Tag Archives: a

Limiting FDI in Pharma is a protectionist cry: Does not benefit the common man.

Posted on by
Reply

“Protectionism is harmful” very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister of India, just the other day. This was in context of “recent US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.
While almost at the same time, both Indian and the foreign media reports indicate that being concerned by the recent acquisitions of the home grown relatively large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the Department of Industrial Policy and promotion (DIPP) of the Government of India are mulling a proposal to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), as applicable to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Even the Health Minister of India has been expressing this concern since ‘Abbott – Piramal deal’ was inked last year. He expressed the same apprehension, as he read out from his written speech, in an industry function in Mumbai held on January 7, 2011.

Thus the moot question is, will limiting FDI in pharmaceuticals be not considered by the world as a protective measure, just as ‘hiking visa fees and clamping down outsourcing’ from India by other countries?
Is it a mere speculation?
I would reckon so, as at this stage India cannot afford to take any retrograde anti-reformist measure in its endeavor to further accelerate the economic progress of the nation. The Finance Minister of India has also expressed so publicly, in the same context, quite recently.
Still the speculation is quite rife that a new cap of 49% FDI for pharmaceuticals would be able to keep the multinational companies (MNCs) away from having controlling stakes in the Indian companies, which will not jeopardize access to quality medicines at an affordable price to a vast majority of the population.
The key apprehensions:
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following key apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies by the MNCs:
1. Such takeovers could lead to an ‘oligopolistic market’ where a few companies will decide the prices of essential medicines, adversely impacting the ‘Public Health Interest (PHI)’.
2. If large Indian companies having the wherewithal to replicate any patented molecule are taken over by the MNCs, the ‘oligopolistic’ situation thus created and being strengthened by the exclusivity of products through product patent rights, will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of PHI by granting CLs.
3. In such a situation MNCs could well decide to sell only the high priced patented and branded generic drugs rather than the cheaper essential drugs, pushing up the drug prices and causing inconvenience to patients.
Addressing the key apprehensions:
Let me now try to address these apprehensions impartially and with as much data as possible.
1. Can Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) be ever oligopolistic? Dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.
IPM has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (source: IMS 2010). Even after, all the recent acquisition, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% (source: AIOCD/AWACS , November 2010). Even the Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter group though different and not the individual companies) contribute just around 40% of the IPM.
Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘oligopolistic market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.
2. The idea of creating a legal barrier in terms of limiting the FDIs to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of you, as mentioned in the ‘discussion paper’ of DIPP, sounds bizarre.
3. The market competition is also extremely fierce in India with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the IPM) having not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism. In an environment like this, the very thought of any threat to ‘public health interest’ due irresponsible pricing, may be taken as an insult to the government’s own price regulators, who have contributed in making the medicine prices in India cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Hard facts tell us a different story:
The apprehension that acquisition of Indian drug companies by MNCs will hurt the consumer interest is not based on hard facts. MNCs constitute 19% of the total share of the Indian pharmaceutical market in value terms. Of the 455 companies listed in IMS ORG, 38 are foreign owned (only 8.4%). The fragmented nature of the industry ensures high level of competition that has led to the lowest prices of essential medicines in India.

Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.
Access to world class science and technology:
Even the acquisition of Shantha Biotechnique by Sanofi-aventis has enabled the domestic bio-tech company to get world class R&D support and international exposure in partnership with the one of the world’s largest vaccines development company – Sanofi-Pasteur. It is worth noting that none of the prices of locally produced vaccines by Shantha Biotechnique has gone up after this acquisition.
Data also shows that the number of products under price control is now much higher for MNCs in general than the domestic drug companies.
Other positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:
All these acquisitions were absolutely voluntary in every way and brought in for the country large amount of foreign investments as can be seen in the Piramal Healthcare buyout amounting to US $3.72 billion and earlier the Ranbaxy buyout of US $4.2 billion. Such acquisitions also help in shifting investment and R&D focus of the MNCs into India, which offers good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, through partnering with MNCs, local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, resources and good manufacturing practices. A number of local companies have already entered into alliances with MNCs to leverage these opportunities.
Thus limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical industry at this stage, when the government in fact is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investments will indeed be a retrograde step for the country.

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.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) are hitting the poor even harder, economically: a time to ponder and a time to act

Posted on by
Reply

November 11, 2010 edition of ‘The Lancet’ published an article titled, “Raising the priority of preventing chronic diseases: a political process”. The article enumerated the following:

“Chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic obstructive respiratory diseases, are neglected globally despite growing awareness of the serious burden that they cause. Global and national policies have failed to stop, and in many cases have contributed to, the chronic disease pandemic. Low-cost and highly effective solutions for the prevention of chronic diseases are readily available; the failure to respond is now a political, rather than a technical issue.”

The situation is no different in India. The disease pattern in India is also showing a perceptible shift from age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It has been estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade.

As a consequence of such findings healthcare needs and systems of the country should need to undergo a paradigm shift with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ in the country.

It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:
There is a common perception that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently the medical alleviation of the acute symptoms and the disease that a particular patient is suffering from is the key concern of all concerned starting from the doctor to the patient and his/her family. The process of the medical treatment revolves round symptom relief, diagnostic measures and appropriate treatment protocols and procedures conforming to the proper diagnosis of the ailments. While addressing the acute problems of the patients’ ailments is very important, proper assessment of the underlying diseases or evaluation of their risk factors do not get as much or no attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctor properly highlighting its importance is not available to most of the patients.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become the crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should be made mandatory:

The ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn help the population to remain disease free and thereby to improve their respective work productivity in a very significant way.

Taking all these points into consideration, through policy initiative, The Medical Council of India (MCI) should make ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor through appropriate regulations.

Chronic illnesses will significantly increase the disease burden of the country:

Many of the diseases like cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes can be identified with preventable risk factors and. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation.

Role of a medical professional in customized ‘disease prevention plan’:

Role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advice the patients about the ways of specific disease prevention, for which the individual patients have high exposure.

Need to raise general public and political awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general together with healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the Planning Commission, the government of India has reported to have initiated structured measures for the prevention of NCD, the main features of which are as follows:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. Some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

To address this issue ‘The Lancet’ November 11, 2010, in the article, as mentioned above, prescribed three specific strategies as follows:

1. “Reframe the debate to emphasize the societal determinants of disease and the inter-relation between chronic disease, poverty, and development
2. Mobilize resources through a cooperative and inclusive approach to development and by equitably distributing resources on the basis of avoidable mortality
3. Build on emerging strategic and political opportunities, such as the World Health Assembly 2008—13 Action Plan and the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2011 on chronic disease”.

The government should spearhead the paradigm shift towards this direction with appropriate regulation, generating increased societal and political awareness within the country and through mobilization of adequate resources. All these will ultimately help us to translate the well-known dictum into reality, ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Otherwise, especially the poorer section of the society will continue to get caught in the vicious cycle of debt and illness, seriously jeopardizing the economic progress of the country.

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.

 

Pfizer and Biocon deal – heralds dawn of a new era for the Biopharmaceuticals Industry of India

Posted on by
Reply

On October 19, 2010, home grown Biotech Company Biocon, based in the IT heartland – Bangalore created a stir in Industry by inking an interesting international corporate business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer. The deal will bring to Biocon a total sum of US $350 million and enable Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the vaccine business unit of the global major Sanofi-aventis had acquired Shantha Biotech, located at Hyderabad for a sum of Rs 3,750 Crore, in July 2009.

Just a year before the above acquisition in india, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported, just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines; Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs. Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era. An era of intense future competition with biosimilar drugs in the global market, with immense commercial interest. On October 19, 2010 the biosimilar deal between Biocon and Pfizer vindicated this point.

Increasing global interest on biosimilar drugs:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilars started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the U.S.A, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines. However, along with the recent healthcare reform by the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs has now been clearly charted by the US FDA. In the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003.

What then prompts the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi-aventis, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of Biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing cost of global R&D initiatives?

The future global business potential of Biosimilar medicines:

Currently, over 150 different biologic medicines are available in the global pharmaceutical market. However, the low cost biosimilar drugs are available in just around 11 countries of the world, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by. At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi-aventis, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US – the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, will be the key growth driver.

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

Global Market Potential of Biosimilar Drugs:

The biosimilar drug market in the world is estimated to be around U.S. $ 16 billion by 2011. Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 branded biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs internationally.

Biosimilar Drugs in India:

Sales of biosimilar drugs in India are estimated to be around U.S. $ 4 billion by 2011 with scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands.

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Shantha Biotech, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s, Ranbaxy, etc. The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of these products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

It is worth mentioning here that to give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India; the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress. The DBT is reported to have undertaken an initiative for quite some time to prepare regulatory guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs, which is expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Steps taken by the Indian pharmaceutical companies:

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

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

The focus is on Oncology:

Many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of 2010 growing over 17%. As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend on this particular therapy area. About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current size of the Indian oncology market is around US$ 18.6 million, which is expected to be over US$ 50 million by the end of 2010; the main reason being all these are and will be quite expensive products.

A trigger point for more collaborative initiatives:

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

Among India biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. This company has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India. Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs in India to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

Biosimilar global business model will fast gain ground:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the generic and biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, in the emerging markets of the world, like India. Our country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranabaxy, Shantha Biotech and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi-aventis of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadilla, Strides Arcolab and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal early this week, on October 21, 2010, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasilieiro of Brazil with US $240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Conclusion:

All said and done, the recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize four biosimilar insulin and analogues, developed by the later in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the pharma MNCs, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

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

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry could well be a contender for global supremacy by the next decade, competing effectively with China

Posted on by
Reply

By the next decade of this millennium both India and China are expected to be the top two emerging markets of the world in the pharmaceutical sector, registering a scorching pace of growth all around. The quality of consistency and sustainability of growth, will determine who will be the main contender of supremacy and the ultimate winner in this game of wealth creation for the respective countries and be the ‘Eldorado’ of the global pharmaceutical companies.

The financial reform measures in the run up to the process of globalization started earlier in China, in 1980 as against 1990 in India. In that sense China took a plunge to be an active member of the ‘global village of commerce’ at least a decade earlier than India.

Reform process started earlier in China:

The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centres, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on global ‘economies of scale’, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many other, will vindicate this point. On the other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20% of the global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Moreover, in ANDA and DMF filings, as well, India is currently much ahead of China.

FDI in India and China:

The Pharmaceutical Industry in India has now started attracting increasing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). As per the reply to question No. 615 tabled in the Parliament of India (Rajya Sabha) on November 25, 2009 by Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.30 million for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals with a compounded growth rate of around 60%. USA, Canada, Singapore, UAE and Mauritius contributed 82% to this FDI, which in turn helped significantly to fuel further development and growth of the Industry.

According to ‘The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry’ of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for the three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million, over one third of which coming from Hong Kong and around 11% from the USA.

It is worth noting that the financial and policy reform measures were initiated in China much earlier, as compared to India, which in turn have enabled China to attract more FDIs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus far. In the new paradigm of the post product patent regime both the countries are expected to grow at a scorching pace attracting more and more FDIs for their respective countries.

In this article, I would like to focus on some of these comparisons to assess the progress made so far by both the countries, in a comparative yardstick and the key factors, which will decide the pace-setter.

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India.

Healthcare coverage of population:

China is racing ahead and gradually but surely distancing itself from India, widening the performance gap with rapid increase of domestic consumption of modern medicines. It is worth mentioning that as per WHO, the access to modern medicines in China is around 85% as against just 35% in India. Of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million of Chinese are covered by health insurance, another 250 million partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. In India total number of people who are having some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population.

Currently India is losing grounds to China mainly in healthcare infrastructure development, with inadequate healthcare delivery systems and delay in rolling out a long overdue comprehensive healthcare reform process in the country.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.
Department of Pharmaceuticals recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just through investments of couple of million US $ through Public Private Partnership (PPP). A strong commitment of the Government to hasten regulatory reform processes will be the key factor. The new product patent regime for the pharmaceutical industry has ushered in a new paradigm, with the Government planning to strike a right balance between TRIPs compliant IPR regime and the ‘Public Interest’ and NOT one at the cost of the other.

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

Since last 5 years both India and China have made rapid strides in the space of pharma outsourcing. Today the evolving business model of ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)’, is shaping up quite well. To make India a global hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the pharmaceutical industry of the country has all the ingredients. India has the potential to emerge as a serious contender for global supremacy, in this fast growing sector, especially in ‘contract manufacturing’ area, having largest number of US-FDA approved manufacturing plants, outside the USA.

According to ‘Global Services”, in 2009 Pharmaceutical outsourcing market in China and India was of US $ 1.77 billion and US $ 1.42 billion, respectively with China growing at a faster pace. The future growth potential for both the countries is huge, as each enjoyed just 2% share of this outsourcing market in 2009.

It has been forecasted that China will have more environmental growth accelerators than India due to greater continuing fiscal stimulus and policy support by their Government, which could catapult the country ahead of India, just beyond 2010.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index (CAI)’ for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India.

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing too China seem to be ahead of India. Based on WIPO PCT applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas, as well.

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature arena for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China. Most probably because of this reason, companies like, DRL, Aurigene, Advinus, Glenmark, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term deals with Multinational Companies (MNCs) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

India is currently an attractive pharmaceutical outsourcing destination across the globe. Pharmaceutical exports of India is currently far ahead of China. However, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by the end of 2010, establishing itself as the largest country for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports China has already overtaken India, way back in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. By the end of 2010, China is expected to widen the gap further with API export of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

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

Conclusion:

As I said earlier and as has been reported by Korn/Ferry, China’s current overall infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to initiate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country. Government of India seems to be lacking in its commitment to play its role both as a provider and also as an effective enabler in this important space of ‘knowledge economy’ of the world.

India has all the potential to surge ahead with more rapid strides in this ball game. To achieve this cherished goal, the government, other stakeholders and the domestic pharmaceutical Industry should play the ball well, effectively, and in tandem.

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.

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on by
Reply

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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.

Envisaging a paradigm shift in strategic marketing of pharmaceutical in India

Posted on by
Reply

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recommended, about three years ago, in mid-2007 that for sustainable business performance the research-based global pharmaceutical companies should move a part of their significant expenditure from marketing to research. They also recommended that the drug prices should be related to incremental efficacy that the products would provide.

The report titled ‘Pharma 2020: The Vision’ commented that the business model of the global pharmaceutical companies is “economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets.”

Undergoing a paradigm shift:

As we witness, the global pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a paradigm shift. More drugs are going off patent than what the innovator companies can replace with the new products. The research is undoubtedly failing to deliver.

At the same time, the business growth in the developed markets of the world has been declining over a period of time. The growth in the top two pharmaceutical markets of the world viz, USA and Japan had gone negative. IMS predicted in their recent ‘CEO Conclave’ in Mumbai that low growth trends in these markets will continue even beyond 2013.

In the same conclave IMS predicted that within ‘Pharmerging’ markets, China is expected to record highest CAGR growth of over 25%, followed by India and Turkey around 12-14% each. With such a scorching pace of growth China is expected to become third largest pharmaceutical market in the world in 2013 with India holding its 2008 ranking of no. 13.

Global pharmaceutical ‘Marketing Expenditure’ is increasing:

The publication titled “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” co-authored by Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin estimated from the data collected from the industry and doctors during 2004 that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales turnover on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development. This was as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$ 235.4 billion in that year.

The researchers used 2004 as the comparison year, as this appears to be the latest year in which information was available from both IMS Health and CAM Group, the two international market research companies that provide the marketing and sales data together with those of consulting services. IMS obtains its data from pharmaceutical companies, while CAM obtains its data from the doctors. This study appeared in the January 3, 2008 issue of PLoS Medicine, an online journal published by the Public Library of Science.

The above findings though highlight that the US pharmaceutical industry is overall marketing-driven, also argues strongly in favor of a shift away from this direction.

Another publication named, the ‘Triangle Business Journal’ reported the findings from another study of ‘Cutting Edge Information’, a pharmaceutical research company based in Durham, North Carolina, USA. This survey reported, “the companies marketing the six blockbuster (turnover US $ 1 billion in the first year) drugs it studied spent an average of $238.5 million to market each product.”

The “Pharmabiz” of April 2, 2007 also reported, “The study of top 15 global pharma giants revealed that the marketing expenditure as percentage of total sales of these companies worked out to 30.5 as against the R&D expenses as a percentage of total sales of 15.1.”

Such high marketing expenditure is not sustainable in the long run – alternatives being explored:

As reported by IMS Health, in 2009 though the global pharmaceutical market recorded a turnover of US $ 837 billion with a growth rate of around 6.4% compared to 11.8% in 2001, the moot question remains, whether such type of marketing expenditure is sustainable during the era when the “patent cliff’ is pushing the global pharmaceutical industry to the brink.

This situation gets further aggravated when IMS Health reports, as the world’s 10 top selling prescription drugs go off patent, it will be difficult to replace them in terms of single-product value turnover. These brands are as follows:

- Lipitor, US$13.5 billion (Pfizer)

- Plavix, US$7.3 billion (sanofi-aventis)

- Nexium, US$7.2 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Seretide/Advair, US$7.1 billion (GlaxoSmithKline)

- Enbrel, US$5.3 billion (Amgen and Pfizer)

- Zyprexa, US$5 billion (Eli Lilly)

- Risperdal, US$4.9 billion (Johnson & Johnson)

- Seroquel, US$4.6 billion (AstraZeneca)

- Singulair, US$4.5 billion (Merck)

- Aranesp, US$4.4 billion (Amgen)

The business focus is now on the emerging markets like, India:

Thus the business focus of the global pharmaceutical majors are now on the key emerging markets, like India not only with their patented products, but more importantly by having a robust fast growing branded generic portfolio to more than offset the loss of revenue and profit from the blockbusters, as they go off patent.

Publicly expressed expectations of some Governments of the emerging markets:

Governments of some of these emerging markets expect local benefits out of the evolving growth opportunities of the global pharmaceutical companies from their respective countries. Various reports indicate that there could be following two key issues in these markets:

• Local manufacturing of products
• Pricing

Local manufacturing:

Out of these emerging markets, Indonesia has clearly spelt out its intention by specifying that the pharmaceutical companies marketing their products in Indonesia will need to establish local manufacturing facilities. The new rule is directed towards local job creation.

The Health Minister of Indonesia had commented, “If they want to get licenses (to sell their products) they have to invest here also, not just take advantage of the Indonesian market.” The Minister further added, “They can’t just operate like a retailer here, with an office that’s three meters by three, and make billions of rupiah. That’s not fair.” It has been reported that India and China may ultimately come out with similar requirements for their respective countries.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce has registered a strong protest in this matter with the President of Indonesia and has urged a reversal of this decision. However, the country appears to have taken a firm stand in this matter. This is evident when in response to the report that some global pharmaceutical companies have threatened withdrawal of their business from Indonesia because of this reason, the Health Minister retorted, “If they want to go away, go ahead.”

Pricing:

Anticipating such moves in the emerging markets, some global companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and MSD have already started implemeting differential pricing strategies for their patented products in the emerging markets like India.

Some visionary global CEOs like, Andrew witty of GSK strongly believes that such differential pricing will enable more patients in the emerging markets to afford his company’s products. Consequently the increased sales volume will not only offset the sales value loss but will also create a substantial goodwill for the company in these markets, over a period of time.

Quoting Andrew Witty the ‘Wall Street Journal’ (WSJ) reported that in Philippines, GSK had reduced the price of 28 products by 30% to 50%. In other emerging markets of Asia including India, Malaysia and Thailand the company has reduced the prices of Cervarix, its cervical cancer vaccine, substantially.

India has also witnessed such differential pricing strategy by other innovator companies for their patented products in the country.

Prescribing four new key strategic changes in the new paradigm:

In the new paradigm, almost in tandem, four new key strategic changes, in my view, will gradually unfold in the Indian pharmaceutical market. These are as follows:

1. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treating the diseases.

2. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day.

3. Over the counter (OTC) medicines, especially those originated from natural products to treat common and less serious illness, will curve out a sizable share of the market, as appropriate regulations are expected to be put in place adequately supported by AYUSH.

4. Most importantly, the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system, as already articulated just in the last month by Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, which will usher in the following changes:

- Doctors will no longer be the sole decision makers for prescribing drugs to the patients and the way they will treat the common diseases. Ministry of Health/ Healthcare providers/ Medical insurance companies will start playing a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines.

- For a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell, tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable.

- Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will gradually play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.

- This could well mean lesser role of the Medical Representatives in the demand generation process for the pharmaceutical products, which could possibly have a positive impact on the cost of marketing and sales promotion, incurred by the respective pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusion:

With all these changes within the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it may not be easy for the local players to adapt to the new paradigm sooner and compete with the global players on equal footing, even in the branded generic space. In my view, those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own right and relatively well versed with the nuances of this new ball game, will have a significant competitive edge over other domestic players. The global-local companies, in my view, will offer a tough competition to the local-global players, especially, in the branded generic space and at the same time will be able to bring down their marketing expenses significantly.

So far as other domestic players are concerned, the fast changing environment could throw a new challenge to many of them, accelerating the consolidation process within the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

We all should be well aware, just as today’s pharmaceutical business dynamics in India are not replica of what these were in the yesteryears, tomorrow’s pharmaceutical business dynamics of the country will not be a replica of what these are today.

By Tapan 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.

Exploring a new ‘Business Model’ to improve access to healthcare in rural India with the industry participation

Posted on by
Reply

Rural India – the home of around 72% of 1.12 billion population of India is undergoing a metamorphosis, as it were. Disposable income of this population is slowly but steadily rising, as evidenced by rapid market penetration of the ‘Fast Moving Consume Goods (FMCG)’ industry in general and companies like Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Dabur in particular.

Size of the Healthcare Sector in India:

It has been reported that the current size of the healthcare industry in India ia around US $ 23 billion or around 5.2% of the GDP. Though the sector is showing an overall healthy growth of around 13%, public expenditure towards healthcare is just around 0.9% of the GDP of the country. As per WHO (2005) per capita government expenditure on health in India was just around US $7, against US $31 of China, US $24 of Sri Lanka, US $11 of Kenya and US $12 of Indonesia.

Currently the number of Government Hospitals/Healthcare centers in India are grossly inadequate and are as follows:

  • Medical Colleges: 242
  • Community Health centers: 3346
  • District Hospitals: 4400
  • Other Public Hospitals: 1200
  • Primary Health Centers: 23236
  • Subcenters: 146026
  • Number of Hospitals in rural areas: 53400
  • Population to rely on Public Hospitals: 43%

Even with the above network of public healthcare centers in India, overall effectiveness of public healthcare delivery system is very poor in the country. Increasing penetration of Information Technology could perhaps partially address this problem.

Growth drivers of rural India?

I reckon, mainly the following reasons attribute to the growth of the rural economy:

- Gradual increase in procurement prices of food grains by the government and waiver of agricultural loans to the tune of US$13.9 billion

- Growing non-farm income: Currently more than 50% of rural income is through non-farm sources, fuelled by various non-farm activities like food-processing, manufacturing, trading, in addition to the income flow from the rural migrants.

– Increased spending by the Government, which is expected to be around US$ 20 billion by March 2010, in the rural areas through various projects and schemes, like National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), Bharat Nirman Program etc. coupled with easier access to requisite loans and credits, have improved the spending power of rural households significantly.

Though the government is making heavy budgetary allocations in rural India to improve the basic infrastructural facilities, healthcare and education, the implementation of most of these schemes still remains far from satisfactory, as of now.

A gaping hole in the rural healthcare space:
In the healthcare space of rural India there is still a gaping hole in various efforts of both the government and the private players to create a robust primary healthcare infrastructure for the common man. Thus poor access to healthcare services, coupled with lack of ability to pay for such services and medicines round the year, are the key challenges that the country will need to overcome. Lack of disease awareness and poor affordability towards healthcare services, still account for 60% of rural ailments not getting treated at all.

Key shortcomings of the current rural healthcare infrastructure:

Despite the numbers quoted above, following shortcomings continue to exist in the healthcare infrastructure of the country:
- Number of Primary Health Centers (PHC) are far less than the budgetary estimate/allocation
- Inadequate treatment facilities even where the PHCs exist
- Shortage of doctors, nurses and paramedics
- Very high rate of absenteeism

Pharmaceutical companies in India should now explore fortune at the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ to reap a rich harvest, creating a win-win situation:

If the pharmaceutical companies operating within the country, partner with the government and other key stakeholders, as a part of their corporate business strategy, to make a fortune from the ‘bottom of the pyramid’, this critical issue can be effectively resolved, sooner. Novartis India has already ventured into this area and has tasted reasonable success with their ‘Arogya Parivar’ program.

However, in my view additional sets of the following value delivery objectives need to be considered to make this the rural healthcare mission with PPP initiatives successful:

- Affordable medicines of high quality standard
- Increase in health awareness by collaborating with the NGOs and rural institutions for various common diseases.
- Continuing Medical Education (CME) for the rural doctors and para-medics
- Arranging microfinance for the healthcare professionals to create small micro- level healthcare infrastructure and also for the patients to undergo treatment
- Help reducing the transaction cost of medicines and healthcare services through fiscal measures by collaborating with the government
- The product portfolio to be tailor made to address the common healthcare needs of rural India

Private healthcare facilities are preferred to public healthcare facilities even in the rural India:

Irrespective of rich or poor, around 80% of the population in India prefer private domiciliary treatment facilities and 50% of the same prefer private hospital treatment services. However, let me hasten to add that even within the private healthcare space in rural India, a lot needs to be done. Many so called ‘doctors’, who are practicing in rural India, have no formal medical qualifications. Moreover, even such doctors are not available in villages with a population of around 300 to 500 households.

The key success factors of the rural marketing ‘Business Model’:

Urban pharmaceutical marketing model, I reckon, should not be replicated for ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing’, as the success factors required for each of them, is quite different. In rural marketing the stakeholders’ needs and wants are quite different. If these are not properly identified and thereafter adequately addressed, mostly through collaborative initiatives, the rural pharmaceutical marketing ‘Business Model’ may not fly at all.

Partnership with Microfinance Institutions will be a key requirement:

Interested pharmaceutical companies will need to collaborate with the rural microfinance institutions for such business initiatives. This will ensure that appropriate loans can be extended to doctors and retailers, wherever needed, to help them create requisite local healthcare infrastructure to make such projects viable and successful. At the same time, such institutions will also require to help the needy rural population with requisite loans to help meeting their cost of medical treatment.

Conclusion:

From a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ it appears that such projects can definitely be made profitable with a modest gross margin of around 40% – 50% and operating profit of around 6% to 8% . The high volume of turnover from over 650 million population of India, will make these ‘rural pharmaceutical marketing projects’ viable. Simultaneously, such corporate business initiatives will help alleviating pain and suffering from diseases of a vast majority of the rural population of India.

By Tapan 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.

Progress of the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’ in India: a little to cheer, more to ponder

Posted on by
Reply

The world has just five more years to achieve the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’. To accelerate progress of this unique United Nation’s initiative the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20-22 September 2010. Under this back-drop let us deliberate on the progress made by India on this global project.

The ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’:

These are eight time-bound comprehensive developmental goals, both global and country-specific, adopted by the world leaders in the year 2000, with clearly defined benchmarks and targets to achieve by the year 2015, encompassing even the healthcare space. The key purpose of the MDGs is to address multi-dimensional issues and manifestations of extreme poverty prevailing in the world. The eight MDGs, which have been clearly divided into 18 quantifiable targets and evaluated by 48 indicators, are as follows.

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2: Achieve universal primary education
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
4: Reduce child mortality
5: Improve maternal health
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

What happens, if these goals are achieved?

MDGs provide a unique platform to the civil society across the nations to work in unison with common objectives to ensure equitable distribution of the outcome of human development in all countries of the world. If the MDGs are achieved by all the nations, it is believed, ‘world poverty will be cut by half, tens of millions of lives will be saved, and billions more people will have the opportunity to benefit from the global economy’.

UNDP score card and forecast:

The first India country-report on the MDGs for the year 2005 was released by the Government of India on February 13, 2006 in Delhi. Now with just five more years to go, let me take you through the following broad and major findings from an assessment report prepared by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 2009 on the same:

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger:

Set objective: India must reduce the number of people below the poverty line from around 37,5% in 1990 to around 18.75% in 2015.

Progress:

• Absolute number of poor has declined from 320 million (36% of population) in 1993-94 to 301 million (27.6% of total population) in 2004-05. At this rate, the country will still have 279 million people (22.1%) living below the poverty line in 2015.

• India is slow in eliminating the effects of malnutrition, going by the proportion of underweight children below three years of age. This proportion has declined only marginally from about 47 in 1998-99 to about 46 percent in 2005-06. At this rate, 40% of children will still remain underweight by 2015.

2: Achieve universal primary education:

Set objective: India should increase the primary school enrolment rate to 100% and wipe out the drop-outs by 2015 against 41.96% in 1991-92.

Progress: Going at the rate by which youth literacy increased between 1991 and 2001, from 61.9% to 76.4%, India is expected to have 100 percent youth literacy by the end of 2012.

3: Promote gender equality and empower women:

Set objective: India will promote female participation at all levels to reach a female: male proportion of equal levels by 2015.

Progress: Gender parity in primary and secondary education is likely to be achieved, though not in tertiary education. But the share of women in wage employment in the non-farm sector can at best be expected to reach a level of about 24% by 2015, far short of parity.

4: Reduce child mortality:

Set objective: India will reduce under- five mortality rate (U5MR) from 125 deaths per thousand live births in 1988-92 to 42 in 2015.

Progress: Prevalence of child mortality is down from 125 per thousand live births in 1990 to 74.6 per thousand live births in 2005-06. At this rate, the level is expected to reach 70 per thousand by 2015, short of the target of 42 per thousand live births by 2015.

5: Improve maternal health:

Set objective: India should reduce maternal mortality rate (MMR) from 437 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 109 by 2015.

Progress: The national MMR level has come down from 398 per 100,000 live births in 1997‐98 to 254 per 100,000 live births in 2004‐06, a 36% decline over a span of seven years as compared to a 25% decline in the preceding eight years from 1990‐1997. Given to achieve an MMR of 109 per 100,000 live births by 2015, India tends to fall short by about 26 points as it tends to reach MMR of about 135 per 100,000 live births in 2015.

6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases:

Set objective: India has a low prevalence of HIV among pregnant women as compared to other developing countries, yet the prevalence rate has increased from 0.74 per thousand pregnant women in 2002 to 0.86 in 2003. The increasing trend needs to be reversed by 2015.

Progress:

• Spread of HIV/AIDS in the country shows a downward trend: from 2.73 million (0.45%) people living with HIV/AIDS in 2002, the number has declined to 2.31 million (0.34%) by 2007.

• With 1.9 million tuberculosis cases estimated in 2008, India has a fifth of the world’s total. But India made the most notable progress in providing treatment across the country. In 2008, over 1.5 million patients were enrolled for treatment.

7: Ensure environmental sustainability:

Set objectives:

• Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

• Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

Progress:

• During the past decade, India’s forest cover has increased by 728 sq. km, access to water is up from 68.2% in 1992-93 to 84.4% in 2007-08 and in urban areas it is 95%.

• 2015 Target (83%) for proportion of households without access to safe drinking water sources has already been attained by 2007‐08 (84%).

• At the current rate of decline, India is likely to have the proportion of households without any sanitation reduced to about 46% by 2015 against the target of 38%.

8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development:

Set objective: Co-operation with the private sector and making available the benefits of new technologies.

Progress: Overall tele-density has remarkably increased from 0.67 per 100 population in 1991 to 36.98 per 100 population in March 2009.

Conclusion:

Though in some areas of MDGs like, achieving universal primary education, combating HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development, India has something to cheer about. However, in other areas the progress made by the country, as on date, is far from satisfactory, as there are more key issues to ponder. The main reasons of inadequacy in these areas being low public spend of around 1.1% of GDP on health and 4.1% on education.

Moreover, the awareness, contribution and involvement of other stakeholders like Corporates, NGOs and the Civil Society at large in most of the states of India, if not all, in this commendable global initiative is dismal, to say the least.

If India wants to come out with flying colors by end 2015 in its efforts to effectively address multi-dimensional issues and manifestations of extreme poverty and hunger prevailing in the country, the Country assessment report prepared by the UNDP in 2009 on MDGs, should be taken as the ‘wake-up’ call to make good the lost time– as the saying goes ‘better late than never’.

By Tapan 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.