time that all these are happening, despite shrill voices of naysayer vested interests, continuously projecting to many of us a stagnant, dismal and never improving healthcare scenario of the country, more often than not.

Very fortunately, from an unenviable labyrinth, healthcare industry of India, at last, seems to be on the threshold of being catapulted to a higher growth trajectory riding on a decent number of both public and private initiatives, never than ever before.

Unless it is so, why will the healthcare players from across the world keep on increasing their operational focus, in every way, on India and China?

By: Tapan J Ray

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Posted on March 5, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In not too distant past, the stocks of the global pharmaceutical companies, by and large, used to be categorized as ‘blue-chips’ for their high return to investors, as compared to many other sectors.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly since then. Most of those large players now appear to be under tremendous pressure for excellence in performance.

The issues of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with patent expiries, price and margin pressures from payors’ group in the developed world, have already started haunting the research based pharmaceutical companies and are assuming larger proportions day by day.

The situation continues to be grim:

Collective impact of all the above factors has prompted the major pharma players to resort to huge cost cutting exercises leading to employee layoffs, quite often, in a massive scale.

According to a study done by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., which was also quoted in the Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011, 297,650 employees were laid off by the global pharma industry between the years 2000 and 2011.

Year	Number of Job cuts
2000	2,453
2001	4,736
2002	11,488
2003	28,519
2004	15,640
2005	26,300
2006	15,638
2007	31,732
2008	43,014
2009	61,109
2010	53,636
Total	297,650

Top of the list layoffs:

Forbes, Pharma and Healthcare, June 10, 2011 reported ‘top of the list layoffs’ in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry from 2004 to 2011. This number reported to be comparable to as many people working at the three largest drug companies combined namely, Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline GSK in 2011.

Company	No of layoffs
Pfizer	58,071
Merck	44,400
Johnson & Johnson	9,900
Eli Lilly	5,500
Bristol-Myers Squibb	4,600

More recently ‘Mail online’ dated February 3, 2012 reported that ‘Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announces 7,300 job losses as it pares back staff to save money’. Immediately, thereafter, on February 24, 2012 Reuters reported that ‘German drugs and chemicals group Merck KGaA has announced plans for a cost-cutting program across all its businesses that may include job cuts’.

The old paradigm is no longer relevant:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K had conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional expertise like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas. The report highlighted that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic option.

Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Collaborative Research to overcome R&D productivity crisis: The cost of each new drug approval has now reached a humongous proportion and is still increasing. This spiraling R&D cost does not seem to be sustainable any longer. Thus there emerges a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors. Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the ‘risk and reward’ of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction. Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy and perhaps may also not be acceptable to many large global players as on date, but they are not absolutely uncommon either. The world has already witnessed such collaborative research, especially in the sectors, like Information Technology (IT). Thus, it remains quite possible, as the industry moves on, that the world will have opportunities to take note of initiation of various cost effective collaborative R&D projects to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the global healthcare space. Greater access to fast growing markets: The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government on the ground of ‘affordability of medicines’ in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing/margin pressure for the pharmaceutical players.

These critical emerging developments can be effectively negotiated with significant increase in market access, especially in the emerging economies of the world, with each country specific business strategies. ‘One size fits all’ type of standardized approach, currently adopted by some large global players in the markets like India, may not be able to fetch significant dividend in the years ahead.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the payors, doctors and patients will increasingly look for, much beyond the physical products/brands, would prove to be the cutting edge for the winners for greater market access in the emerging economies.

Current business processes need significant re-engineering: Top management teams of many global pharma companies have already started evaluating the relevance of sole dependance on the current R&D based pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

Only treatment of diseases may no longer be considered enough with an offering of just various types of medications. Added value with effective non-therapeutic/incremental disease management/prevention initiatives and appropriately improving quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process in the emerging markets. Continuous innovation required not just in R&D, but across the value chain: Continuous innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain, beyond pharmaceutical R&D, is the most critical success factor. The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be a critical part of the business strategy of the pharmaceutical companies in the new paradigm. Avoidance of silos, integrating decision making processes: More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Creation of silos, duplication of processes and empire building have long been a significant trend, especially, in the larger pharmaceutical companies. Part of a better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient deployment of investments and other resources for organizational value creation and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications, organizational flab producing and will no longer deliver differential value to the stakeholders. Finding newer ways of customer engagement: Growing complexity of the business environment is making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communication channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors, patients and other stakeholders and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required. Questioning perceived ‘fundamentals’ of the old paradigm:

Despite a paradigm shift in the business environment, fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry appears to have been attempting to address these critical issues over a decade, has not changed much.

In their attempt to unleash the future growth potential, the pharmaceutical players are still moving around the same old dictums like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, satisfying customer needs, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building blockbuster brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few. Unfortunately, despite all such resource intensive initiatives, over a period of time, nothing seems to have changed fundamentally, excepting, probably, some sort of arrest in the rate of declining process.

Conclusion:

Such incremental focus over a long period of time on the same areas, far from being able to ride the tide of change effectively, does ring an alarm bell to some experts. More so, when all these initiatives continue to remain their prime catalysts for change even today to meet new challenges of a different paradigm altogether.

The moot question therefore remains: what are the companies achieving from all heavy investments being continuously made in these areas since long…and why have they not been able to address the needs of the new ball game for business excellence, effectively, thus far?

When results are not forthcoming despite having taken all such measures, many of them have no options but to resort to heavy cost cutting measures including job losses to protect the profit margin, as much as one possibly can.

If the issues related to declining rate of global pharmaceutical business performance is not addressed sooner moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’, one can well imagine what would its implication be, in the endeavor towards arresting continuous job losses through business excellence, in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Tapan

Chasing the “Holy Grail”: Reasonably affordable healthcare for all

Balancing Strong IP Protection, Public Health Safeguards and Declining R&D Productivity – A Crafty Gutsy Ball Game

In the Pharmaceutical Space: The Dragon breathes fire

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

Grant of Compulsory License for Bayer’s Nexavar in India raises more questions than answers

Are Preventive Medicines always cost effective to be an area of focus in healthcare management?

Healthcare Industry of India: Being catapulted from a labyrinth to an accelerated growth trajectory

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain