‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on April 2, 2018 by Tapan Ray

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers. Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle antibiotic drug resistance, was published by the Netherlands based Access to Medicine Foundation.

The issue of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) was brought under focus by the World Economic Forum (WEF) not for the first time at Davos in 2018. Its 2013 Annual Report on global risks, also underscored the gargantuan health hazard that AMR poses to mankind. It said, we live in a bacterial world where we will never be able to stay ahead of the mutation curve. A test of our resilience is how far the curve, we allow ourselves to fall behind. It’s indeed a profound statement!

In that sense, the AMF analysis is important. More so, when the global population is virtually at the threshold of facing a situation very similar to pre-antibiotic era, where even a common infection used to pose threat to a life. And now, a fast-developing AMR to many effective antibiotics or even super-antibiotics, are making them almost redundant in many serious conditions. Consequently, around 700,000 people die every year only due to antimicrobial resistance, the world over.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also reiterated its grave concern in this area by a news release on September 20, 2017. It cautioned, “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health emergency that will seriously jeopardize progress in modern medicine.” Against that backdrop, in this article, I shall dwell on some latest developments in this area, both globally and also in India.

Dire need for newer antibiotics – but dry R&D pipeline:

At the very outset, let me flag another critical area that is intimately related to this concern. An article titled, “Where Are the Antibiotics?”, published by the AARP Foundation adds more to this growing concern. It writes, in an era when many breakthrough innovative drugs are curing some of our most deadly afflictions, the quest for meeting the unmet medical needs, seems to have shifted away from development of critically needed breakthrough antibiotics to effectively address AMR, for various reasons.

The author further highlighted that between the time penicillin was discovered in 1928, and the 1970s – 270 antibiotics were approved – a robust arsenal of powerful drugs that kept almost all bacterial infections at bay. However, since then, research into new antibiotics has declined dramatically. Today, just five of the top 50 big drug companies are reportedly developing innovative antibiotics – the article reiterates. Nevertheless, some recent developments in this area can’t be ignored, either, which I shall touch upon in this discussion.

Global initiatives for a multi-pronged concerted action:

It is understandable that there are no magic bullets to address the fast-growing menace of AMR. It calls for a multi-pronged strategy with well-orchestrated concerted efforts for its effective implementation with military precision. Following are the three primary constituents who should lead from the front in the battle against AMR, as I reckon:

The world leaders
Each country, individually
Pharmaceutical industry, both global and local

The medical profession, including hospitals, nursing homes, the retail chemists and individual patients, also play a significant role to alleviate this problem, especially in India and other developing countries. But, I shall keep that as a subject for a separate discussion, altogether. Let me now touch-upon the first three constituents, one by one, as follows:

1. The world leaders’ initiative:

Realizing that failure to act on AMR will result in a global health and financial crisis, the world leaders met to address this growing menace. Accordingly, on September 21, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a declaration aimed at slowing the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. At this meeting in New York City, the top UN leaders successfully urged all governments to sign a political declaration to tackle the problem of AMR, both globally and in their respective countries. The joint declaration requires each country to develop a 2-year plan to protect the potency of antibiotics for both livestock and humans. The progress of the initiative for each country at the end of those 2 years will be evaluated. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the agreed human-specific actions, which include the following:

Antibiotics should be prescribed only when they are absolutely necessary
A massive education campaign about antibiotic resistance.
Greater monitoring of superbugs to understand the scope and magnitude of the problem.
Safeguarding current antibiotic stockpile.

The leaders suggested that people should be encouraged to help prevent the crisis from turning into a death sentence for millions, with the steps, such as:

Get available vaccines to prevent illness
Stop asking doctors for antibiotics when they have the cold or flu, as antibiotics treat neither
To urge their political leaders to commit to action in combating antibiotic resistance.

2. Country-specific initiatives:

In September 2016, just a year after the UNGA high-level meeting on AMR, an update by the United Nations Foundation reported that 151 countries out of 195 WHO member states have responded. The overall response includes the following, among others:

85 percent of countries are developing or have developed National Action Plans (NAC).
52 percent of countries have a fully developed plan with ‘One Health’ approach that seeks to unify human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and food providers against the progression of AMR by reducing agricultural antimicrobial use.
52 percent of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have national-level measures in place on ‘Infection Prevention and Control (IPC)’ measures in human healthcare.

3. Pharmaceutical industry initiatives:

I shall cite only the latest commendable developments in this area, as I see it. On Jan. 21, 2016 a document titled the ‘Declaration on Combating Antimicrobial Resistance’, was launched, again, as part of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland.

For the first time, 85 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic-drug, and diagnostic companies agreed on a common set of principles for global action to support antibiotic conservation and the development of new drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines. The document, outlining several critical measures the government and industry must take to increase antibiotic effectiveness worldwide, was also drafted and signed by nine industry associations spanning 18 countries.

Global progress assessment of AMR initiatives in 2018:

This brings me back to where I started from, while analyzing what happened in this regard a year after the above declaration was signed. On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle drug resistance, was revealed by the AMF. It found companies are developing new drugs, as well as dismantling the incentives that encourage sales staff to oversell antibiotics, setting limits on the concentration of antibiotics in factory wastewater released into the environment, and tracking the spread of superbugs.

In the AMR Benchmark, GSK and Johnson & Johnson lead among the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies. A separate ranking of manufacturers of generic antibiotics features Mylan, Cipla, and Fresenius Kabi Global, in the leading positions. While Mylan leads the generic medicine manufacturers, Entasis, reportedly, leads the biotechnology group.

Twenty-eight antibiotics are in late stages of development:

The other key findings of the 2018 study include mention of 28 antibiotics that are in later stages of development, targeting pathogens deemed critical AMR priorities by the WHO, and/or US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, only two of these 28 candidates are supported by plans to ensure they can be both made accessible and used wisely if they reach the market. Be that as it may, the benchmark finds room for all companies to improve in this space, the report indicated.

Some major initiatives in India:

The good news is, ‘The National Policy for Containment of Antibacterial Resistance’, with similar objectives, was put in place in India by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, way back in 2011. Further, on March 20, 2015, to strengthen the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had set up a National Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Surveillance Network (AMRRSN) to enable compilation of national data of AMR at different levels of health care.

Again, in February 2017, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has put a new ‘Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes’, to achieve the same objectives. Despite this, as many medical experts opine, a large number of General Practitioners (GP), including hospitals, nursing homes continued over-prescribing antibiotics. Alarmingly, considered as the last line of defense antibiotics by many doctors – Colistin and Carbapenem resistant infections have also been reported from several Indian hospitals. All this adds further fuel to the AMR fire.

Another matter of huge worry in India:

The February 04, 2018 article titled, ‘Threats to global antimicrobial resistance control Centrally approved and unapproved antibiotic formulations sold in India,’ published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, highlight serious hurdles for controlling antimicrobial resistance in India, which has had parliamentary investigations into the failures of the country’s drug regulatory system. The study was conducted by researchers from Queen Mary University in London, Newcastle University and Lakshya Society for Public Health Education and Research in Pune. Some of the key findings of the study are as follows:

Extensive use unapproved of fixed dose combination (FDC) antibiotics is contributing to the rising rate of AMR in India, which is already one of the highest in the world.

Out of the 118 of FDC antibiotics being sold in India, only 43 (36 percent) were approved by the CDSCO. These 118 antibiotic formulations are being sold in 3307 brand names and manufactured by 476 entities. Of these, 464 were Indian manufactures, and 12 were MNCs.

The authors recommend work on understanding why unapproved formulations are being prescribed by medical professionals.

Conclusion:

As the above AARP Foundation article highlights, like all living beings, bacteria constantly evolve to survive. While encountering a new antibiotic, they quickly find ways to evade it, and continue to live or exist. Some have even developed cell wall like virtually impregnable shields, as it were, keeping antibiotics out. Others pump antibiotics out when they get in. Several deadly bacteria have even devised ways to deactivate antibiotics.

The comments made in the article titled, ‘The Future of Antibiotics and Resistance,’ published by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 24, 2013, is also worth noting. It says, the converging crises of increasing resistance and collapse of antibiotic research and development are the predictable results of policies and processes we have used to deal with infections for 75 years. If we want a long-term solution, the answer is not incremental tweaking of these policies and processes. Novel approaches, based on a reconceptualization of the nature of resistance, disease, and prevention, are needed.

The bottom line still remains, AMR is a humongous threat to the global population, not just in India. While its awareness is gradually increasing, much more painstaking work remains to be done by all, both individually and collectively, to contain this global health menace. It’s our responsibility to protect the well-being of our future generations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

Exploring a bottom-up approach:

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

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

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

‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiative:

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

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

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

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

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

Similar initiatives may be effective in India:

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

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

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

Two illustrations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017

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

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

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

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

Universal Healthcare is the core point in both:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Tapan Ray

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently – annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.

On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on August 28, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding. Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’. Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) - have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.

The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Digi Gaon’: Will It Augment Access To Affordable Health Care In India?

Posted on February 13, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In the Union Budget speech of 2017-18, Indian Finance Minister articulated his intent, among several others, to launch a new initiative named ‘Digi Gaon’, which would extend the broadband digital technology in rural India. Besides education and skills, ‘Digi Gaon’ would facilitate affordable access to e-healthcare in the in the hinterland of the country.

“Under the Bharat Net, optical fiber has been laid in 1,55,000 km. I have stepped up the allocation for Bharat Net projects to Rs 10,000 crore in 2017-18 and by the end of 2017-18, high speed broadband on optical fiber will be available in more than 1.5 lakh gram Panchayats with hotspots and access to digital services at low tariff,” the Finance Minister said.

“This will give a major fillip to mobilizing broadband and Digital India, for the benefit of people living in rural areas,” he further added.

Increased penetration of ‘Telemedicine’, per se, in the country has the potential to improving time, cost and the quality of access to affordable health care in rural India, as confirmed by several important studies.

A broad perspective:

A report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O), titled “Telemedicine – Opportunities and developments in the Member States”, states that the term ‘Telemedicine’, was coined in the 1970s, which literally means “healing at a distance”. It signifies the use of modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as computers, the Internet, and cell phones, to improve patient outcomes by increasing access to care and medical information.

Recognizing that there is no one definitive definition of ‘Telemedicine’ – a 2007 W.H.O study, after reviewing 104 peer-reviewed definitions of this word, adopted the following broad description:

“The delivery of health care services, where distance is a critical factor, by all health care professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for the continuing education of health care providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities”

‘Telemedicine’ in India:

Before I get into other relevant details in this area, let me briefly explore in which segments of the three important areas – Market, Services and Providers, ‘Telemedicine’ has already started working in India, though with a varying degree of success.

Market segments:

‘Telemedicine Market’ in India can broadly be segmented into nine key categories. A recent research report on “India E-Health Services Market Outlook to 2020” by Ken Research captures the top three of these segments as follows:

Tele-radiology: The top segment in India that involves the electronic transmission of radiographic images of patients, such as, X-Ray, CT scan or MRI from one location to another location for an expert interpretation by a radiologist sitting there to quickly facilitate appropriate treatment.

Tele-consultation: Ranked second in terms of revenue earning of the Indian telemedicine industry in 2015. It involves establishing a clear audio and video communication link between the patient and doctors of different disciplines, as required. Patients’ demand for online consultations with the doctors is fast increasing as it helps to get disease specific medical advice from the different experts located anywhere in the world.

Tele-ICU: Was ranked as the third largest segment. It involves the use of an off-site command center in which a critical care team (intensivists and critical care nurses) connects with patients in distant ICUs to exchange health information through real-time audio, visual, and electronic means.

The following are the other six segments, which I am presenting below with a brief definition of each, for convenience:

Tele-ophthalmology: It delivers eye care through digital medical equipment and on telecommunications technology platforms.

Tele-dermatology: It involves communication technology to connect patients with dermatologists to improve skin health. The technology allows the patient to be examined and even treated without making a physical trip to a dermatologist.

Tele-surgery: It is the ability for a doctor to help perform surgery on a patient even though they are not physically in the same location. It is a form of telepresence.

Tele-pathology: It involves the practice of pathology at a distance using telecommunications technology to facilitate the transfer of image-rich pathology data between distant locations for the purposes of diagnosis, education, and research.

Tele-psychiatry: it is the application of telemedicine to the specialty field of psychiatry. The term typically describes the delivery of psychiatric assessment and care through telecommunications technology, usually video-conferencing.

Tele-Home Care and Nursing: This is primarily meant for patients who prefer receiving various health care services at home, such as those suffering from serious chronic diseases, post-surgery, and to cater to the critical regular heath needs of elderly persons.

Service segments:

Similarly, various international literature has segmented the ‘Telemedicine services’ into two broad types, as hereunder:

Real Time telemedicine services: These services include telephonic call or video-conferencing where both the doctors and the patients need to be present at the same time, and real time interaction happens between them.

Store and Forward telemedicine services: These do not require both the doctor and the patient be present at the same time and transmission and assessment of the medical records can be done at any convenient time.

Types of Providers:

Ken Research Report categorized the ‘Telemedicine Providers’ available in India into the following three groups:

Private Hospitals, such as Apollo Tele Health Services, Narayana Health Telemedicine Centers and Aravind Eye Care and telemedicine centers of Medanta, besides others.

Government Hospitals and Medical Colleges, such as, AIIMS, SGPGI and several others have made alliances with various districts and sub-district hospitals of different states in India. Some States such as Punjab, Gujarat and Uttarakhand have adopted a PPP model.

NGO run centers, such as, World Health Partners are the largest NGO in India that has 1100 with a market share of 56.1 percent.

The critical barriers to overcome:

There are several critical barriers to the rapid penetration of ‘Telemedicine’ in India. However, in this article, I shall discuss only five of those, which India has not cared much to resolve over a long period, and need to be addressed, sooner than later:

Frugal broadband Internet network:

Probably realizing that this stark reality still exists, despite earlier initiatives of ‘Digital India’ slogan, the Finance Minister in his 2017-18 budget speech announced a fresh budget allocation for the new ‘Digi Gaon’ project.

An efficient broadband Internet is an absolute must for any efficient ‘Telemedicine’ project, as most of the applications of ‘Telemedicine’, as mentioned above, would work effectively only in that environment. In 2016, India’s broadband Internet penetration was an abysmal 7 percent, as reported in a white paper of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and quoted by the chairperson of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

High initial cost of setting up a telemedicine network:

The initial cost of setting up a viable ‘Telemedicine’ network, including training of personnel, developing user-friendly smartphone-based apps with state of the art technology, is high with low current Return on Investments (ROI).

Availability and training of personnel:

- At the village end: Availability of proper technician, other IT staff and qualified local doctors and their periodic training and performance assessment.

- At the consulting centers: Appropriate training, coordination with other relevant staff and administration as required for compliance and monitoring performance standard.

No legal framework governing Telemedicine in India:

At present, there is no legal framework in India governing Telemedicine of the country. The Government would need to urgently consider this issue, as it creates related facilities and infrastructure in the country.

Lack of revenue generating business models for sustainability:

In India, ‘Telemedicine’ is generally considered as a part of ‘social responsibility’ of public, private, large corporate hospitals and NGOs. In the some of the private hospitals it is alleged that the underlying objective is to raise the bed occupancy rate when the patients on ‘Telemedicine’ require hospitalization.

Currently, there exists a dearth of revenue generating business models for ‘Telemedicine’ in India, taking it beyond the realm of just ‘social responsibility’, and enabling it to play an increasing role in the overall health care space for long-term sustainability, with a win-win outcome for both its investors and patients.

Thus, the Government would require playing the role of an enabler to encourage, attract and support more and more private players and startups coming up with sustainable commercial business models in this area. Simultaneously, it should also play an active role to help increase public awareness in ‘Telemedicine’, eliminating patient inhibition, enhancing competition and reducing patients’ cost for various services.

Is ‘Affordable health care’ a victim of circumstances?

India with its public spend as a percentage of GDP on health care being consistently one of the lowest in the world over a period of a very long time, despite being the fastest growing global economy, the importance of high penetration of ‘Telemedicine’ in the country assumes a high importance. More so, when grossly inadequate public health care facilities continue to pose serious health risks for many of the country’s population.

On the other hand, in Indian private health care space, including drugs and pharmaceuticals, where a sizeable section of global pharma players and their lobbyists are continually pushing hard, predominantly an Intellectual Property (IP) orientated blatant self-serving agenda. They want to sell more of high price monopoly products and services to earn more and more profit, depriving a huge majority of local patients. It’s happening, even when the image of the global pharma industry has plunged to a new low, and is still going south, despite tons of money allegedly being spent on lobbying of various nature, more than ever before.

No wonder, why the globally acclaimed doyen of the IT industry – Mr. Narayana Murthy also openly acknowledged this fact, suggesting some science and technology based remedial measures. While addressing the Bio Asia 2017 on February 08, 2017 in Hyderabad he said: “India has fallen behind in healthcare, but science and technology can indeed play a role in bridging the gaps. Science and technology can play a key role in diagnosis and management of disease, of mass application of drugs and availability of drugs on a scale and at an affordable cost,” as reported in the Economic Times.

Thus, sandwiched between either side, ‘Affordable health care’ continues to remain a major victim of the circumstances, and is desperately looking for a strong Government intervention, just as what’s now happening in several developed countries, including the United States.

Conclusion:

Although ‘Telemedicine’ is an important enabler and enhancer, I reckon, it’s not a panacea. It would never replace brick and mortar high quality generally affordable health care facilities, along with affordable modern life saving medicines, any time in the foreseeable future.

The announcement of ‘Digi Gaon’ to facilitate ‘Telemedicine’ in India, without a well-charted roadmap and overcoming its critical success barriers, is intriguing. Nevertheless, this initiative has an underlying potential to transform ‘Telemedicine’ into a robust revenue generating model, even at the village level entrepreneurship, with sharp application of creative minds.

It’s a matter of great concern that in the space of Governance in India, public health care is increasingly becoming more a subject of a general lip service, rather than immaculate execution of a robust, comprehensive, time-bound National Health Policy with assigned accountability for each project and backed by requisite budgetary allocation, both by the Central and the State Governments. Consequently, one would seldom witness any such well hyped announcements on various public health care projects seldom coming to fruition on the ground, as promised.

Even if the recently announced ‘Digi Gaon’ initiative is considered as a standalone project for greater access to ‘Telemedicine’ in the hinterland of the country, it is important to understand that, in the short term, investment in ‘Telemedicine’ won’t be a magic wand for India to demonstrate a commensurate increase in health outcomes, along with reaping its consequential economic benefits.

To succeed in this area, several critical barriers need to be effectively overcome, soon. This would help showcasing ‘Telemedicine’ as an integral part of everyday e-health care solution for many. Otherwise, the Government is likely to face enormous challenges to leverage the true potential of ‘Digi Gaon’ for alleviation of acute miseries caused by poor, or lack of access to affordable health care, especially in rural India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

It’s happening in the West, and is equally widespread in the Eastern part of the globe too, though in different ways and forms, as both the national and international media have been reporting, consistently. The phenomenon is all pervasive, and directed towards stalling almost all possible future laws and policies that a large section of the pharma industry sees as a potential apocalypse for their business models.

It has a wide reach and covers, for example, the policy-decision makers or possible policy-decision makers in the near future, other policy influencers, many hospitals, and the final interface with the patients – the prescription decision makers.

Although, it affects health care as a whole, in this article I shall focus just on the pharma industry.

Looking West:

While looking at the West, I would cite a recent example from the United States. It’s yet another déjà vu for the western pharma industry.

On August 26, 2016, ‘The Los Angeles Times’ in an article titled, “Drug companies spend millions to keep charging high prices” stated, “Of roughly US$ 250 million raised for and against 17 ballot measures coming before California voters in November, more than a quarter of that amount – about US$ 70 million – has been contributed by deep-pocketed drug companies to defeat the state’s Drug Price Relief Act.”

The Drug Price Relief Act of California, is aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable for people in Medi-Cal and other state programs by requiring that California pays no more than what’s paid for the same drugs by the Department of Veterans Affairs of the United States. It would, in other words, protect state taxpayers from being ripped off.

The report also quoted Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation saying that industry donations to crush the Drug Price Relief Act “will top US$ 100 million by the election, I’m quite certain of it.” He further added, “They see this as the apocalypse for their business model.”

Looking East:

While citing a related example from the eastern part of the globe, I shall draw one from nearer home – India, as China has already been much discussed on this matter. This particular media report on a wide-spread pharma industry practice, though took place in a different form, as compared to the United States, belongs to the same genre, and captures yet another déjà vu involving the pharma players operating in the eastern world, similar to what’s happening in the west.

India:

On August 30, 2016 a report published in ‘The Economic Times’ titled, “Pharma cos offer freebies to doctors, violate code: MP” quoted a serious allegation of a Rajya Sabha Member of the Parliament on this issue. The MP claims, he has evidence of four drug companies’ recently bribing doctors across India to push their products. These four companies include both large Indian and multinational pharma players, and two out of these four features, among the top five companies of the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The lawmaker further said, “I am waiting for the minister’s response on this issue. Nothing has come so far. We also have the names of the doctors who have taken bribes, which we will release eventually,”

Another September 06, 2016 report, published by the same business daily in India, categorically mentioned that TOI has documents to establish that one of these companies took hundreds of doctors from across India to places like Vancouver, Amsterdam, Oslo, Venice, New York, Boston, Brussels and Moscow. The documents reportedly include email exchanges between the company executives, city-wise lists of doctors with ‘legacy codes’, names of spouses, passport copies and visa copies, and show how the company has spent several millions of rupees in taking doctors and sometimes even their spouses, ostensibly to attend medical conferences.

Other NGOs have also reportedly submitted proof of the same to the Government for remedial measures in India, against such gross ongoing unethical practices in pharma marketing.

It is worth mentioning here that all these expenses are part of the marketing budget of a company and the sum total of which is built into the ‘retail price to the patients’ of the respective drugs, even in India.

Two broad processes for the same goal:

Thus it emerges, very broadly, there are two key processes followed by many in the pharma industry to achieve the same goal of increasing profit. These are as follows:

Marketing malpractices in various forms to influence prescription decision
Arbitrary increase of drug prices, for both branded and generic medicines

The justification:

Many global pharma majors still keep justifying, though the number of its believers is fast dwindling, that the high new drug prices have a linear relationship with the cost of new drug innovation. Even for argument’s sake one nods in favor, the critical question that needs to be answered is, if this is the basic or primary axle on which the wheel of innovation moves, won’t affordability and access to drugs for a significant number of the population be seriously compromised?

If not, why is this furor, across the world, is fast assuming a snowballing effect? Why are even the generic drug prices going up steeply even in the United States, where some of the largest Indian drug manufacturers are being questioned for the same by the competent authorities of the country?

I deliberated on a similar subject in my article titled, “The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs”, published in this Blog on May 20, 2016.

Marketing malpractices:

Laws are fast catching up to book the offenders resorting to pharma marketing malpractices in most of the countries of the world, including China. This is vindicated by the fact that global pharma players are now paying billions of dollars a fine, in various countries, especially in the West.

Just as no criminal law can totally eliminate any crime, anywhere in the world, despite a heavy dent in pharma’s reputation related to this area, many companies still continue to indulge in such malpractices, blatantly, and even with some brazenness.

India:

Unfortunately, in India, the inertia to catch the bull by the horn and lack of governance in this regard continues, making patients pay a heavy price. As the above media report indicates, both MNCs and the local players indulge into this deplorable activity almost without any inhibition. As many industry watchers believe, some companies have started hiring these services through professional third parties just to create a facade for taking the high moral ground, as and when required, both with the government and also other stakeholders.

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

UCPMP, though not a panacea, was aimed at containing pharma marketing malpractices in India. However, as happened with any other voluntary pharma marketing code, be it of a global drug major or their trade associations, similar non-compliances were detected even by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard to the code, apparently prompted the DoP contemplating to make the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizer – Mr. Ananth Kumar, in his reply in the Indian Parliament, to a ‘Lok Sabha Starred Question No: 238’ on the UCPMP based on the inputs received, also had admitted:

“The Government had announced Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Practices (UCPMP) which was to be adopted voluntarily w.e.f. 1st January, 2015 for a period of six months and has last been extended up to 30.06.2016. After reviewing the same it was found that the voluntary code was not working as expected. The Government consulted the stakeholders, including NGO’s / Civil Society members and after examining their suggestions it is now looking into the viability of making the Code Statutory.”

This seems to be yet another assurance, and expression of a good intent by the Union Minister. The fact today is, after extending the UCPMP in its original form up to June 30, 2016 with four extensions and despite the Government’s public admission that it is not working, by a circular dated August 30, 2016, the Government has informed all concerned, yet again, that voluntary UCPMP has now been extended ‘till further orders’.

This not only creates public apprehension on the DoP’s true intent on the subject, but also gives enough room for speculation regarding behind the scene power play by the vested interests to keep a mandatory UCPMP, having sufficient legal teeth, away, as long as possible. Are these forces then also visualizing its enforcement as an apocalypse for their business models in India too?

Thus, the possibility of containing pharma marketing malpractices in India is still charting in the realm of the decision makers’ assurances and no further.

Arbitrary drug price increases:

Arbitrary price increases of important drugs are drawing increasing public ire in the West, the latest being a 400 percent price increase of generic EpiPen of Mylan. This is now being considered yet another business malpractice in the pharma industry, as whole.

No robust regulatory or legal measure is now being followed in the West to contain the drug over pricing public health menace. Thus, it is increasingly assuming a critical political significance today to win over the voters, especially in the forthcoming Presidential election of the United States.

Thus, as reported by Reuters, on September 02, 2016, Hillary Clinton announced that, if elected, she would create an oversight panel to protect the consumers of the United States from large price hikes on longer-available, life-saving drugs and to import alternative treatments if necessary, adding to her pledges to rein in overall drug prices.

She would give the ‘Oversight Panel’ an aggressive new set of enforcement tools, including the ability to levy fines and impose penalties on manufacturers when there has been an unjustified, outlier price increase on a long-available or generic drug.

On September 08, 2016, reacting to these proposed measures articulated by Hilary Clinton, the global CEO of the world’s largest pharma player reportedly commented, as expected, that it “will be very negative for innovation.”

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is, even in the United Sates, a transparent mechanism to deal with arbitrary price increases of the existing important medicines, still charts in the realm of several assurances of the probable decision makers, just as it is India to effectively deal with pharma marketing malpractices.

A global CEO’s lone voice stands out:

In this context, I would start with yet another example of astronomical price increase of a widely used anti-diabetic product, besides EpiPen of Mylan. According to Dr. Mayer Davidson, Professor of Medicine at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles, who has carefully tracked the rapid and repeated increases, from 2011 to 2013 the wholesale price of insulin went up by as much as 62 percent in the United States. Whereas, from 2013 to 2015 the price jumped again, from a low of 33 percent to as much as 107 percent.

In the midst of this scary situation, a solitary and apparently a saner voice from the global pharma industry stands out. According to an article published in the Forbes Magazine on September 06, 2016, Brent Saunders, CEO of Allergan, ‘explicitly renounced egregious price increases.’ Saunders also said that the industry needs to ‘end its addiction to price hikes far in excess of inflation, often taken several times in a single year.’ While outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” Saunders vowed that Allergan would:

Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts.
Limit price increases to once per year.
Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

Though this seems to be a lone voice in the pharma industry, it makes the CEO stand much taller than his peers.

India:

On this score, India has already put in place the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ to regulate the drug prices of primarily those falling under the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’. However, it is a different matter that as per its own public admission, NPPA is still unable to strictly enforce these price controls, with significant incidences of non-compliance. Therefore, the net benefits to the patients in India for having this mechanism, is indeed arguable.

The core issue:

All that we witness in this area are mostly assurances, promises and good intent on the part of various Governments of different political dispensation, over the last several decades. The same indifference to public health care, in general, continues. Nothing seems to be working effectively in the public health care space of the country, even today. A large section of patients, bearing the tough burden of the highest out of pocket health expenditure in India, are under significant consequential stress of all kinds.

An important part of this scenario is well-captured in the statement of the erstwhile Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016, when he said, “In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened.”

Is it a legacy? Possibly yes. But, who will fix it, and what steps are we taking now for its satisfactory resolution?

The core issue in the pharmaceutical arena is, therefore, about striking an optimal balance between drug profitability and patient affordability, to avoid any adverse impact on access to drugs for a large majority of population in the world.

Conclusion:

Thus, it appears to me, if those who now decide for the people’s health interest, also refuse to wake up from deep slumber and remain as indifferent as before, soon we may hear or read or experience yet another or more of similar deplorable developments, having serious adverse repercussions on the patients.

Interestingly, despite such incidents, pharma stocks remain generally unaffected and buoyant. Its overall trend continues heading north, factoring-in that no implementable Government action is forthcoming, for obvious reasons. Consequently, pharma business remains as robust as ever, but the patients continue to suffer increasingly more.

Pharma industry in general, has been seriously attempting to wash its hands off for this scary emerging situation, since long. It blames the governments for trying to throttle the money spinning business with ‘unnecessary’ regulations, as discussed above, for something that is only the state responsibility, as they perceive. The governments, in turn, blame the industry and try to regulate it more strictly. Invariably, the patients in need of right and affordable medical care get caught in this cross-fire – some succeed to overcome the health crisis, but mostly exposing themselves to huge financial uncertainty in the future, many others can’t.

When the business continues to flourish with current business ‘practices’, why would the pharma players bother about rapidly tarnishing industry reputation, and public outcry? Does it really matter at all on the ground, for running a money spinning business machine, especially when there exists a fair chance of stalling the new laws and policies, with deep pockets, as alleged by many?

In this scenario, what else a common man would do while falling seriously ill, except praying to the almighty for divine care and blessings for a speedy recovery, along with possibly lamenting, it’s déjà vu in the pharma industry?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Access

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

‘Digi Gaon’: Will It Augment Access To Affordable Health Care In India?

Déjà Vu In Pharma Industry