Tag Archives: Access

Neutralize Covid-19 Impact on Drug Prices And Market Access For Faster Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 pandemic that has not spared any facet of human lives and livelihoods, has also reignited several ongoing debates related to the drug industry. The need to urgently resolve these issues grows manifold, as the real magnitude of this health crisis doesn’t seem to be clear even to the key Government decision makers.

This is vindicated by the research paper, written by government scientists and other experts, published on September 10, 2020 in the Indian Journal of Medical Research. It reveals, India had nearly 6.5 million cases as early as May 2020. Whereas, according to the health ministry, the total number cases stood at around 180,000 in late May. This happened because, ‘large numbers of cases could have gone under the radar earlier this year, because testing was limited to symptomatic patients or states had varying testing rates,’ the paper highlighted.

From the pharma industry perspective, a pandemic of such magnitude is also causing indefinite delay in pre-planned market access of several important drugs and vaccines. Some are due to technical reasons. However, many others are related to their value-based cost-effectiveness in the new normal, when the pandemic has put enormous strain on health expenditure, across the world.

In this situation, past mechanisms of new drug pricing, are required to undergo significant changes. The new yardsticks, I reckon, will be based on two critical factors. The first – the disease treatment priorities, as will be decided jointly by both doctors and patients. And the second – the paying capacity of both payers and individual patients, based on the value that each treatment will offer – again, as perceived by patients.

As it appears, the impact of Covid-19 on the pharma industry will continue till the medium term, if not beyond. Consequently, the concept of new drug pricing – based on well-documented, differential value offerings of treatments, would need to be revisited and recalibrated. This has to be realigned with evolving patient needs. Considering the emerging scenario, this article will focus on the exigency to neutralize Covid-19 impact on new drug prices and pre-planned ‘market access’ – for faster business recovery.

Covid-19 has increased the drug price sensitivity:

The challenge of increasing drug price sensitivity – triggered by the new Coronavirus pandemic, has now assumed a global dimension. A June 18, 2020 study, flags: ‘Nine in 10 Concerned About Rising Drug Costs Due to COVID-19.’ Although, this particular study (Gallup Poll) was conducted in the United States, general public apprehension is no different in other parts of the world, including India, for various reasons.

Even in America, which is considered Eldorado for pharma business, primarily for unregulated drug pricing, is also changing with the impact of Covid-19. The reason being, reported instances of drug prices are rapidly rising, amid the pandemic. As the above Gallup Poll highlights, today ‘a large majority of Americans support direct negotiations by the federal government with the drug manufacturer on the price of a treatment for the disease itself.” Interestingly, ‘significant support exists across all major demographic groups.’

Other specialists on pharmaceutical pricing and market access, also envisage that pharmaceutical companies will be faced with increased price sensitivity, and are quite concerned with the long-term impact of the pandemic on health care systems.

Covid-19 pandemic would seriously impact pharma spending:

As quoted above, several other specialists for pharmaceutical pricing and market access have also pointed out some critical Covid-19 impact areas, including:

  • Tremendous increase in pandemic related public expenditure, could prompt further austerity measures in already strained health care budgets, besides job losses or pay cuts of scores of people for different reasons.
  • The pandemic is likely to result in a redistribution of health care funding towards infectious diseases (e.g. prioritization of antivirals and vaccines) and chronic diseases associated with worsening COVID-19 outcomes.
  • This may result in more drug pricing pressure in other disease areas, besides push for increasing use of similar cheaper generics and biosimilars, unless absolutely necessary.
  • Stricter monitoring of usage of medicines, especially in private hospitals, to ensure their use within the regulatory label and/or within the reimbursed population.
  • Possibility of mandatory price cuts either across the board or for drugs which have been on the market for a specific duration.

The report also envisages, pharmaceutical companies will be faced with increased price sensitivity and decrease in willingness to pay by authorities. Consequently, the key question in this area becomes: What impact will COVID-19 have on the future of pricing and market access? And how to address this issue, effectively? 

Need for an appropriate drug pricing models in the new normal:

Overall scenario for drug pricing model has not changed much, till Convid-19 pandemic overwhelmed the world. The age-old concept of drug pricing, being treated as almost given, is changing fast. As I wrote earlier, it started in the developed world, with newer concepts, such as, Health Technology Assessment (HTA), besides a few others. However, to illustrate the point, I shall focus only on the HTA model. It includes a multi-faceted assessment of the clinical, economic, ethical, legal, and societal perspectives that may be impacted by a new technology, procedure, drug, or process.

Application of HTA in Medicine Pricing:

The ‘Working Paper 6’ of June 2013, on ‘The Role of Health Technology Assessment in Medicine Pricing and Reimbursement,’ published jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Health Action International (HAI), is worth referring to.

The paper aims to identify and describe the role of HTA in price-setting and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals, with a focus on its use in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, as Covid-19 is now fueling the drug price sensitivity across the globe, and not just in the LMIC, this reference will help drive home the point, as one faces today.

While combating health care resource crunch in the face of the Coronavirus quagmire, many countries are contemplating a variety of approaches to maintain affordable access to healthcare for patients. The concept of HTA is one such common approach. It includes pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices, medical and surgical procedures, besides the systems within which health is protected and maintained.

Relevance of a recalibrated HTA in the new normal:

For a new drug, as the Institute For Clinical And Economic Review (ICER) puts it, a final HTA report would attempt to answer the following questions, besides a few others:

  • Is it safe and effective?
  • Which patients benefit the most?
  • Is there a meaningful improvement in health status?
  • Can all people afford to pay who might need it?
  • Will it offer a good value in the long run?
  • What other considerations make it important?

These points need to be looked at keeping in view that Covid-19 pandemic has seriously impacted the health care spending. Thus, the process needs to be recalibrated in the new normal. In any case, HTA has the potential to play a critical role in new drug pricing, by assessing the intrinsic value of medicines that can significantly expand patient-access to care. In tandem, it could maximize the value for money in health expenditure with most efficient allocation of scarce health resources, that most countries are facing today. Nevertheless, there could well be a few company or country specific barriers to capture the value of a drug or treatment, as well. A robust plan for their mitigation needs to be well-thought through, to ensure effective implementation and achieve desirable outcomes.

HTA in India:

At least, on paper HTA exists even in India. The Government of India had created an institutional arrangement called “Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn)”, under the Department of Health Research (DHR). It was entrusted with collation and the generation of evidences on cost effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, including medicines and devices.

The key goals are, to reduce the cost of patient care, overall cost of medical treatment, reduction in out of pocket expenditure of patients, besides streamlining the medical reimbursement procedures. Nevertheless, it remains a million dollar question whether India would leverage this system to ensure fair pricing of new drugs in India.

Some pre-requisites to implement HTA – afresh:

In those countries, where HTA for drug pricing and reimbursement doesn’t already exist, there could be several pre-requisites. These may include, as the above paper indicates, establishing a medicines regulatory system, developing and enforcing legislation, employing the appropriate technical expertise, and the allocation of sector-wide financial resources in accordance with the decisions of the organization using the HTA.

That said, the bottom-line is, the quest to arrive at fair pricing for a new drug, could also help ‘market access’, especially in a difficult time, like today’s health care crisis. In that endeavor, let me briefly dwell on the concept of ‘fair pricing a drug’.    

The concept of ‘fair pricing a drug’:

This issue has been well deliberated by many experts around the world. However, let me quote a recent article – ‘Defining the concept of fair pricing for medicines,’ published by The BMJ on January 13, 2020.

The paper articulates, ‘a fair price for a medicine is affordable to the buyer while covering the seller’s costs and providing a reasonable profit margin. Within a fair pricing zone, a specific price may be higher or lower, possibly reflecting differential value.

Interestingly, the authors also noted: ‘Applying the framework to decision making would require access to data on R&D, manufacturing, and distribution costs, which is generally not publicly disclosed. This lack of transparency about costs undermines efforts to assess the fairness of medicines prices.’

The article underscored, lack of transparency in these areas, ‘also exacerbates information asymmetry to the sellers’ advantage.’ It suggested, disclosure can be enforced through legislation, regulation, and judicial action. Or as a condition of receiving public research funds, tax benefits, regulatory approval. Or listing in a formulary for reimbursement. ‘In the absence of disclosure, decision makers may rely on reasonable estimates based on publicly available information,’ the paper concluded.

Conclusion:

As recorded in the morning of September 13, 2020, total Coronavirus cases in India have reached a staggering figure of 4,754,356 with 78,614 deaths, overtaking Brazil. This trend continues going North, as days pass by.

All-pervasive Covid-19 pandemic is fueling severe resource constraints, especially for health care. Amid this complexity, to combat this deadly virus – alongside other non-Covid related illnesses – value added drugs and treatments could help overcome many hurdles in this area. They could help improve cost-effectiveness of treatments to price-sensitive patients, besides other stakeholders.

Recalibrated HTA mechanism, which I have used in this article as an example to effectively overcome prevailing drug price sensitivity, is one among a few others. Importantly, HTA mechanism exists even in India. It can be appropriately used for new drugs and vaccines pricing, if the Government wishes to.

On the other hand, it’s up to individual companies to choose any other price-value model’ that they will deem appropriate, to arrive at a ‘fair value for new drugs’. However, the goal remains common for all - Neutralizing Covid-19 impact on drug prices and market access, to ensure faster recovery of the business.

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.

New Digital Tools To Protect From Infection, Neutralize Covid-19

Posted on by
Reply

There seems to be some light at the end of the dark tunnel of a serious biological threat that the world is passing through, since the nightmarish last seven months. The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to 213 countries and territories, and the number of new cases is continuously rising. According to reports, the severity of the situation has already re-shaped our society, more than ever before.

In tandem, reports are arriving from most countries, testifying the tremendous commitment of the governmental, scientific and clinical communities, to help local populations dealing with the pandemic. Scientists are still far from having a complete picture of the pathophysiology of this dangerous disease, including its long-term implications on individuals.

Amid this challenge, round the clock search for a life-saving and long-term pathway to outmatch the fast-spreading Covid-19, seems to be coming to fruition, soon. If everything materializes as expected, Covid-19 vaccines may be available by the end of this year or at the beginning of the next year. If it happens, this will be a record in the history of any vaccine development process, as the normal ‘mind to market’ period to deliver a scientifically proven, safe and effective vaccine is normally around 10 years. That said, there always exists a gap between the cup and the lip, as the saying goes.

No doubt, vaccines will be the best way to bring the new Coronavirus under a tight leash to help normalize life, restore livelihoods, and putting a nation’s economy back to the growth trajectory. The good news is, alongside this magic bullet, the power of technology is exploring other technological measures to keep the virus at bay, wherever possible. In this article, I shall focus on this interesting area.

Let me hasten to add, the value offerings of these devices can’t be compared with the long-term benefits that vaccines will offer in containing this global pandemic. Nevertheless, the questions still remain, when will a well-documented, safe, effective and affordable vaccine hit the market?

W.H.O expects to deliver 2 billion doses of vaccines by end 2021:

According to a News Release of July 15, 2020, by the World Trade Organization (W.H.O): ‘Seventy-five countries have submitted expressions of interest to protect their populations and those of other nations through joining the COVAX Facility, which aims to:

  • Accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world.

The goal of COVAX is to deliver two billion doses of safe, effective vaccines that have passed regulatory approval and/or WHO pre-qualification, by the end of 2021. Besides W.H.O, other experts are also cautiously optimistic about the availability of Coronavirus vaccines ‘soon’. Here also the question may crop up: how soon is ‘soon’?

How soon is ‘soon’ – for sooner availability of Covid-19 vaccines?

Experts have opined, a vaccine would normally take years, if not decades, to develop. However, in this unprecedented global health crisis, researchers hope to achieve the same amount of work in only a few months, following the ‘fast track’ regulatory pathway. Let me give a sense of the prevailing buzz around the availability of some of these vaccines.

Going by what the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Serum Institute of India said about Oxford-AstraZeneca developed vaccine, many expect their availability by the end of the current year in India. The Company CEO, reportedly, said on July 22, 2020: “By November, we hope to launch the vaccine if the trials are positive and if the Drug Controller of India blesses it and says it is safe and effective.”

Further, on July 28, 2020, Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. also launched two 30,000-subject trials of Covid-19 vaccines that could clear the way for regulatory approval and widespread use by the end of this year, as the companies announced. Notably, both vaccine candidates rely on a new technology that allows for faster development and manufacturing than traditional vaccine production methods, but does not have an extensive track record.

According to another report of July 30, 2020, Russia said, the world’s first COVID19 vaccine to be ready by August 12, 2020. The vaccine is being developed by Moscow’s Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology.

India’s indigenous experimental Coronavirus covid19 vaccine candidate, developed by Bharat Biotech, is also undergoing phase 1 and Phase 2 trials at 12 sites spanning across India. The initial results are positive. Earlier, ICMR had announced its launch on August 15, 2020. However, specialists in this area feel, ‘the August 15 timeline seems totally unrealistic, if not entirely impossible.’

Be that as it may, most experts still think a vaccine is likely to become widely available by mid-2021, about 12-18 months after the new virus, known officially as Sars-CoV-2, first emerged. Bringing to the market a Covid-19 vaccine, no doubt, will be considered as a ‘huge scientific feat,’ but ‘there are no guarantees it will work’ for all. It’s also a point to ponder that ‘Coronaviruses already circulate in human beings. They cause common cold symptoms and we don’t have vaccines for any of them’ just yet, as the report highlights.

It’s, therefore, a clear possibility that a well-documented, safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine may not be available, at least, in the next 6 months. Moreover, access to an affordable Coronavirus vaccine by the global population will also not happen in a jiffy. In that case, it is encouraging to note that other cutting-edge technological initiatives are also moving ahead with a great speed, to bring the rapid transmission of the new Coronavirus under a tight leash.

Novel, non-medical tech initiatives to contain the Covid-19 spread:

As potentially lethal Covid-19 is overwhelming the world, besides search for new drugs, faster diagnosis to fight the infection – and most effective preventive measure – vaccines, several non-medical tech initiatives are also underway. Many of these are quietly heading forward in search of user-friendly solutions, not just to ‘take the pressure off overworked health care workers’, but also ‘to stop the spread of the disease.’ These are all running parallel to offer technology driven disease treatment-options during this global health crisis.

An interesting paper from the European Parliamentary Research Sevice (EPRS), also vindicates some critical developments in this area. It focuses on technology-based solutions for various pressing pandemic-related problems. Let me illustrate this point with one example each, in the areas of ‘taking the pressure off overworked health care workers’, and in ‘stopping the spread of the disease.’

Technology to ‘take the pressure off overworked health care workers’:

Even in India, one hears quite a lot about the hardship of overworked health care workers. Various unconventional ways were also prescribed for the nation to encourage them. Some of these aren’t inexpensive, either. From this perspective, one such application is robotics technology. It can be effectively used as an intelligent solution to reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission − especially in pandemic hotspots. As the above EPRS article highlighted, many countries are now deploying robots in other areas also to ‘take the pressure off overworked health care workers,’ such as:

  • To disinfect whole hospitals,
  • Decontaminate public and private sites,
  • Handle biohazardous waste,
  • Deliver food and medication to infected patients,
  • Taking patients ‘ temperatures and act as medical assistants.

For example, an Israeli-made AI-powered robot assistant is, reportedly, being used in hundreds of hospitals, medical centers, nursing homes, and corporate buildings in Asia. This is to help minimize human-to-human contact as millions of people take precautions due to the novel Coronavirus outbreak worldwide. By the way, Israel is now a good friend of India, too.

Technology ‘to stop the spread of the disease’:

On June 01, 2020, Science Daily reported, the researchers at Penn State, the University of Minnesota and two Japanese universities, have found that a personal, handheld device emitting high-intensity ultraviolet light to disinfect areas by killing the novel Coronavirus, is now feasible.

Another report of July 10, 2020 also brought to the fore that the researchers from the University of Houston have created a new air filter that virus tests at the Galveston National Laboratory found can kill 99.8 percent of COVID-19 instantly. The filter could be useful for killing COVID-19 in public places, such as, in airports and airplanes, in office buildings, schools and cruise ships, besides other closed spaces such as schools, hospitals and health care facilities. Thus, the ability of this “catch and kill” air filter to control the spread of the virus could be very useful for society,” confirmed another report.

On July 29, 2020, an Indian business news daily wrote, ‘Bengaluru-based Organization De Scalene has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and the European Union to license and manufacture Scalene Hypercharge Corona Canon (Shycocan).’ The device disables the virus’ capability to infect, by flooding electrons in closed areas. It is claimed that Shycocan ‘has the ability to neutralize 99.9% of the Coronavirus that might be floating in the air in closed spaces.’

Although, it is not an alternative to medicines that can cure infected people or preventive vaccines, the device can be used to keep Covid-19 at bay, at least, till vaccines arrive. Thus, going by these developments, one gets a sense of various non-medical technological activities post Covid-19 pandemic outbreak. Especially about, how today’s technological whiz kids are working alongside the medical scientists to take the sting out of Covid-19 onslaught.

Conclusion:

The Lancet article – ‘Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response,’ published on June 29, 2020, also made similar observations. It said: ‘With high transmissibility and no effective vaccine or therapy, COVID-19 is now a global pandemic.’ In this scenario, to contain the spread of a highly transmissible virus, countries that have quickly deployed digital technologies in various critical areas to contain the spread of the infection, may emerge as front-runners in managing disease burden, the paper concluded.

As of August 02, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in India reached a staggering 1,751,919 with 37,403 deaths. Recent Sero-surveys also show COVID-19 peaks in the country is still far away. It is very likely that a vast majority of the population will survive the Covid-19 catastrophe, even if only the existing systems are followed. But, just surviving is neither the reason nor the purpose of life. What most people want today is finding out a comprehensive way for – ‘jaan bhi and jahan bhi’ (life also, the world also).

Understandably, on July 31, 2020, W.H.O has also reiterated: “The pandemic is a once-in-a-century health crisis, the effects of which will be felt for decades to come.” Under this backdrop, unleashing the potential of new non-medical digital tools, as illustrated above, seem to be of immense benefit – not just to protect many more people from the infection, but also to neutralize Covid-19 effectively, especially in 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.

Covid-19 Drugs: Accessibility, Affordability And Availability

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 continues refusing to unravel the key to neutralize its destructive power – for bringing human life and the socioeconomic fabric of a country back to the old normal again. Just as India, all other countries are, apparently, awaiting a ‘magic bullet’ to come, breaking the shackles of this labyrinth, so to speak.

General expectation is, all concerned will understand that coming out of the new Coronavirus maze, sooner, at any cost – is the only way to bring back life, livelihoods, social fabric and the national economy on to the rail, again. Consequently, every entity in the world would require making moderate sacrifices in this unprecedented endeavor.

Right at this time, accessibility, affordability and availability of emergency use Covid-19 drugs, for various reasons, are going beyond the reach of a large number of the population who need those the most. This is happening not just beyond the shores of India, but in the country, as well, perhaps much more than expected. Interestingly, the issue pertains more to Covid-10 repurposed older drugs, and not so much for vaccines – just yet, as I shall deliberate below.

In this article, I shall focus on this issue, hoping for a reversal of the current trend through active involvement of the both the drug company leadership, and also the national decision makers to safeguard public health interest. Interestingly, the drug pricing issue, mostly with repurposed older drugs, is both global and local. Thus, let me first dwell on the subject of drug price increases during this global public health emergency.

Drug price increases during a global public health emergency: 

According to the July 08, 2020 report of IHS Markit, prices of critical drugs are increasing at a time when they are needed the most, as the governments and individual patients potentially struggle to pay for them.

The findings brought to the fore, prices for the 10 most critical drugs to treat COVID-19 have risen a highly unusual 4 percent globally, during the crisis. The cost for over half of these essential COVID-19 medicines rose across 80 countries between February and June 2020. Let me illustrate this point with one example each of Covid-19 emergency treatment options, starting with the global outcry for the same.

Global skepticism on remdesivir pricing:

As the world anxiously awaits a Covid-19 vaccine to hit the market, an experimental repurposed older drug – remdesivir of Gilead Sciences Inc. was introduced as an emergency treatment option for this infection. Pending detail clinical trial results, currently the drug has received only emergency regulatory approvals with an expectation that it may shorten the recovery period in some severely ill Covid-19 patients.

Gilead Sciences, on June 29, 2020, announced its price of $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.However, it will cost $3,120 for patients with private insurance. This price was swiftly and widely criticized, because the drug has received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development - the report highlighted.

Elaborating what would be affordable pricing for this drug in the developed world, another reportquoted the watchdog group – Public Citizen. This group maintains $1 per day is fair. It points to a cost-recovery model developed by the University of Liverpool, which calculated that the cost of manufacturing remdesivir at scale would be 93 cents per dose, leaving the remainder as, in its view, “a reasonable profit to Gilead,” as the report underscored.

Interestingly, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year. This isn’t the first time Gilead is facing public criticism on life saving drug pricing. Just to recap, in 2013, the company also received ‘brickbats’ for its $84,000 price tag for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi—followed up by its combo pill Harvoni, priced at $94,500. But those were first in class new and innovative drugs. Nevertheless, the remdesivir pricing issue is viewed differently, because it is not just a repurposed older drug, but indicated to combat a global public health crisis.

Let me now give an Indian example on a similar issue, but with a different anti-Covid-19 drug.

Criticism in India with Covid- 19 drug pricing: 

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had on June19, 2020 approved anti-viral drug favipiravir, manufactured in India by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This approval was for “restricted emergency use” of the drug in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in the country, in view of the urgent medical need during the pandemic. Favipiravir is made under the brand name Avigan by Japan’s Fujifilm Holdings Corp and was approved for use as an anti-flu drug there in 2014.

According to media reports, Glenmark launched the drug on June 20, 2020 with the brand name FabiFlu at a price of Rs 103 per tablet. On this pricing issue, a member of the Indian Parliament, reportedly, made a representation to the DCGI stating, as a patient has to take 122 tablets of the drug in 14 days, the total cost of the treatment will come to around Rs 12,500. The M.P argued, “price quoted for this drug is definitely not affordable to the common people,” and ‘is definitely not in the interest of the poor, lower middle class and middle-class people of India.’ Additionally, the submission mentioned that ‘Glenmark has also claimed that this drug is effective in co-morbid conditions like hypertension, diabetes, whereas in reality, as per protocol summary, this trial was not designed to assess the FabiFlu in comorbid condition,’ as the letter read.

However, on July 13, 2020, Glenmark reportedly said that it had reduced Favipiravir price from Rs103 to Rs75 per tablet. The Company said, “The price reduction has been made possible through benefits gained from higher yields and better scale, as both the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and formulations are made at Glenmark’s facilities in India, the benefits of which are being passed on to patients in the country.”

Thereafter, as reported on July 19, 2020, after receiving a complaint from a member of Parliament, the DCGI sought a clarification from Glenmark over its alleged “false claims” about the use of FabiFlu on Covid-19 patients with comorbidities, including the “pricing” of the drug.

In response Glenmark stated, “Compared to other therapies approved for emergency use in Covid-19, FabiFlu is much more economical and an effective treatment option.” The comparing argued, the estimated total cost for the full course of Favipiravir is Rs 9,150. Whereas, the same for Remdesivir, Tocilizumab and Itolizumab will come to Rs 24,000-30,000, Rs 44,000 and Rs 32,000, respectively.

Importantly, seriously ill Covid-19 patients will often be given many of these drugs, such as, tocilizumab, remdesivir and favipiravir, either one after the other, or simultaneously, making the overall price of treatment hefty for many. From this perspective, the bottom line is, Covid-19 drug treatment in India – where the out of pocket drug expenses is one of the highest in the world, won’t be affordable to many. Besides, there are other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug access and availability to Indian patients. The question that surfaces in this situation, are Covid-19 drug prices are high where there is no or less competition. If, so this is an avoidable situation.

Could this be due to less or no competition?

Continuing with the example of Favipiravir against the above backdrop, Cipla also, reportedly, received the DCGI approval for the launch of experimental Covid-19 drug Favipiravir in India on July 24, 2020. The brand will be marketed under the brand name Ciplenza in the first week of August and is priced much less than Glenmark’s Favipiravir – at Rs 68 per tablet. Could this be due to market competition?

Possibly so, because another report of July 25, 2020 indicated, nearly 10 other Favipiravir formulations will be launched shortly, despite inconclusive scientific clinical evidence as on date. Favipiravir price is expected to fall further due to competition. In that case, what could be the takeaway message, when this price trend is viewed against the response of Glenmark to the DCGI letter, justifying FabiFlu pricing?

Other issues of Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients:

Other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients include, prices of Covid-19 drugs shooting up in short supply. There have been reports of difficulty in accessing remdesivir in India, too, although, Gilead Sciences has licensed this drug out to a few Indian generic pharmaceutical companies such as Hetero Healthcare, which has announced that it would manufacture and sell it at Rs 5,400 per vial. According to the latest protocol of the health ministry, the dosage of remdesivir should be 200 mg IV on day 1 followed by 100 mg IV daily for 4 days (5 days in total). From this one can easily work out the treatment cost with remdesivir for each patient.

Moreover, a BBC investigation has found that two life-saving drugs used to treat Covid-19 patients in India – remdesivir and tocilizumab – are in short supply and being sold for excessive rates on a thriving black market. Yet another recent investigation has unraveled a growing black-market for plasma therapy, ‘born out of the desperation of families willing to do anything to save their loved ones infected with Covid-19.’

I am citing these examples to give a sense of the plight of common Covid-19 patients from the drug availability, affordability and accessibility perspective – to save lives. However, the good news is, in this otherwise gloomy scenario, as perceived by many, a more empathetic scenario has been reported from many Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.

More empathetic scenario with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers: 

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), over 160 groups are working on COVID-19 vaccines, and 24 candidates have already reached human testing, Some are, reportedly gearing up for phase 3. It is widely expected, vaccines might be ready later this year or early next year. Vaccine developers are racing ahead at record speed, supported by Governments and facilitated by the drug regulators, to translate billion dreams coming true amid a public health catastrophe.

For the world population to acquire immunity against the Covid-19 onslaught, the key question remains: ‘At what price’, when vaccines are available? According to reports, the encouraging news is, some major vaccine makers, such as:

  • AstraZeneca (with Oxford University) plans to price at “no profit” during the pandemic “to support broad and equitable access around the world.” The company has entered several agreements with governments and other groups to provide about 2 billion doses around the world, at no profit.
  • Similarly, J&J has also “committed to bringing a safe and effective vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.”
  • Pfizer CEO has also said the company “will make a very, very marginal profit at this stage.” He pointed out that the company hasn’t taken any governmental funding, unlike other players. The company and its partner BioNTech have entered a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million doses. Moreover, Pfizer and BioNTech will get $1.95 billion from the US government to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate.
  • Moderna CEO said, there’s “no world, I think, where we would contemplate to price this higher than other respiratory virus vaccines.”
  • Sanofi, which has separate COVID-19 vaccine partnerships with GlaxoSmithKline and Translate Bio, has “been committed to working with governments, partners and payers to ensure that when new vaccines are approved, we will make them available and affordable,”
  • Merck CEO also said the company has committed to “broad, equitable, affordable access.”
  • Nearer home, Serum Institute of India, has pledged to make 1 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jointly formed COVID-19 vaccine at under Rs1000 per shot. The production could start as early as first quarter next year. Company CEO said this is not the time to make money from a vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, which has caused a global pandemic.

These pledges do give a comfort to many. Because, unlike Covid-19 repurposed older drug manufacturers, Covid-19 vaccine makers seem to be more empathetic to make these accessible and available to the world population at an affordable price.

Conclusion:

Well past a million mark, as on July 26, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 1,339,176 with 31,425 deaths. With the number of daily cases being more than Brazil, India is poised to bridge its gap with the South American country. The steep unenviable climb continues.

The July 21, 2020 article – ‘Drug Pricing Back in the Spotlight,’ published in the PharmaExec.com, quoted the ICER Executive Vice-President saying,’ the drug pricing conversation is different in a pandemic.’ The system needs to ensure public access to drugs and vaccines in this global health crisis. If it does not happen, I reckon, appropriate authorities must step in with specific remedial measures.

Otherwise, the kudos showered on the drug industry for promptly offering a number of repurposed older drugs for emergency use against Covid-19 may not last long, if these treatments are not affordable and accessible to a vast majority. From this perspective, the questions being raised on accessibility, affordability and availability of many Covid-19 drugs, need to be addressed and resolved – soon.

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.

Come Covid-19 Drug And Vaccine, Pharma Will Get Back To The Traditional Mode

Posted on by
Reply

‘Corona will remain a part of our lives for a long time. But at the same time, we cannot allow this to happen that our lives will be confined only around the corona. We would wear masks, follow two yards distance and pursue our goals. Therefore, the fourth phase of lockdown, lockdown 4, will be completely redesigned, with new rules,’ said the Prime Minster of India, during his televised address to the nation on May 12, 2020.

Many countries around the world, have already decided to move ahead, phasing out Covid-19 lockdowns cautiously, in a manner that each country will deem appropriate. Alongside, in line with many other industries, several pharmaceutical companies seem to have also started accepting this new reality. For example, Novartis, which reportedly, started digitizing its sales and marketing even before the COVID-19 pandemic, has hit the fast forward button.

This is evident from what Novartis said: “We were already on a journey in terms of our commercial model where digital and other channels and virtual detailing were becoming a bigger part of our mix.” The Company is planning an omnichannel digital launch for its latest new product – Tabrecta for metastatic lung cancer. This was prompted by the very sensitive situation that the world is going through ‘and the extra burden that’s put-on physicians and patients” as the pandemic continues - the company clarified.

This leads to the key question, are most companies on the same wavelength as Novartis, in this area? Or, a large majority of drug players, is still nurturing the hope that prescription demand generation activity from doctors and hospitals will soon return to the traditional mode of what was prevailing during pre-Covid-19 pandemic days? This flows from an age-old experience – a large number of sales or medical representatives have always spearheaded the demand generation mechanism for any patented or brand-generic medicine.

Still, for many it is difficult to even think of any quantum shift in this space, as the traditional core mechanism continues, despite so much hype of digitalizing pharma operations. Whereas, several others do feel, at least, a Covid-19 vaccine or a drug for its effective treatment, which, apparently, are almost knocking at the door, will bring the current situation back to the previous normal. Will vaccine or an effective drug be a panacea to win the war of Covid-19 pandemic, decisively? In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. To set the ball rolling, let us fathom whether or not coming out with a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine, in a jiffy, is rather a certainty.

Is Covid-19 vaccine a certainty?

No doubt, a large majority of people believe, a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 is perhaps the best hope for ending the pandemic, as Mayo Clinic has also said so. However, it also records the following major apprehensions or challenges in developing a COVID-19 vaccine, based on the research data:

  • Ensuring vaccine safety
  • Providing long-term protection
  • Protecting older people

On May 12, 2020, at the US Senate hearing about the path forward from pandemic lockdowns in the United States, NIAID director Anthony Fauci also said, there’s “no guarantee” any of the vaccines in testing will be effective, though based on his knowledge of other viruses, he is “cautiously optimistic.” Thus, projections about how COVID-19 will play out, are still mostly speculative.

Why ‘projections about how COVID-19 will play out are still speculative’?

A recent article – ‘How the COVID-19 Pandemic Could End,’ published in the ‘Scientific American,’ also commented so. It said, the end game will most likely involve a mix of everything that checked past pandemics:

  • Continued social-control measures to buy time,
  • New antiviral medications to ease symptoms,
  • And a vaccine.

Citing the famous example of the H1N1 influenza outbreak of 1918–1919, it said, doctors and public health officials had far fewer weapons than they do today. Thus, the effectiveness of control measures, such as school closures depended on how early and decisively, they were implemented. Over two years and three waves, the pandemic infected 500 million and killed between 50 million and 100 million. It ended only as natural infections conferred immunity on those who recovered.

Which is why, as on date the pursuit to achieve all three goals as mentioned above, would likely to continue. That said, a safe an effective Covid-19 vaccine will be the most preferred way to stop rapid transmission of the Coronavirus outbreak. However, this comes with a critical caveat.

Would the entire population need to be vaccinated?

Experts believe, unless a vaccine is administered to all of the world’s eight billion inhabitants who are not currently sick or recovered, COVID-19 is likely to become endemic. It will circulate and make people sick seasonally—sometimes very sick. But if the virus stays in the human population long enough, it will start to infect children, showing mild symptoms.

In that process, children appear less likely to develop severe disease if they get re-infected as adults.  Thus, the combination of vaccination and natural immunity will protect many of us. ‘The Coronavirus, like most viruses, will live on—but not as a planetary plague,’ the ‘Scientific American,’ article concluded.

Covid-19 end game to involve a mix of those that checked past pandemics:

Let us now look at the possible mix of the Covid-19 end game, which were involved in checking the past pandemics, one by one:

Continued social-control measures to buy time:

The social control measures would include compliance with the prescribed social distancing norms, in tandem with aggressive testing for the infected individuals, isolating them, and quarantining their contacts. These measures were well tested in the past epidemics and useful if followed well, by all.

Therefore, from the pharma industry perspective, getting back to the traditional ‘pre Covid-19 mode’ of prescription demand generation mechanism, will indeed be challenging for most drug players.

Availability of well-tested antiviral medications to ease Covid-19 symptoms:

So far, there is no scientifically and well-tested medications for the treatment of Covid-19. However, many different medications are under clinical trials in various parts of the world. So far, most hyped among them appears to be remdesivir, an experimental antiviral developed by Gilead for the treatment of Ebola.

However, the clinical study result of ‘Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19,’ published in The Lancet on April 29, 2020 found that the dose regimen of intravenous remdesivir used in the study, was adequately tolerated, but did not provide significant clinical or antiviral effects in seriously ill patients with COVID-19.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also, reportedly, announced a large global trial, called ‘Solidarity’, to find out whether any of those drugs can treat infections with the Covid-19. In India, several drug companies are also testing the water, with their shortlisted drugs, such as, Zydus Cadila want to test a form of interferon, usually used against hepatitis B and C, as a potential treatment for COVID-19. More trials on remdesivir are ongoing, let us keep our fingers crossed.

Interestingly, Gilead has, reportedly, signed nonexclusive licensing agreements with five Indian generic drug makers – Cipla, Mylan, Ferozsons Laboratories, Hetero Labs and Jubilant Lifesciences,  to produce COVID-19 therapy remdesivir for low- and lower-middle income countries. Under the agreements, Gilead will share its manufacturing know-how with them to help gear up remdesivir local production. Moreover, each of these companies will be allowed to set the price for its own generic version of the drug.

In any case, scientifically proven safety and efficacy of any drug or vaccine for the prevention or treatment of Covid-19, is yet to be known. Hence, for all individuals, strict compliance with social distancing measures is the only way to avoid this highly contagious infection. The same is also applicable to doctors and sales representatives while working in the field, at least, till an effective Covid-19 vaccine or drug comes.

Affordability and access to Covid-19 drug and vaccine:  

Assuming that a safe, effective and clinically proven vaccine or a drug for Covid-19 will be available sooner than what experts anticipate now, yet another critical issue needs to be resolved, soon. This is related to their affordability and access, to contain the mortality and morbidity of the disease, for a vast majority of the population, especially in the developing nations, like India.

Even Gavi noted: ‘In the race to produce a safe and effective vaccine against the COVID-19 virus, one of the many challenges will be the cost of developing the vaccine and eventually getting it to the vast number of people worldwide who will need it.’ However, it is generally anticipated that ‘COVID-19 vaccine or a drug may end up costing people a small fortune.’ Another article also echoed the same sentiment by saying, ‘Covid-19 treatments won’t work if people can’t afford them.

However, India’s Serum Institute based at Pune, has announced that it is ready for 20-40 million vaccine shots at Rs 1,000/dose, by September-October 2020. The company is ‘’putting its weight behind an Oxford University-led consortium, which announced the start of human clinical trials on April 23 and is one of the first such projects to get underway globally.’

At the same time, another report emphasized: “Even after India approves the Coronavirus vaccine, it might not be possible to produce more than 10-20 million doses in the first year,” again raising the availability and access issue for a Covid-19 vaccine, as and when available in India.

Conclusion:

As on May 17, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases continue to climb sharply to 90,927 with 2,872 deaths.. Moreover, on May 13, 2020, the world Health organization has also warned that “this virus may become just another endemic virus in our communities, and this virus may never go away.” Thus, the world has to live with it. By the way, the accuracy of many Covid-19 test kits has also been widely questioned. This reportedly includes speedy Abbott test, as well.

In this scenario, people may have to necessary live with social distancing norms and the practice of wearing a mask outside the home, always. Besides, the template for relief from Covid-19 becomes more complex, particularly considering availability, affordability and access to a safe and effective drug or vaccine in India, as and when these will come. Taking these together, the end game for Covid-19 in the foreseeable future, becomes anybody’s guess.

Coming back to the pharma industry, curiously, some people are still hoping for ‘business as usual’ in the traditional pre-Covid-19 mode, although the writing on the wall is increasingly getting clearer. The only alternative that people can possibly follow under the circumstances, is strict compliance to social distancing norms, which pharma companies, doctors, healthcare consumers and others would also require to adhere to, with as much earnest. Thus, envisaging a return to pre-Covid-19 prescription generation mode, may not be prudent choice, anymore.

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.

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Posted on by
Reply

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

 

One of the most complex areas in disease management, is the ailments related to genetic disorders. As these were incurable, over the last four decades, medical researchers are engaged in understanding the complex and intricate process to modify human DNA, using viruses for treatment. This painstaking initiative led to the evolution of ‘gene therapy’ which, according to Mayo Clinic, ‘involves altering the genes inside human body’s cells in an effort to treat or stop the disease.’ In that process, ‘gene therapy’ replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene, to cure a disease or improve the human body’s ability to safely and effectively treat dreaded ailments, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS, it further added.

Several studies, e.g., one titled ‘Gene therapy on the move,’ published in the EMBO Molecular Medicine highlighted, the first gene therapy clinical trials were initiated more than two decades ago. However, initially many of these were impeded by the occurrence of severe side effects in a few treated patients. Nevertheless, over a period of time, ‘highly efficient gene targeting strategies and site-directed gene editing technologies have been developed and applied clinically.’ With over hundreds of clinical trials to date, gene therapy has moved from a vision to clinical reality – offering a powerful treatment option for the correction of monogenic disorders.

It is believed that in the new millennium, ‘gene therapy’ has emerged as one of biotech’s momentous success stories for curing many genetic disorders, which were once considered incurable. But, the cost of ‘gene therapy’ treatment is indeed jaw-dropping – ranging ‘from about US$ 500,000 to US$ 1.5m. And for treatment over a lifetime, some drugs can cost as much as US$ 750,000 in the first year, followed by US$ 375,000 a year after that – for life.

Since, I have already deliberated on ‘gene therapy’ price and associated moral dilemma that it causes, in this article, I shall focus on different concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model. Nevertheless, let’s start with the current scenario on ‘gene therapy,’ for better understanding of the issue.

The current scenario:

According to McKinsey & Company’s October 2019 article - ‘Gene therapy coming of age’ - till 2019, the primary focus in development of ‘gene therapy’ has been on monogenic rare diseases with all currently approved therapeutics falling into this category. It is worth noting, rare diseases tend to have clear genomic targets, as well as, high unmet need in a very small patient population, who have generally been under-served by other, more traditional, therapeutic modalities (including monoclonal antibodies)—making them ideal targets for gene therapies.

More than 150 investigational new drug applications were filed for gene therapy in 2018 alone. With this in mind, McKinsey & Company expects this market to grow significantly, with ten to 20 cell and gene therapy approvals per year over the next five years.

Major ‘gene therapy’ launched:

If one takes a broad look at the ‘gene therapy’ treatments launched so far, which I have compiled from different sources, it may appear as follows.

Gene Therapy Company Country Launch Year Indication Price ($M) Current status
Glybera UniQure Europe(EMA) 2012 Pancreatitis caused by absence of a gene - lipoprotein lipase, affecting about 14 people per year in Europe 1.0 Withdrawn (unaffordable)
Strimvels GSK Europe (EMA) 2016 To treat ADA-SCID patients (rare disease) 0.665 Sold to Orchard Therapeutics. Only 5 patients were treated.
Kymriah(CAR-T therapy) Novartis USA 2017 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 0.475
Yescarta(CAR-T therapy) Kite Pharma USA 2017 Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma 0.373 Gilead acquired Kite Pharma in August 2017 for 11.9 billion dollars
Luxturna  Spark   2017 Rare disease called RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy. 0.850 for both eyes Novartis is paying $105M up front for the ex-US rights.

The latest being Zolgensma of Novartis. It was approved by USFDA on May 24, 2019 for ‘patients less than 2 years of age with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with bi-allelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene.’ It costs US$ 2.125 million in the US for a one-time treatment.

However, to get a better idea on the industry focus in this area, let us look at the current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline.

Current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline:

To fathom the extent of industry interest in ‘gene therapy’ let’s have a glance at the depth of its pipeline – both in terms of phase-wise clinical study, as well as therapy areas covered. This will help understand the concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model.

Clinical Trial Phase Total by phase    Therapy Areas:HematologyOncologySensory OrgansInternal MedicinesOthers
I 574
II 520
III 205
Filed/Approved/Marketed 237
Total 1536

Adapted from: McKinsey article – ‘Gene therapy coming of age’, October 2019

Both large and small companies are entering into the fray:

Besides Novartis and GSK, as mentioned above, other Big Pharma constituents, such as Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb - are also putting their money in developing ‘gene therapy.’ This includes Mergers and Acquisitions too. For example:

Alongside, newer ‘gene therapy’ platforms continue to come up, many funded by venture capitals – further enriching the ‘gene therapy’ pipeline. In tandem, fresh concerns that could pose a serious threat to the ongoing commercial model of ‘gene therapy’ are also being realized. Mainly, the impact of the one-time or curative version of such avant-garde therapy on current pharma business models.

Also facilitates a giant leap towards personalized medicine:

‘Gene therapy’ is also believed to be a giant leap of medical science towards personalized medicine. This is because, in addition to repairing and replacing defective or missing genes of a human body, this therapy can use body’s own cellular immune system to treat the disease. This is because, CAR-T cell therapy can fall in the category of personalized medicine, where a patient’s T cells are changed in the laboratory, empowering them to attack cancer cells.

Concerns that could threaten its ongoing commercial model:

Despite its significant patient-value offerings with long-term benefits, ‘gene therapies’ that have been approved and are already in the market had to confront with tough unforeseen challenges, both from fresh regulatory questions - to therapy withdrawal for commercial reasons. These developments, coupled with a very low and difficult to identify patient population, and affordability related low market access, prompt the need of a transformed marketing model for novel ‘gene therapy.’ This is important for financial sustainability of current ‘gene therapies’ in most pharma markets, globally, including the United States.

Some critical areas:

An article on ‘gene therapy’ by the Managing Directors of L.E.K Consulting, published by Cell & Gene on May 16, 2019, also pointed to some of these critical areas. Even this paper articulated, the fundamental value proposition of ‘gene therapy’, its long-term efficacy with a single-dose treatment, gives rise to a number of unique challenges for its manufacturing companies. Let me paraphrase below just three of those, as I understand, to drive home this point.

Declining number of eligible patients for most doctors: 

The promise of a functional cure is expected to limit ‘gene therapies’ to a single dose per patient, in most cases. Thus, inability to re-treat would lead such therapies to deplete their addressable prevalent populations, for most doctors. This is primarily because, as the number of treated patient accumulates – the number of potential patients who could be treated in a given year is reduced. This leads to demand that would peak early before steadily declining. Once the prevalent population is depleted, the demand for a gene therapy would be driven by incident patients.

However, research has now been initiated targeting larger populations – e.g., those suffering from leukemia and lymphomas. But, the greatest revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’, is expected to be its success in delivering life-changing treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma. When such patients will get to experience better outcomes from cell and gene therapies, the incremental approach the industry has been taking in this area, will be more than justified.

Till then, it could pose a challenge to business sustainability:

As discussed, the ‘gene therapy’ sales curve with an early peak and then steady decline, caused by a depleted addressable patient population within a few years after launch, could pose a serious challenge to business sustainability. This would require launching, possibly another ‘gene therapy’ product before the revenue of the first ‘gene therapy’ starts waning. Consequently, the timing of its life cycle management efforts and subsequent launches would be a critical success factor.

Intricacy of market access dynamics:

Optimal market access of ‘gene therapy’ will call for working in unison with virtually all stakeholders, including regulators, governments, and at the same time, effectively disseminating the real-life treatment-success stories. However, both in the developed countries and also in the emerging markets, such as India, its treatment cost will continue to remain a key barrier, sans some disruptive pricing strategy.

How this tough task remains unresolved, can be sensed from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of December 19, 2019 titled, ‘Novartis to Offer World’s Most Expensive Drug for Free Via Lottery.’ For this purpose, Novartis launched a lottery-style program to provide doses of its pricey gene therapy for Zolgensma, a one-shot ‘gene therapy’ cure, for free of charge. But, this approach drew criticism from patient groups that called it – an inappropriate way to distribute a lifesaving treatment aimed at babies for a deadly inherited disease whose victims cannot control their muscles. At a price of US$ 2.1 million, Zolgensma, is the world’s most expensive drug.

Conclusion:

As I discussed above, ‘gene therapy’, also known as ‘human gene transfer,’ has been one of biotech’s momentous success stories in the new millennium, paving the way for a cure of many genetic disorders – once considered incurable. However, the number of patients on ‘gene therapy’ remains small compared to other therapeutic regimens, mainly because of two factors. One – this therapy, mostly targets rare diseases, and the second – even among those small patient populations, only very few can afford such pricey therapy.

Nevertheless, current research in this complex area, is now targeting larger populations – suffering from leukemia, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Success in these areas will open the door of significantly greater revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’ by delivering life-changing treatment outcomes. Till then, its current business model, I reckon, would continue to pose a high commercial risk to this venture.

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.

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

  • Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.
  • Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.
  • Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.
  • New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

  • When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.
  • Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’
  • Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’
  • When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.
  • Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.
  • While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet. 

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work? 

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

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.

 

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

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.

 

 

 

 

For Affordable Access To Quality Healthcare in India, Invest Where The Mouth Is

Posted on by
Reply

On September 25, 2018, well-hyped Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS), touted as the largest health scheme in the world, was launched in India. Prior to its launch, while announcing the scheme on August 15, 2018 from the Red Fort,Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “The healthcare initiatives of the government will have a positive impact on 50 Crore Indians,” as it aims to provide a coverage of Rs 5 lakh per family annually, benefiting more than 10 Crore poor families.

Before this scheme was introduced, there were several public funded health schemes in India, introduced by different governments, like National Rural and Urban Health Mission (NRHM and NUHM), Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana etc. Reports also capture that since independence efforts were ongoing in this area. But none worked, due to shoddy implementation. Let’s await the outcome of yet another new health scheme, introduced by yet another government – AB-NHPS.

According to the Government Press Release of January 11, 2019: Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) aims to provide health coverage during secondary and tertiary hospitalization of around 50 Crore beneficiaries, allocating a sum of up to Rs. 5 Lakh per family per year. The key words that need to be noted is ‘the health coverage during hospitalization’. It also doesn’t cover primary care. Interestingly, some of the larger states, such as Punjab, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Delhi are, reportedly, yet to come on board, Odisha has refused to be a part of the scheme.

Conceptually, the above new health initiative, aimed at the poor, is praiseworthy.  However, its relevance in reducing a significant chunk of one of the highest, if not the highest, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP’) expenses towards health in India, raises more questions than answers.

This is because, whether annual ‘OoP’ for health, incurred by the country’s poor population, goes more for hospitalization than Primary Health Care (PHC) involving common illnesses, is rather clear today. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, supported by credible published research data.

But ‘the Primary Health Care (PHC) is in shambles’:

Since the focus of (AB-NHPS) on ‘secondary and tertiary hospitalization’, one may get a feeling that the primary public health care system in India is, at least, decent.

But the stark reality is different. The article titled, ‘Five paradoxes of Indian Healthcare,’ published inThe Economic Times on July 27, 2018 describes the situation eloquently. It says: ‘While the Supreme Court has held health care to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution…The fundamental aspect of health care – the primary health care is in shambles. There is only one primary health care center (often manned by one doctor) for more than 51,000 people in the country.’

In addition, the World Bank Report also flags: ‘The tenuous quality of public health assistance is reflected in the observation that 80 percent of health spending is for private health services, and that the poor frequently bypass public facilities to seek private care.’ Although, World Bank underscored this problem sometime back, it persists even today, sans any significant change.

PHC has the potential to address 90 percent of health care needs:

For the better health of citizens, and in tandem to contain disease progression that may require hospitalization for secondary and tertiary care, government focus on effective disease prevention and access to affordable and high quality PHC for all, is necessary. ‘Evidences gathered by the World Bank have also highlighted that primary care is capable of managing 90 percent of health care demand, with only the remaining 10 percent requiring services associated with hospitals.’

Another article titled, ‘Without Primary Health Care, There Is No Universal Health Coverage,’ published in Life – A HuffPost publication on December 14, 2016, also vindicates this point. It emphasized: ‘Primary health care (PHC) has the potential to address 90 percent of health care needs. However, country governments spend, on average, only one third of their health budgets on PHC.’ The situation in India is no different, either.

This basic tenet has been accepted by many countries with ample evidences of great success in this direction. Curiously, in India, despite the public PHC system being in shambles, the government’s primary focus is on something that happens only after a disease is allowed to progress, virtually without much medical intervention, if at all.

Key benefits of a strong PHC system:

As established by several research papers, such as one appeared in the above HuffPost publication, and also by other research studies, I am summarizing below the key benefits of having an affordable and strong PHC network in the country:

  • Can manage around 90 percent of the population’s health care need, patients would require hospitalization for specialists care only 10 percent of the time.
  • Can help people prevent diseases, like malaria or dengue, alongside effectively assist them in managing chronic conditions, such as hypertension or diabetes, to avert associated complications that may require secondary or tertiary care.
  • At the country level, a strong PHC system would help detect and screen illnesses early, offering prompt and effective treatment. The system, therefore, will support a healthier population, and would ‘offer much more than simple reduction of the costs of a country’s health.’
  • A country can ensure greater health equity by providing PHC advantages of greater accessibility to the community, and across the social gradient.
  • In short: ‘The continuity and doctor–patient relationships offered by family oriented primary care, alongside the patient education, early intervention and treatment, chronic disease management, counseling and reassurance offered to patients would be impossible to provide in a secondary care setting.’

Thus, establishing a robust network of high-quality public PHC facilities in the country is a necessity. Simultaneously, patients should be made aware of visiting the nearest PHC as their first stop for affordable treatment, when they fall ill.

Annual ‘OoP expenses’ more on ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization’:

For illustration, I shall provide examples from just two studies, among several others, which found, average ‘OoP expenditure’ per family in a year, is more for ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization.’

Since long, ‘OoP expenditure’ on hospitalization was being considered as the most important reason for impoverishment. Probably, this is the reason why various governments in India, had launched various health schemes, covering hospitalization expenses of a large section of the poor population in the country. The most recent one being – Ayushman Bharat-National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS), often termed as ‘Modicare’, launched in September 25, 2018.

That total ‘OoP expenses’ are more on ‘out-patient care’ than ‘hospitalization’ was emphasized even in the 2016 research article titled, ‘Out-of-Pocket Spending on Out-Patient Care in India: Assessment and Options Based on Results from a District Level Survey,’ published online by PLoS One on November 18, 2016.

Highlighting that ‘OoP spending’ at ‘Out-Patient Departments (OPD)’ or in clinics by households is relatively less analyzed compared to hospitalization expenses in India, the results indicate:

  • Economically vulnerable population spend more on OPD as a proportion of per capita consumption expenditure.
  • ‘Out-patient care’ remains overwhelmingly private and switches of providers -while not very prevalent – is mostly towards private providers.
  • High quality and affordable public providers tend to lower OPD spending significantly.
  • Improvement in the overall quality and accessibility of government OPD facilities still remains an important tool that should be considered in the context of financial protection.

Let me now cite the second example – analyzing the 60th national morbidity and healthcare survey of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), the study found, ‘outpatient care is more impoverishing than inpatient care in urban and rural areas alike.’

Expert committee’s recommendations for focus on ‘primary care’ went unheeded:

That the government focus on public health care should be on PHC, along with prevention and early management of health problems, was recommended by ‘The High-Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage, for India.’ This committee was instituted by the then ‘Planning Commission’ of the country on November 2011. The report also suggested, such measures would help reduce the need of secondary and tertiary care, significantly. But not much attention seems to have been paid even on these critical recommendations.

Conclusion:

Going by what Indian government says, I believe, its ultimate goal is providing access to affordable Universal Health Care (UHC), for all. That’s indeed commendable. But as various research papers clearly indicates, the country will first ‘need to invest in a ‘primary-care-centered’ health delivery system, if universal access to health care is to be realized, ultimately.

From this perspective, Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Scheme (AB-NHPS) may be a good initiative. But it does not seem to merit being the primary focus area of the government in public health care. And, not more than establishing high quality and robust ‘primary health care’ infrastructure, across the country, for all. Nor will AB-NHPS be able to address higher average of out-of-pocket ‘outpatient expenses’ of those people who need help in this area, the most.

Considering the critical public health care issue in India holistically, I reckon, for providing affordable access to health care for all, the top most priority of the Government should be to invest first where the mouth is – to create affordable primary healthcare infrastructure of a decent quality, with easy access for 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.