Tag Archives: ABPI

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Posted on by
Reply

“Given the popular uptake of universal health coverage reforms elsewhere in Asia, the Feb 4 elections may be a tipping point for health in India. For example, in 2012, Joko Widodo was elected Governor of Jakarta. He launched popular UHC reforms in the capital and 2 years later was elected president. In 2016, voters in the USA and UK supported politicians prepared to act on the concerns of the electorate. If health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements”, is exactly what appeared in the editorial of The Lancet, titled “Health in India, 2017,” published on January 14, 2017.

The Lancet Editor further reiterated: “Because states have responsibility for health, the elections will raise the importance of access to quality, affordable health care in India, regardless of the electoral outcome. It is a debate that needs to be fostered.”

This is, of course, a ‘top-down’ approach for healthcare, as seen in several countries across the world. However, I have recently deliberated another approach in the same area on – why a ‘bottom-up’ demand is not forthcoming in India, in an article titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017.

No one, including any Government, would possibly ever argue – why shouldn’t a robust public healthcare system in a country, including the availability of reasonably affordable drugs, assume as much priority as economic growth and education?

On the contrary, Governments in several other countries, including those with a well-functioning Universal Healthcare (UHC) in place, are trying to ensure even better and greater access to healthcare for all, by various different means. In this article, I shall focus on it, in a holistic way.

Exploring a bottom-up approach:

It is increasingly becoming more evident that a bottom-up approach would help yield greater success in this area, with a win-win outcome. It will involve taking the stakeholders on board in the process of framing and implementing healthcare projects within a given time-frame. The question then arises, why is it still not happening on the ground in India the way it should? Just floating a discussion paper on draft projects and policies, for stakeholders’ inputs, isn’t enough any longer. There is a need to move much beyond that in making these decisions more inclusive.

Various successive Governments may have some justifiable funding related or other pressing issues to offer a robust public healthcare system in India. But, none of these will be an insurmountable barrier, if more number of heads of astute stakeholders are involved in ferreting out an effective and implementable India-specific solution in this area, within a pre-determined timeline.

There are examples of remarkable progress in this direction, by involving stakeholders in charting out a workable pathway, agreed by all, and jointly implemented in a well-calibrated and time bound manner. Equally important is to make this plan known to the public, so that the Government can be held accountable, if it falls short of this promise, or even misses any prescribed timeline.

‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiative:

Let me now draw an interesting example of involving stakeholders by the Government to improve patient access to expensive and innovative drugs. This example comes from a country that is running one of the oldest and most efficient UHC in the world – the United Kingdom.

Despite a robust UHC being in place, the National Health Service (NHS) in England had a perennial problem to make ‘breakthrough’ medicines available early to NHS patients. The British pharma industry reportedly had a long-held complaint that patients in England get a raw deal when it comes to accessing the latest medicines.

According to a reported study by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and endorsed by the charity Cancer Research UK, average British patients get lower access to leading cancer medicines than their European counterparts.

To resolve this issue effectively, the British Government launched ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway initiative’. Former GSK global CEO Sir Andrew Witty was named as the chairman of this collaborative body. The scheme, launching from April 2018, will see approvals of cutting-edge treatments for conditions like cancer, dementia and diabetes dramatically speeding up. The pathway is expected to get ‘breakthrough’ medicines to NHS patients up to four years earlier, as the report, published in ‘The Telegraph’ on November 3, 2017 indicates.

It is believed that ‘Accelerated Access Collaborative’ initiative would benefit the NHS patients, as well as deliver significant long-term savings for the health service.

Similar initiatives may be effective in India:

Taking collaborative initiatives, such as above, may not be absolutely new in India. However, in a real sense, Indian initiatives are no more than top-down approaches, and not in any way be termed as bottom-up. Moreover, these usually originate in the form of Government discussion papers inviting comments from the stakeholders.

Moreover, in the healthcare policy related arena, there is no subsequent firm resolve by the Government to chart out a clear pathway for its effective implementation, with specific timelines indicated for each step, besides assigning individual accountability for delivering the intended deliverables.

Any such decisive move by the government, keeping all stakeholders engaged is quite rare to come across in our country, as yet. Thus, carefully selected outside expert group suggestions based – the National Health Policies also have met with the same fate, without possibly any exception, thus far.

Two illustrations:

I shall illustrate the above point with two top-of-mind examples. The first one is a report – the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India, submitted to the erstwhile Planning Commission in November 2011. The other example is of a policy – the National Health Policy (NHP) 2017, which is in place now, based on a report by an expert committee constituted by the Government.

Let me now briefly recapitulate both – one by one, as follows:

The report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India

The ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ was constituted by the Planning Commission of India in October 2010, with the mandate of developing a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

While financial protection for healthcare was the principal objective of this initiative, it was recognized that the delivery of UHC also requires the availability of adequate health infrastructure, skilled health workforce, access to affordable drugs and technologies to ensure the entitled level and quality of healthcare is delivered to every citizen.

The report further highlighted, the design and delivery of health programs and services call for efficient management systems as well as active engagement of empowered communities.

The original terms of reference directed the HLEG to address all of these needs of UHC. Since the social determinants of health have a profound influence not only on the health of populations, but also on the ability of individuals to access healthcare, the HLEG decided to include a clear reference to them.

Nevertheless, this report was never acted upon for its effective implementation. Now, with the change in Government, HLEG recommendations for UHC in India seems to have lost its relevance, altogether.

The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017

The new Government that subsequently came to power, decided to start afresh with a brand new and modern National Health Policy in India, replacing the previous one framed 15 years ago in 2002. NHP 2017 promises healthcare in an ‘assured manner’ to all, by addressing the challenges in the changing socioeconomic, epidemiological and technological scenarios. Accordingly, the National Health Policy 2017 was put in place, early this year.

To achieve the objectives, NHP 2017 intends to raise public healthcare expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP from the current 1.4 percent. Interestingly, no visible signal about the seriousness on implementation of this laudable initiative has reached the public, just yet.

Let’s now wait for the next year’s budget to ascertain whether the policy objective of ‘healthcare in an assured manner to all’ would continue to remain a pipe dream, as happened in earlier budget proposals. It is noteworthy that union budget allocation on health did not go up, at least, in the last 3 years, despite categorical assurances by the ministers on increasing focus on healthcare.

Significant increase in both the union and the state governments budgetary allocation for healthcare is necessary. This is because, besides many other intents, NHP 2017 intends to provide free diagnostics, free drugs and free emergency and essential healthcare services in all public hospitals for healthcare access and financial protection to all.

Universal Healthcare is the core point in both:

The core focus of both – the HLEG report and also the NHP 2017, is UHC in India, but with different approaches. When HLEG report was not translated into reality, the 2014 general election in India was widely expected to be the tipping point for a new public healthcare landscape in the country fulfilling this promise. More so, as the public healthcare system is generally in a shamble throughout the country, except in a handful of states.

Just as in the United States, Europe or Japan, “if health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements,” as the above Lancet editorial commented.  Giving yet another perspective, I also wrote in my blog post, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’ on November 06, 2017, why has it not happened in India, as on date.

Conclusion:

What happens, if the Indian Government too adopts a major collaborative approach, such as ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiatives, involving all stakeholders – including the pharma and device industry leaders to implement UHC in the country – part by part?

The relevant counter question to this should not be – Will that work? Of course, it will, if the Government wants to. On the contrary, it could be a potential ‘Tipping Point’ to create a robust public healthcare landscape in India. Thus, the real question that we should ask ourselves: Why won’t it work, when all stakeholders are on board to pave the pathway for an efficient Universal Healthcare system in India, in a win-win way?

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.

Rebuilding Pharma Image: A Laudable Mindset – Lacking In Many

Posted on by
Reply

The fierce debate on ethics and compliance related issues in the pharma marketing practices still reverberates, across the globe. One of its key fallout has been ever-increasing negative consumer perception about this sector, sparing a very few companies, if at all. As a result, many key communications of the individual players, including the industry associations specifically targeted to them, are becoming less and less credible, if not ineffective.

Which is why, though pharma as an industry is innovative in offering new medicines, consumers don’t perceive it so. Despite several drug players’ taking important steps towards stakeholder engagement, consumers don’t perceive so. The list goes on and on. I discussed on such consumer perception in my article of June 26, 2017. Hence, won’t further go into that subject, here.

General allegation on the pharma industry continues to remain unchanged, such as the drug industry tries to influence the medical profession, irrespective of whether they write prescription drugs for patients or are engaged in regulatory trial related activities aimed at product marketing.

Let me give an example to illustrate the later part of it, and in the Indian context. On April 26, 2017, it was reported that responding to a joint complaint filed by Mylan and Biocon in 2016, alleging that the Roche Group indulged in “abusive conduct”, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) gave directions for carrying out a detailed investigation on the subject. This probe was initiated to ascertain, whether Roche used its dominant position to maintain its monopoly over the breast cancer drug Trastuzumab, adversely impacting its access to many patients.

Such a scenario, though, undoubtedly disturbing, is very much avoidable. Thus, winning back the fading trust of the consumers in the industry, should be ticked as a top priority by the concerned parties.

In this article, I shall mostly focus on some recent developments related to ethics and compliance issues, mainly in pharma marketing, and with a small overlap on the regulatory and other areas, as and when required to drive home a point.

It shakes the trust base on the medical profession too:

This menace, as it were, though, more intense in India, is neither confined to its shores alone, nor just to the pharma industry, notwithstanding several constituents of big pharma have been implicated in mega bribery scandals in different countries. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt, either, that its impact has apparently shaken the very base of trust even on the medical profession, in general.

Not very long ago, Dr. Samiran Nundy, while holding the positions of Chairman, Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Organ Transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Medicine Research and Practice, reportedly exposed the widespread malpractices of the doctors in India who are taking cuts for referrals and prescribing unnecessary drugs, investigations and procedures for profit.

This practice continues even today, unabated. On June 18, 2017, it was widely reported in India that Maharashtra Government has decided to form a 3-member committee for suggesting effective ways to check the ‘cut practice’ of doctors. This decision followed a public awareness campaign on this subject, initiated by well-reputed late heart surgeon – Dr. Ramakanta Panda’s Asian Heart Institute, located in Mumbai. The hospital had put up a hoarding saying: ‘No commission. Only honest medical opinion’. The Indian Medical Association opposed the hoarding. But the hospital wrote to Maharashtra medical education minister seeking a legislation to fight this malpractice.

To contain this malady across India, for the sake of patients, Dr. Nundy had then suggested that to begin with, “The Medical Council of India (MCI), currently an exclusive club of doctors, has to be reconstituted. Half the members must be lay people like teachers, social workers and patient groups like the General Medical Council in Britain, where, if a doctor is found to be corrupt, he is booted out by the council.”

This subject continues to remain an open secret, just as pharma marketing malpractices, and remains mostly confined to the formation of various committees.

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” – a reconfirmation:

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” - highlighted an article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014. Its author – David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s health care machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

He reiterated, it’s a common complaint, both of the poor and the middle class, that they don’t trust their doctors from the core of hearts. They don’t consider them honest, and live in fear of having no other choice but to consult them, which results in high levels of doctor shopping. David Berger also deliberated on the widespread corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, with doctors bribed to make them prescribe specified drugs.

The article does not fail to mention that many Indian doctors do have huge expertise, are honorable and treat their patients well. However, as a group, doctors generally have a poor reputation.

Until the medical profession together with the pharma industry is prepared to tackle this malady head-on and acknowledge the corrosive effects of medical corruption, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to lie in tatters, the paper says.

Uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices:

This brings us to the need of a uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices. Such codes, regardless of whether voluntary or mandatory, are developed to ensure that pharma companies, either individually or collectively, indulge in ethical marketing practices, comply with all related rules and regulations, avoid predominantly self-serving goals and conflict interest with the medical profession, having an adverse impact on patients’ health interest.

This need was felt long ago. Accordingly, various pharma companies, including their trade associations, came up with their own versions of the same, for voluntary practice. As I wrote before, such codes of voluntary practice, mostly are not working. That hefty fines are being levied by the government agencies in various countries, that include who’s who of the drug industry around the world, with India being a major exception in this area, would vindicate the point.

Amid all these, probably a solitary global example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary codes of ethical pharma marketing practices, framed by a trade association in a major western country of the world, now stands head and shoulders above others.

Standing head and shoulders above others:

On June 23, 2017, the international business daily – ‘Financial Times’ (FT), reported: “Drug maker Astellas sanctioned for ‘shocking’ patient safety failures”

Following ‘a series of shocking breaches of guidelines’ framed by ‘The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA)’ – an integral part of the ‘Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)’, publicly threatened the Japanese drug major – Astellas, for a permanent expulsion from the membership of the Association. However, PMCPA ultimately decided to limit the punishment to a 12-month suspension, after the company accepted its rulings and pledged to make the necessary changes. Nevertheless, Astellas could still be expelled, if PMCPA re-audit in October do not show any “significant progress” in the flagged areas – the report clarified.

Interestingly, just in June last year, ABPI had suspended Astellas for 12 months ‘because of breaches related to an advisory board meeting and deception, including providing false information to PMCPA’. The company had also failed to provide complete prescribing information for several medicines, as required by the code – another report highlights.

Astellas is one of the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies by revenue with a market capitalization of more than £20bn. In 2016 its operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa generated revenues of €2.5bn –reports the FT.

What is PMCPA?

One may be interested to fathom how seriously the implementation of the uniform code of pharmaceutical marketing practice is taken in the United Kingdom (UK), and how transparent the system is.

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) is the self-regulatory body which administers the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, independent of the ABPI. It is a not-for-profit body, which was established by the ABPI on 1 January 1993. In other words, the PMCPA is a division of the British pharma trade association – ABPI.

According to PMCPA website, it:

  • Operates the complaints procedure under which the materials and activities of pharmaceutical companies are considered in relation to the requirements of the Code.
  • Provides advice and guidance on the Code.
  • Provides training on the Code.
  • Arranges conciliation between pharmaceutical companies when requested to do so.
  • Scrutinizes samples of advertisements and meetings to check their compliance with the Code.

As I often quote: ‘proof of the pudding is in eating’, it may not be very difficult to ascertain, how a constructive collective mindset of those who are on the governing board of a pharma trade association, can help re-creating the right image for the pharma industry, in a meaningful way.

Advertisements and public reprimands for code violations:

The PMCPA apparently follows a system to advertise in the medical and pharmaceutical press brief details of all cases where companies are ruled in breach of the Code. The concerned companies are required to issue a corrective statement or are the subject of a public reprimand.

For the current year, the PMCPA website has featured the details of three ABPI members as on May 2017, namely, Gedeon Richter, Astellas, and Gedeon Richter, for breaching the ethical code of practices.

However, in 2016, as many as 15 ABPI members featured in this list of similar violations. These are:  Vifor Pharma, Celgene, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim Limited, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, Stirling Anglian, Guerbet, Napp, Hospira, Genzyme, Bausch & Lomb and Merck Serono. It is worth noting that the names of some these major companies had appeared more than once, during that year.

I am quoting the names of those companies breaching the ABPI code, just to illustrate the level of transparency in this process. The details of previous years are available at the same website. As I said, this is probably a solitary example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary practices of ethical pharma marketing codes, framed by any pharma trade association.

In conclusion:

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying outfits, are known as the strong votaries of self-regulations of the uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices, including in India. Some of them are also displaying these codes in their respective websites. However, regardless of all this, the ground reality is, the much-charted path of the well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop this malaise, is not working. ABPI’s case, I reckon, though laudable, may well be treated as an exception. 

In India, even the Government in power today knows it and publicly admitted the same. None other than the secretary of the Department of pharmaceuticals reportedly accepted this fact with the following words: “A voluntary code has been in place for the last few months. However, we found it very difficult to enforce it as a voluntary code. Hence, the government is planning to make it compulsory.”

Following this, as reported on March 15, 2016, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, categorically said that the Government has decided to make the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practice (UCPMP) mandatory to control unethical practices in the pharma industry.

The mindset that ABPI has demonstrated on voluntary implementation of their own version of UCPMP, is apparently lacking in India. Thus, to rebuild the pharma industry image in the country and winning back the trust of the society, the mandatory UCPMP with a robust enforcement machinery, I reckon, is necessary – without any further delay.

However, the sequence of events in the past on the same, trigger a critical doubt: Has the mandatory UCPMP slipped through the crack created by the self-serving interest of pharma lobbyists, including all those peripheral players whose business interests revolve round the current pharma marketing practices. Who knows?

Nonetheless, the bottom line remains: the mandatory UCPMP is yet to be enforced in India… if at all!

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.