Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on October 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means:

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals. Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states: “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

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.

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Posted on December 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

A brief recapitulation:

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

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

Salient features of the report:

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

Scope of recommendations:

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

The Government procurement/reimbursement
Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

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

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

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

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

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

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

The Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’:

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

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

Recommended pricing methodology:

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

1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.

In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.

The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.

The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out in India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.

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

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly.

PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine.

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.

PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documenting evidence.

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

Negotiated prices will be subject to revision:

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

Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

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

DIPP expressed apprehensions:

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

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

Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

The status today:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the recent weeks, three significant developments related to the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, have triggered rejuvenated concerns in the following critical areas:

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

B. Self serving interest, rather than patients’ interest, dominate the prescribing decisions

C. Government assurance to American Trade Organization on ‘Compulsory License (CL)’ in India.

These important issues fall under three key regulatory areas of India, as follows:

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)
The Medical Council of India (MCI)
The Indian Patent Office

It is worth mentioning here that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th Report, placed before both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, on the functioning of the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, for the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

Most importantly, all these concerns, if not properly clarified and appropriately addressed by the Government, soon enough, have the potential to create an adverse snowballing impact on the uniform access to affordable quality medicines, for all sections of the society in India.

Under this backdrop, I shall discuss in this article briefly, my perspective on each of these critical areas, as they are today, and not just the drug safety concerns.

The headline of this article is expected capture not only the prevailing mood of some key regulators, but also their inertia to address critical healthcare concerns and above all how the core public health related issues are getting lost, and the trivial ones are gradually occupying the center stage.

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit, filed against the Drugs Consultative Committee and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was listed on the Supreme Court website for hearing on March 11, 2016.

The PIL has been filed by one Dinesh Thakur, requesting the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines by which manufacturers could be made liable for violating drug standards and also give a direction to the government to set up a ‘Drug Approvals Review Committee’ for examining criminality in the manner in which faulty drug approvals were granted.

Many may recall that the same Dinesh Thakur worked for Ranbaxy from 2003 for two years, and is now the Chief Executive of MedAssure Global Compliance based in Florida, US. Thakur’s Company now advises pharma manufacturers on drug safety and quality standards.

As reported by Reuters, Thakur had earlier exposed how the erstwhile largest drug maker of India, Ranbaxy Laboratories, failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests on drugs and lied to regulators about its procedures. Consequently, USFDA fined Ranbaxy US$500 million for violating federal drug safety laws, and making false statements to the US regulator.

This news report further states: “Indian Parliamentary Committee, thereafter, reportedly demanded an investigation and the drugs regulator committed to one in 2013. Thakur received a statement from the health ministry last year, seen by Reuters, showing no inquiry had begun.”

On the last Friday, however, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain this PIL of Dinesh Thakur, saying it does not have time to adjudicate academic issues, such as, need for guidelines to regulate quality of medicines.

The core issue:

The core issue here is not at all the above PIL, not at the very least. The issue is the much reported concern being expressed, over a period of time, regarding the drug safety standards in India. The reasons include breach of of data integrity, and gross violation of the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ standards. Such instances are being detected, almost regularly, by the foreign drug regulators, in several manufacturing facilities run by many large and small Indian drug producers.

It is well vindicated by the fact that around 45 Indian drug manufacturing plants have been banned by the USFDA alone, from shipping generic drugs to the United States, as these were considered unsafe for consumption of patients in the US. Some other foreign regulators too had taken similar action, citing similar reasons. The USFDA website specifies the details of gross violations made in each of these cases.

Ironically, all such facilities can manufacture and sell their drugs in India, as they conform to the quality requirements of the Indian drug regulator. Consequently, the Indian patients consume even those medicines, which are considered unsafe by the USFDA for American patients, innocently, as and when prescribed by the doctors.

Arising out of these incidents, when asked about the drug safety standards in India, and the public health-safety, instead of giving credible and action oriented answers for public reassurance, some of the apparently brazen replies of the DCGI are quite stunning for many stakeholders, both within and outside the shores of India.

I would now quote below just a few of those replies, just as examples.

“…Whistleblower’s Intentions Should Be Nationalistic” - DCGI:

According to Reuters, it has received the following response from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), on the above PIL related to the drug safety standards in India:

“We welcome whistleblowers, we have got great respect, but their intentions should be genuine, should be nationalistic… I don’t have any comment on this guy.”

Thus, many industry watchers feel that in a situation like this, the honorable Supreme Court of India would possibly require to intervene, just as what it did on alleged ‘Clinical Trial’ malpractices in the country or for drug price control, solely for public health interest.

The same attitude continues:

Such brazen response of the Central Drug Regulator, and that too on a serious subject, is indeed bizarre. It becomes increasingly intriguing, as the same attitude continues without any perceptible meaningful intervention from the Ministry of Health.

For example, on February 22, 2014, in the midst of a more intense scenario on a similar issue, instead of taking transparent and stringent measures, the DCGI was quoted by the media commenting:

“We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

On February 26, 2014, presumably reacting to the above remarks of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly commented, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”

Such apparently irresponsible and loose comments keep continuing, despite the 2012 report of the Parliamentary Committee of India alleging collusion between some pharmaceutical companies and officials of the CDSCO, which oversees the licensing, marketing and trials of new drugs. The report also commented that the agency is both chronically under-staffed and under-qualified.

Some possible remedial measures:

As the saying goes, “better late than never”, considering all these continuing developments, it is about time to reconsider some of the key recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on a similar subject and make amendments in the relevant Act accordingly, soon, to facilitate creation of a robust with high accountability ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’. It would introduce a centralized licensing system for drug manufacturing, along with stringent drug safety standards; besides, sale, export and distribution of drugs. Perhaps, the draft bill on CDA is now lying in the heap of archival documents with the change in Government.

Why does India need CDA?

I believe, the formation of a robust CDA with high accountability, besides meeting with drug safety concerns, would provide the following significant benefits, both to the Industry and also to the Government:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a Pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

B. Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision:

That the self serving interest, rather than patient interest, dominate the prescribing decision, was vindicated by a key announcement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) last month.

In February 2016, apparently succumbing to continuous and powerful external pressure, the MCI announced an amendment in a clause of its Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, exempting doctors’ associations from the ambit of its ethics code, as applicable to doctors now across the country. Prior to the amendment, this section used to read as: “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”.

In other words, it means that the professional associations of doctors will no longer come under the ambit of ethics regulations, legitimizing their indulgence in the identified unethical and corrupt practices, by receiving gifts in cash or kind from the pharma or healthcare industry.

A large section of the key stakeholders believes that this amendment would help creating an additional large space for the pharmaceutical marketing malpractices to thrive, unabated, at the cost of patients.

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

In its 92nd Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare titled, “The Functioning of Medical Council of India”, presented to the Rajya Sabha and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 8th March, 2016, the Committee observed on this amendment as “an action that is ethically impermissible for an individual doctor cannot become permissible, if a group of doctors carry out the same action in the name of an association.”

The report also noted the failure of MCI to instill respect for a professional code of ethics in the medical professionals and take disciplinary action against doctors found violating the code of Ethics, etc.

The Committee called for a complete restructuring of the MCI, since it believes that the Council has failed as a regulator of medical education and the profession. Casting serious aspersions on the functioning of the MCI, the house panel of the Parliament recommended that the Act under which the MCI was set up be scrapped and a new legislation be drafted “at the earliest”.

The report castigated the health ministry:

The lawmakers castigated the Health Ministry in this report saying, “The committee also finds it intriguing that instead of intervening to thwart attempts of MCI at subverting the system, the ministry meekly surrendered to MCI.”

While summing up, the report states, “the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to implement the recommendations made by it in this report immediately and bring a new Comprehensive Bill in Parliament for this purpose at the earliest.”

How will it pan out now?

I reckon, it will now be immensely interesting now for all concerned to follow, how does the Government deal with this report to curb, among others, the strong interference of mighty and powerful vested interests to continue with the rampant pharma marketing malpractices, at the cost of patients in India.

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’:

On March 3, 2016, a media report quoted a submission by the US Chamber of Commerce to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) as follows:

“While the Government of India has privately reassured (American) industry that it would not use compulsory licenses for commercial purposes, a public commitment to forgo using (this) would enhance legal certainty for innovative industries.”

This is an interesting development, primarily because there are a number of legal provisions for granting Compulsory Licenses (CL) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, including, when a drug is not widely available, extremely expensive and some other situation. In some these provisions, law should follow its own course and there is no legally permissible scope for Government’s administrative interference. Grant of CL for Nexavar of Bayar is one such example, and incidentally, that’s the sole CL that India has granted, so far, from the date of amendment of the country’s Patents Act in 2005.

Thus, a blanket assurance of not invoking any of the provisions of the CL, as provided in the Indian Patents Act 2005, if true, would possibly require to pass through intense legal scrutiny, as that would adversely impact the access to key medicines in a necessary situation, for the public health interest.

So far, India has amply demonstrated to all, time and again, that the country does not grant a CL at the drop of a hat. That situation should continue to encourage and protect innovation.

Nevertheless, “a written public commitment to forgo using the CL provisions for enhancing legal certainty for innovative industries,” as demanded by the US Chamber of Commerce, appears to be unreasonable, goes against the spirit of India’s Patents Act, and perhaps is not legally tenable either, unless the IP Act is amended accordingly in the Parliament.

Conclusion:

All these three areas, as discussed above, are critical from the healthcare perspective of the country.

Ironically, while deliberating on the subject, the capability, credibility and competence of some of the key regulators of the country, are being repeatedly questioned. These doubts emanate not just from Tom, Dick and Harry, but from an illustrious spectrum of constitutional institutions of India, spanning across the lawmaking Parliament, through its various committee reports, to the ultimate legal justice provider – the Supreme Court of India, through is various orders and key observations.

Regrettably, in this specific space, which is primarily related to healthcare, nothing seems to be changing on the ground, since long. The same tradition continues, without any visible sense of urgency, even from the Government.

On the contrary, we now read a new genre of comments, even from a key regulator, on the stakeholder concerns. For example, reacting to concern on drug safety standards, instead of articulating tangible actions to usher in a perceptible change, the chief action taker reportedly specified a totally judgmental and an outlandish requirement: “…Whistleblower’s intentions should be Nationalistic.”

Together with these incidents, the key public healthcare concerns of India too, are now apparently getting drowned in the high decibel ‘Nationalistic’ versus ‘Anti-nationalistic’ cacophony. But, the hope still lingers… for a change…for our nation’s sound health!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need “Safe In India” Campaign For Medicines?

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men” - Abraham Lincoln

Not just the Federal Drug Administration of the United States (USFDA), global concerns are being expressed regularly about the laxity of drug regulatory and clinical trial standards in India, exposing patients to health safety related risks.

The problem is significantly more with the Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) Drugs for various reasons. This is worrisome because; the domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. For example, in 2011-12 FDCs accounted for more than half of all NSAID and oral anti-diabetic drug sales, and one-third and one-fifth of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant/benzodiazepine sales, respectively, according to a recent study. Both the domestic and multi-national pharma players market FDCs in India

Alarmingly, a plethora of FDCs unapproved by the drug regulators of India on their rationality, efficacy and safety, have flooded the domestic pharma market, in large quantities.

All such drugs are being actively promoted by the respective pharma players, widely prescribed by the doctors, openly sold by the chemists and freely consumed by the patients without any apprehension or having no inkling of the magnitude of the possible health hazards that such drugs might cause, both in short and long term.

Public health safety hazard arising out of this scenario does not seem to have ever been estimated by the Indian drug regulators, despite indictments even by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, nor is there any properly functional system in place to capture such data for meaningful analysis.

As the saying goes ‘better late than never’, a credible report on this menace has just been published on May 12, 2015 by independent experts, which I shall discuss in this article.

Is the situation out of control?

On the ground, the situation seems to be out of control of even the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

This is vindicated by a March 2013, written reply of the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, where the Government reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

The latest investigative report on the criticality of the situation:

The May 12, 2015 issue of “PLOS Medicine” – a Peer-Reviewed Open-Access Journal, published the results of an investigation on CDSCO approval for and availability of oral FDC drugs in India from four therapeutic areas – analgesia (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), diabetes (metformin), depression/anxiety (anti-depressants/benzodiazepines), and psychosis (anti-psychotics).

This study was done based on the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare’s 2012 Report, stating that manufacturing licenses for large numbers of FDCs had been issued by state authorities without prior approval of the CDSCO in violation of rules, and considered that some ambiguity until 1 May 2002 about states’ powers might have contributed to this worrying consequences.

I shall also discuss the above Parliamentary Committee report in this article.

Booming sales of unapproved drugs:

‘PLOS Medicine’ report highlighted the following:

A. They obtained information on FDC formulations approved between1961 and 2013 in each therapeutic area from the CDSCO.

B. FDC sales details were obtained for the period 2007 to 2012 from PharmaTrac database of drug sales in India. Over the five years included in the time-trend analysis, FDCs accounted for an increasing proportion of total sales volumes. By 2011–2012, FDCs accounted for more than half of all NSAID and oral anti-diabetic drug sales, and one-third and one-fifth of anti-psychotic and anti-depressant/benzodiazepine sales, respectively.

C. Of the 175 FDC formulations marketed in India in the therapeutic areas studied, only 60 (34 percent) were approved.

Out of these, percentages of approved formulations are as follows:

- 80 percent of 25 marketed metformin FDC formulations

- 27 percent of 124 NSAID FDC formulations

- 19 percent of 16 anti-depressant/benzodiazepine FDC formulations

- 30 percent of 10 anti-psychotic FDC formulations

D. In 2011–2012, percentages of FDC sales volumes arising from unapproved formulations was:

- 43 percent for anti-psychotics

- 69 percent for anti-depressants/benzodiazepines

- 28 percent for NSAIDs

- 0.4 percent for metformin

E. Formulations including drugs of which use is banned or restricted internationally accounted for 13.6 percent and 53 percent of NSAID and anti-psychotic FDC sales, respectively.

F. While “ambiguity” in the rules prior to 2002 was advanced as a reason for some FDCs having been marketed without a record of central approval, the researchers identified no ambiguity, and in fact, following an amendment to the rules in May 2002 that extended the requirements on approval applicants, new FDCs continued to be marketed without a record of central approval.

The suggestions:

The ‘PLOS Medicine’ report concluded with the following suggestions:

Unapproved formulations should be banned immediately, prioritizing those withdrawn or banned internationally, and undertaking a review of benefits and risks for patients.

To ensure long-term safety and effectiveness of new medicines marketed in India, as well as transparency of the approval process, amendments in India’s regulatory processes and drug laws are called for. A review should be undertaken of the safety and effectiveness of FDCs currently available in India.

Indian lawmakers too pointed out this embarrassing regulatory laxity:

This saga of drug regulatory laxity in general and for the FDCs in particular, is continuing since quite a while. This is despite the fact that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59^th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The report begins with a profound observation:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. Prescription drugs are the only commodities for which the consumers have no role to play. Nor are they able to make any informed choices, except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, because of the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharma companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests

The ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is ‘Industry Oriented’ and not ‘Patient Focused:

Very interestingly, the lawmakers’ report highlights, citing the following examples, how out of line the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is, as compared to the same of other countries, by being blatantly industry oriented instead of safeguarding Public Health and Safety interests :

	Drug Regulator	The ‘Mission Statement’
1.	CDSCO, India	Meeting the aspirations…. demands and requirements of the pharmaceutical industry.
2.	USFDA, USA	Protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs.
3.	MHRA, UK	To enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe.
4.	TGA, Australia	Safeguarding public health & safety in Australia by regulating Medicines…

Consequently, the Parliamentary Committee took a strong exception for such utter disregard and continued neglect of patients’ interest by the Drug Regulator of India. It recommended immediate amendment of the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO incorporating in very clear terms that the existence of the organization is solely for the purpose of protecting the best interest of patients and their safety. It is needless to say, thereafter it would call for its stringent conformance with high precision.

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

The parliamentary Committee report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO in its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Allegation of possible collusion:

The report also deliberates not only on the utter systemic failure of CDSCO along with the DCGI’s office to enforce the drug regulations effectively, but also towards a possible collusion between CDSCO and the pharmaceutical industry to implement a self-serving agenda by hoodwinking the system. This is a very serious allegation, which needs to be thoroughly probed and the findings of which should be made public for everybody’s satisfaction.

The committee, therefore, felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences and callous enforcement of rules and laws, are absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Do we need “Safe in India” campaign for drugs?

Do we need a well-hyped “Safe in India” campaign for drugs? Looking around, at least conceptually, the answer is probably ‘yes’…Seriously…I am not joking!

The reason being, despite scathing remarks of the Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2012, apparently no systematic enquiry has been undertaken by the CDSCO to ascertain the reason for continuation and the veracity of this menace, just yet.

A very significant number of unapproved medications still remain undetected by the drug regulators and continue to be abundantly available, frequently prescribed, openly sold and freely consumed by the patients without even an iota of doubt regarding possible health safety hazards that these prescription drugs might cause.

May 2015 ‘PLOS Medicine’ Report helps unraveling the underbelly of the drug regulatory scenario in India, along with its systemic decay, which fails to halt the possible serious health safety hazards that Indian patients are exposed to.

India’s image as an emerging ‘pharmacy of the world’ for cheaper generic drugs has already been dented with a number of ‘import bans’ from the US and UK for flouting the specified drug manufacturing quality standards.

The saga of ‘import bans’ for Indian drugs, together with this critical health safety related menace, probably necessitates an effective launch of a “Safe in India” campaign for medicines, in general, by the Government.

This initiative gains additional importance, as painstakingly developed reputation of the Indian drug exporters, including the largest domestic players, has now been dented. It needs to be revamped, sooner.

I addressed a related issue in my blog post of February 3, 2014, titled “FDA ‘Import Bans: Valuing Drug Supply Chain Security For Patients’ Safety.”

Conclusion:

Effective resolution of this critical issue demands high priority at the highest level of the decision making process of the Government, with commensurate sense of urgency.

Keeping that in mind, would it be a bad idea, if just like “Make in India” campaign of the Prime Minister; “Safe in India” campaign for medicines is also undertaken with equal gusto and monitored by the top echelon of the country’s rejuvenated governance machinery?

This initiative would probably help sending the very contextual ‘shape up or ship out’ signal to the drug regulators, both at the Center and also in the States to erase the prevailing menace for good.

In that process, it would eventually allay the public health safety concern with the ‘Made in India’ drugs, coming out of ‘Make in India’ campaign, not just in the country, but also beyond its shores.

The speed of action in this situation is the essence. Otherwise, the following golden words of wisdom as enunciated by Abraham Lincoln would keep haunting us, till the remedial measures taken by the Government become palpable on the ground:

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men”

By: Tapan J. Ray

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18^th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

New therapeutic options
Changing therapeutic needs
The need to ensure drug quality
The need for continued development of better medicines
Medicines for emerging diseases
Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

1 percent of drugs for anemia
5 percent of respiratory drugs
7 percent of antidepressants
15 percent of drugs for diabetes
18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
23 percent of cardiac drugs
35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011

Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered

Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered

Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011

Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011

Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin

Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011

When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list

Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011

While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines

A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out

Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM

Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940

Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

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

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane:

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.” This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress 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.

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on July 28, 2014 by Tapan Ray

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic	Diagnosis	Cost/ Dose (US$)	Cost of Therapy/ 28 days (US$)	Cost per Therapy (US$)
brentuximab	Hodgkins lymphoma	14,000	18,667	224,000
Pertuzumab	Breast cancer	4,000	5,333	68,000
pegylated interferon	Hepatitis C	700	2,800	36,400
Carfilzomib	Multiple myeloma	1,658	9,948	129,324
ziv-aflibercept	CRC	2,300	4,600	59,800
Omacetaxine	CML	560	3,920	50,960
Regorafenib	CRC	450	9,446	122,800
Bosutinib	CML	278	7,814	101,580
Vemurafenib	Melanoma	172	4,840	62,915
Abiraterone	Prostate	192	5,391	70,080
Crizotinib	NSCLC	498	27,951	363,367
Enzalutamide	Prostate	248	6,972	90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine	Breast – metastatic	8,500	8,115	105,500
Ponatinib	Leukemia	319	8,941	116,233
Pomalidomide	Multiple myeloma	500	10,500	135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”

In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.

Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.

I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.

Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: 2012

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need “Safe In India” Campaign For Medicines?

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices