Tag Archives: Access

NCDs: Any Wolf Around, In Sheep’s Clothing? 

Posted on by
Reply

Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), such as, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease, are now the leading cause of death in the world, accounting for 63 percent of annual deaths. Over 80 percent of NCDs occur in lower or middle income countries.

Moreover, wide prevalence of NCDs and inadequate patients’ access to related drugs have a profound negative impact on the economic progress of any country. According to various reports, the increase of around just one year of a country’s average life expectancy, could increase its GDP growth by around four percent.

Since long, the global drug industry has been contributing immensely to discover and bring to the market various amazing medicines to effectively treat a spectrum of NCDs. It is still happening, but with a stark different impact on the majority of the patients, across the world. 

There are many important aspects to NCDs, such as, public and private initiatives in their prevention, continuous screening, proper diagnosis, providing most effective treatment, and population’s lifestyle management for more effective disease control. However, in this article, I shall focus only on modern drug pricing, as one of the key barriers for patients’ access to modern drugs for the treatment of these ailments.

Saying something, and doing something else:

In this context, some large pharma lobby groups pontificate that the drug industry recognizes the economic and social impact of NCDs. Many of them also try to widely publicize, that they are working with various stakeholders, such as, the Governments, other payers and patients’ groups, as an active solution partner in lessening this burden. 

Yes, some of them do actively support some programs, mostly to prevent, screen and diagnose these chronic ailments. There are also instances when they try to showcase some of their occasional and complicated, so called ‘patient access’ programs.

Interestingly, a global major even wanted to reap a rich harvest by highlighting one such initiatives to win a patent litigation in the Supreme Court of India. As many would know, the Apex Court of the country did not take cognizance of its real value to patients, as projected by the concerned company, while dictating its final judgement on the Glivec case.

To many independent experts, these could most probably be part of a grand façade to justify the high drug prices, which most of the patients can’t afford, and also is an attempt to manage their fast eroding overall public image. On the other hand, they ‘religiously’ continue to keep increasing the drug prices arbitrarily, including those of NCDs. I shall dwell on it below.

Impeding patient access to modern drugs:

Despite all these developments, the issue of general affordability of most effective available drugs, even by the payers, such as, many Governments and the health insurance companies, are seriously impeding the patient access to these medicines.

Such exorbitant treatment costs with modern and more effective drugs is creating almost an impregnable barrier for access to these medicines, mostly for those patients incurring Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on health care. In a situation like this, where the volume sales do not increase significantly, to maintain the business growth the manufacturers of these drugs further hike up their product prices to a jaw dropping level, as perceived by both the patients and the payers.

This overall pricing environment is now posing a major challenge to many even in many developed countries of the world, including the United States.

Even the sky is not the limit:

Today, for a drug price increase not even the sky is the limit. Recently, the Census Bureau, Commerce Department of the United States (US) announced May 2016 sales of merchant wholesalers of various industries in the country. According to this report, the total pharma sales by manufacturers to pharmacies, hospitals, and others in the distribution chain reflected a buoyant increase of a hefty 11.3 percent from a year ago, especially when most other sectors showed sluggishness in growth.

The obvious question, therefore, that comes up, are the Americans now consuming more pharmaceutical products than in the past? The answer, however, is negative, though not very surprising to many.

In that case, is this increase in growth coming primarily from price increases of drugs, which are mostly used for the treatment of chronic ailments? The answer now will be an affirmative one. 

How much price increase is enough?

This question becomes quite relevant, when a large section of even Americans starts raising their voices against high drug price, as it is adversely impacting their access to those drugs. 

If this question is put slightly differently, such as, when Apple Inc. can take an annual price increase of around 10 percent for its iPhones in the Unites States (US), how much drug price increases the pharma companies are possibly taking every year in the same country? This interesting point was deliberated in an article published in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on July 14, 2016. 

Price increases driving growth:

According to this article, pharmaceutical prices in the US rose by 9.8 percent from May 2015 through May 2016. This is the second-highest increase among the 20 largest products and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, with investment services ranking first.

Majority of pharma companies keeps increasing prices also for a large section drugs used in the treatment of NCDs, which require almost lifelong therapy for the patients to lead a normal and meaningful life.

I am trying to give below a flavor of such drug price increases, both for NCDs and communicable diseases, quoting a few examples from the above WSJ article:

  • Biogen Inc. reported a 15 percent increase to US$ 744.3 million in US sales of its Multiple Sclerosis (MS) drug Tecfidera in the first quarter, primarily due to price increases. The local revenue for Biogen’s other biggest-selling products, Avonex, used in the relapsing form of multiple sclerosis, and Tysabri used in multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease, also benefited from higher prices.
  • The sales of Giliead Science’s Truvada, used as a preventive treatment for HIV rose 16 percent in the quarter, on the back of higher prices, and also increased use as a preventive treatment for HIV.
  • Global sales of Amgen Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Enbrel rose 24 percent in the first three months of the year, driven primarily by a higher net selling price.
  • US sales for AbbVie Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Humira rose 32 percent in the first quarter, due to price increases and higher prescription volume. 
  • Pfizer Inc.’s US price increases and, in some cases greater prescription volume, helped drive higher revenue for nine drugs representing US$2 billion in US revenue.

Payers have started reacting:

Responding to this development, Express Scripts’ National Preferred Formulary (NPF) of the US, which is one of the most widely used drug list in the United States, providing prescription drug coverage guidelines for 25 million Americans, has excluded many drugs from its 2017 list. This exclusion covers some brands, such as, Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster GLP-1 diabetes drug Victoza and two of its top-selling insulins.

Similarly, another large American retail and health care company CVS Health’s 2017 formulary does not feature, among many other drugs, Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin Lantus along with its follow-up Toujeo, making it the largest commercial product ever excluded from a formulary. 

‘The playbook used for a number of years is over’:

In an article of August 04, 2016 titled, “Drug lobby plans a counterattack on prices”, a senior director of the public affairs firm APCO Worldwide, which represents several drug companies, and a former HHS official under President George W. Bush was quoted saying, in the context of pharma companies and their lobby groups that, the reality, the message and the playbook used for a number of years is over. The industry can no longer defend high drug prices by pointing to the pricey research and development that goes into innovative medicines. They have to move on, he added.

Indian scenario:

The Indian scenario is much worse, with OoP expenditure on drugs being around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. It could be even more, if only NCDs are considered. This situation raises a red flag, especially considering the WHO report released on January 20, 2015 that highlights NCDs are estimated to have accounted for 60 per cent of the deaths in India in 2014.

Some of the examples are as follows:

  • An ICMR-INDAIB study, published in September 2011, on diabetes prevalence in India indicate that the epidemic is progressing rapidly across the nation, and has already affected a total of 62.4 million persons in 2011. With proper diagnosis and screening this figure may increase to a dangerous level in India.
  • According to WHO, almost 2.6 million Indians are predicted to die due to coronary heart disease (CHD), which constitutes 54.1 percent of all CVD deaths in India by 2020. 
  • A March 2012 ‘The Lancet’ study found that nearly six lakh Indians die of cancer every year, with 70 percent of these deaths between the ages of 30-69 years.
  • A report titled “Dementia in Asia Pacific Region” released in November 2014, at the 17th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) states that by 2050, the number of people in India suffering from dementia will rise to over 12 million.

Carefully assessing the enormous pharma business opportunity, mainly due to increasing health awareness and fast growing per capita income in the country, pharma players operating in India have become very active in the NCD area, in different ways. However, one strategy remains unchanged, which is continuous increase in modern drug prices, even at the cost of volume increase, frequently taking them beyond affordability of a large section of patients in India. 

Indian Government also reacted:

Recognizing, and basically to address this critical problem, just as what has is now happening in other parts of the globe too, the Union Ministry of Health was compelled to take strong measures, especially in the absence of Universal Health Care (UHC) in India. The Government recently revised the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) by adding many more modern drugs for NCDs in the list, to facilitate bringing them under the drug price control mechanism of the country.

Many company’s evading drug price control:

The Union Chemicals and Fertilizers minister Mr. Ananth Kumar informed the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament on July 28, 2016 that various drug price regulatory measures taken by the government have helped consumers save Rs 4,988 crore over the last two years.

This saving may well be just on the paper. On the ground, have the consumers been really benefited out of these measures, and if so, to that much extent? 

The answer wouldn’t be too ferret out, when one takes into account the reply of the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, Mr. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir to the Lok Sabha of the Parliament on March 08, 2016. The Minister informed the lawmakers that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is trying to recover a whopping Rs 4,551 crore, including interest, from various pharma companies for overcharging as of February 2016. Out of this total amount, Rs 3,698.32 crore, representing about 82 per cent of the total outstanding amount, is under litigation in various High Courts and Supreme Court spreading across 1,389 cases, the Minister further said.

The question, therefore, arises, how much benefit of the drug price control of essential medicines is actually benefitting the patients, and how much is being evaded by the pharma players?

Price increases driving Indian pharma industry growth:

In India too, a large number of pharma companies are increasing prices, including a large proportion of those drugs, which are used in the treatment of NCDs, requiring almost lifelong therapy for the sufferers to lead a normal and meaningful life.

The exorbitant treatment cost for many NCDs, with the modern and more effective drugs, is seriously impeding the patient access. As a cascading effect, the manufacturers of these drugs are further jacking up their prices to a much higher level for achieving their business growth objectives. This is very similar to what is happening also in the developed countries, including the US. 

That price increases are primarily driving the growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) is vindicated by the following table, which has been compiled from the monthly retail audit reports of the well-reputed organization AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Private Limited:

IPM growth through price increases versus volume (July 2015 to June 2016):

Growth % Jun 16 May April Mar Feb Jan 16 Dec 15 Nov Oct Sept Aug July 15
Price 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.2 1.0 13.2 9.9 13.2 12.9
Volume -0.6 -4.4 3.2 -5.3 3.7 1.3 2.8 5.0 5.5 1.4 1.6 3.3

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd

Conclusion:

Around the world, arbitrary drug price increases almost on a continuous basis, including in the low inflation countries that may now include India, has sparked-off a raging global debate. Even the Presidential nominees for the forthcoming general election in the United States are taking keen interest on the subject.

As highlighted in a recent issue of the magazine Politico, powerful pharma lobby groups are also gearing up to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to counter this ‘threat’, as perceived by them.

A number of hectic activities in this area, apparently, have started in India too, mainly to divert the focus of the stakeholders from arbitrary drug price increases to other important areas such as, NCDs. This usually happens by making the vested interests eulogizing how much good work these pharma companies are doing in this particular area, only to serve the patients’ health interest. 

Many global pharma players seem to still believe that the same old message from the same old playbook would work even today, at least in India, to defend high drug prices on the contentious ground of pricey R&D that goes into innovative medicines. I reckon, almost gone are those days, even in India.

NCDs need to be fought, unitedly, with effective public, private initiatives and without any self-serving agenda of any participants. The issue needs to deliberated not in the five-star hotels, neither in front of a captive audience, nor with an intent of getting favorable media coverage, but on the real ground, along the general population, both in the urban and the hinterlands of India.

These initiatives would appear praiseworthy to many, when the ultimate aim of any stakeholder, including the doctors and the pharma players, won’t be to make the consumers consume more of high priced medicines, in many cases even by selling their frugal assets. The key aim, I believe, should be to facilitate prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment with affordable modern medicines, and finally to help manage the ailments well, through the rest of the life of any sufferers.

In the battle against NCDs, it is also important to know well and segregate, if there is any wolf around, in sheep’s clothing.

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.

Healthcare: Unwrapping The Union Budget (2016-17)

Posted on by
Reply

February 29, 2016 was the day of high expectations for many, especially to get to know the focus areas of public resource allocations of the incumbent governments in its third year of office. Healthcare sector too awaited eager to see something substantial in the resource allocation, that would make a fundamental difference in the public health systems and services in India.

The general expectation was high, as its main ruling party had promised to deliver a robust healthcare reform in its Election Manifesto 2014, when it will be voted to power. Some of those critical promises are as follows:

  • “India needs a holistic health care system that is universally accessible, affordable and effective and drastically reduces the out of pocket spending on health.
  • NRHM has failed to meet the objectives and will be radically reformed.
  • The Party accords high priority to health sector, which is crucial for securing the economy.
  • The overarching goal of healthcare would be to provide, ‘Health Assurance to all Indians and to reduce the out of pocket spending on health care’, with the help of state governments.
  • The current situation calls for radical reforms in the healthcare system with regards to national healthcare programs and delivery, medical education and training and financing of healthcare.”
  • The manifesto then went into the details of each reform areas, after stating, “the last healthcare policy dates back to 2002; India now needs a comprehensive healthcare policy to address the complex healthcare challenges, keeping in view the developments in the healthcare sector and the changing demographics. The party will initiate the New Health Policy.”

Over three years have passed since then, unfortunately even the new and comprehensive healthcare policy is not in place, just yet.

In that backdrop, we all witnessed in the budget presentation, a well-wrapped package for healthcare in India. The ‘attractive’ packaging label, listing each element of its broad content, was outwardly impressive and attracted almost instant eulogy from a number of industry commentators.

In this article, I shall first present before you, the healthcare measures announced by the Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely in his Budget speech (2016-17), and then would unwrap the package to discuss briefly the implications of each of these three key elements, and the possible impact.

Union Budgetary Proposals on healthcare:

While proposing his Union Budget Proposal (2016-17), the Minister mostly covered ‘healthcare’ in points 52, 53, 54 and 55 of his speech, as follows:

A. Improving access to healthcare: 

While proposing a key measure to improve access to healthcare, the Minister acknowledged before the Parliament:

  • Catastrophic health events are the single most important cause of unforeseen out-of-pocket expenditure which pushes lakhs of households below the poverty line every year. 
  • Serious illnesses of family members cause severe stress on the financial circumstances of poor and economically weak families, shaking the foundation of their economic security.

In the above backdrop, the Minister proposed that, in order to help such families, the Government will launch a new health protection scheme, which will provide health cover up to Rs. One lakh (Rs. 100,000) per family. For senior citizens, age 60 years and above, belonging to this category, an additional top-up package up to Rs. 30,000 will be provided.

B. Availability of quality medicines at affordable prices:

Acknowledging the fact that making quality medicines available at affordable prices has been a key challenge for the country, the Minister reiterated that the Government will reinvigorate the supply of generic drugs. Moving towards this direction, 3,000 Stores under Prime Minister’s Jan Aushadhi Yojana will be opened during 2016-17. 

C. Addressing an important need of end-stage renal disease patients:

The Minister informed the Parliament that around 2.2 lakh new patients of End Stage Renal Disease gets added in India every year, resulting in additional demand for 3.4 crore dialysis sessions. With approximately 4,950 dialysis centers in India, largely in the private sector and concentrated in the major towns, the demand is only half met. Every dialysis session costs about Rs. 2,000 – an annual expenditure of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Besides, most families have to undertake frequent trips, often over long distances, to access dialysis services, incurring heavy travel costs and loss of wages.

To address this situation, the FM proposed to start a ‘National Dialysis Services Program’. Funds will be made available through PPP mode under the National Health Mission, to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals. To reduce the cost, he proposed to exempt certain parts of dialysis equipment from basic customs duty, excise/CVD and SAD.

Unwrapping the healthcare budget proposal: 

Let me hasten to add at this stage that I have not seen the fine prints of each of these proposals, as yet. My analysis is solely based on the budget speech. 

A. Improving access to healthcare:

At Rs. 19,037 crores, the budgetary allocation for the ‘National Health Mission (NHM)’ remains almost the same as the previous year. Overall investments to improve healthcare infrastructure still remaining absolutely meager, the ad hoc strategy of the Government to improve access to healthcare is an insurance-centered, rather than universal, free and cashless health services, as was earlier suggested by the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ constituted earlier by the Government. 

According to the analysis of National Sample Survey (NSS) data for 2014, published in the Economic&PoliticalWeekly dated August 15, 2015, only 13.1 percent of rural and 12 percent of urban residents are covered by government-funded insurance schemes, though the official data states 25 percent coverage. The NSS data also shows an increase in the out-of-pocket expenditure in these areas.

This has happened, even after the promotion of the Governments own insurance-based schemes, such as, the RSBY by the Central Government and also similar schemes by the State Governments, such as, Arogyasri in Andhra Pradesh, over a decade.

Additionally, there are many other reports, which clearly highlight that just pushing for increased insurance coverage, does neither help the poorest of the poor of society, nor does it ensure better and more efficient financial protection.  

A paper of October 9, 2013 titled, “Universal Health Coverage – Why health insurance schemes are leaving the poor behind” reiterates that funding through progressive taxation is the key to achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage’. Even the poorest countries can raise more revenue for health through taxes. Oxfam estimates that improving tax collection in 52 developing countries could raise an additional US$269 billion, which is enough to double health budgets in these countries.

The world over, and mostly in the OECD countries, serious doubts are still being expressed about the effectiveness of targeted insurance-based health schemes, instead of public funded focus on ‘Universal Health Care’. 

Looking in isolation, while the measure of incremental health insurance coverage, as proposed by the Minister, seems to be a good intent to improve access to healthcare to some people, but is devoid of a clearly charted holistic pathway, based on the lessons learnt from the past. Just the announcement of intent may, therefore, not be effective on the ground. 

Currently, India has the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), launched by the Labor and Employment Ministry on April 1, 2008, to provide health insurance coverage to ‘Below Poverty Line (BPL)’ families. RSBY coverage extends to five members of a family-head of the household, spouse and up to three dependents, who are entitled to hospitalization coverage of up to Rs 30,000 for most diseases. In this insurance scheme, the beneficiaries require to pay only Rs 30 as registration fee, while Central and state governments pay premium to the insurer.

It is still not clear to me, whether, the newly announced insurance coverage is a separate scheme all together with details to be announced later or a part of RSBY initiative.

Besides all these, the fundamental question, however, that would still keep haunting, how would the existing mostly rickety rural brick and mortar healthcare infrastructure; non-availability of right medicines at the right time and at the right places; acute shortages of medics and paramedics, satisfactorily address the incremental needs, thus created? 

B. ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’: 

This does not seem to be a new initiative, at all. Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses. Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs. 

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India. If the initiative becomes successful, depending on the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional.

More recently, according to a June 02, 2015 report, “under the new business plan approved in August 2013, a target of opening 3,000 Jan Aushadhi stores during the 12th plan period i.e. from 2013-14 to 2016-17 was fixed. As per the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers report in March 2015, till date only 170 Jan Aushadhi stores have been opened, of which only 99 are functional.” 

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

  • A lackluster approach of State governments
  • Poor adherence to prescription of generic drugs by doctors,
  • Managerial/ implementation failures of CPSU/ BPPI.
  • Only 85 medicines spread across 11 therapeutic categories were supplied to the stores and the mean availability of these drugs was found to be 33.45 percent, with wide variations across therapeutic categories.

With all the available information, it appears that the same old and unsuccessful scheme, even during the tenure of the present Government, since the last 3 years, has been repackaged and announced with a new name “Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Scheme” in the Union Budget 2016-17. 

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time, but will it start working now, all of a sudden, despite sustained failure?

Besides strong support required from the State Governments, and other factors as enlisted above, making the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names would be a critical factor to make the “Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi scheme’ a success and primarily to extend desirable benefits to a sizeable section of both the urban and rural poor. The question, thus, remains, how would the Government ensure that the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names?  

C. National Dialysis Services Program: 

The proposal for the ‘National Dialysis Services Program’ to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals, especially, due to a staggering number of around 2.2 lakh patients of ‘End Stage Renal Disease’ in India every year, is yet another laudable intent in isolation, though it emerges just as an ad hoc measure in the healthcare space of the country, sans the new National Health Policy.

Conclusion:

In my article last week titled, “Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?”, I wrote, as the new ‘National Health Policy’ is still not in place, we may, at best see in the Union Budget Proposals (2016-17), some ad hoc measures for healthcare.

While unwrapping this budget speech of the, it appears that on a broader perspective the measures proposed in the budget have turned out exactly that way.

Nonetheless, the proposal of the Finance Minister for a special patent regime with a 10 percent rate of tax on income from worldwide commercialization of patents, which are developed and registered in India, is an excellent one, by any standard, for the innovators.

With frugal public health expenditure of just around 1 percent of GDP, as compared to 3.5 percent of China and 5 percent of Brazil, with larger GDP base, successive Governments of India has been blatantly neglecting public healthcare, for far too long, which continues even today.

At a time, when the Government is mulling making health a fundamental right for Indian citizens, similar to education, and making denial of health an offense, besides its earlier other promises, these budgetary measures are disappointing to many.

Overall, the Union Budget Proposals, made by the Finance Minister for 2016-17, falls far too short of reasonable expectations of any deserving citizen of the country. Neither does any such healthcare measure appear holistic to me, besides being sustainable, as I unwrap the Minister’s healthcare package and take a closer look at it.

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.

The ‘Moonshot’: Access To World-Class Cancer Care, For All

Posted on by
Reply

As in every year, February the 4th was celebrated as the ‘World Cancer Day’, across the world, in 2016, as well. Its main objective is to commemorate all the efforts done by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), including the governmental and nongovernmental health organizations towards formulating a grand strategy to fight against cancer. The strategy is expected to span across cancer prevention, detection and treatment, for all. The key goal of this commendable initiative is to reduce illness and death caused by cancer by 2020, the world over.

The event also encourages to explore various ways to align individuals and groups to do their bit in reducing both the local and the global burden of disease related to cancer.

The last Thursday, the ‘World Cancer Day’ was celebrated in India too, albeit in a low key, as I could fathom, despite its alarmingly ascending trend in the country.

In this context, I would start with my first and a very small example of a sharply contrasting mindset to address the vexing issue of cancer between the largest democracy of the world – India, and the oldest democracy of the globe – America.

The United States (US) this year, like the previous five years on a trot, made this event visible for a large section of people to encourage them to think and act against cancer, in several different ways that they can. The imposing landmark in New York – the magnificent ‘Empire State Building’ was lit in blue and orange, the colors of the ‘Union for International Cancer Control (UICC’), the organizers of this annual event.

A brief recap:

Cancer is now one of the leading causes of death, not just in India, but across the world. Its rate is expected only to go up further in the years ahead, and that too at a brisk pace. Just as the disease is fast spreading across the socioeconomic spectrum, all over, so are the tough access barriers for effective cancer diagnosis, treatment and care, for all, increasing by manifold.

Urgent action is called for in most of the countries of the world by the respective Governments to save precious lives, by effectively overcoming most of these hurdles, soon.

With this backdrop, in this article, I shall explore what is happening on the ground in this direction, at present, drawing examples from the two greatest democracies of the world.

The largest democracy of the world:

Delivering affordable and equitable care for cancer to all, is one of greatest public health challenges of the largest democracy of the world – India. The country is required to face this challenge boldly and squarely, to mitigate the devastating socioeconomic and human costs that this disease is already costing our nation.

This point was reiterated by one of the lead authors of an article published by ‘The Lancet Oncology’ on April 11, 2014. The paper discussed the epidemiology and social context of the growing burden of cancer in India.

According to this paper, around 600,000 – 700,000 deaths in India were caused by cancer in 2012, with more than 1 million new cases of this life threatening disease being diagnosed every year.

Further, the World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that every year, around 145,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in India. Unfortunately, around half of them had succumbed to the disease, in 2008.

However, all these numbers should be taken into consideration carefully factoring in very low rates of early-stage detection and poor treatment outcomes in the country.

In this prevailing scenario, cancer is fast becoming a major public health concern in India, with the number of new cancer cases projected to nearly double within the next 20 years.

The average cost of cancer treatment in India:

According to the above ‘Lancet Oncology’ report, in India, the average cost of treating a typical patient with cancer at a government facility would come around US$593. Whereas, the average annual income per person is only U$ 1,219, with 27.5 percent of the population living on or below a daily income level of US$ 0.4.

Besides, most district hospitals, including the regional cancer centers do not have the requisite facilities required to provide quality cancer care to all those patients who need them.

Quoting experts, a newspaper report on June 19, 2014 also stated, around 50 per cent of the diagnosed cancer patients, who also commence their treatments, stop visiting hospitals after two or three cycles of chemotherapy, as they find the cost of treatment is not affordable to them. They also drop out from regular follow-up visits, say the doctors.

Low Government funding for healthcare:

As a result of abysmally poor public funding for healthcare in India, both by the Central and most of the State Governments, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of cancer is increasingly becoming out of pocket, and being catastrophically expensive, going beyond the reach of a large number of patients suffering from this serious ailment.

The socioeconomic impact:

This pathetic public healthcare system in India adversely affects not only the debt ridden poor and middle-class cancer patients, but also the welfare and education of several generations of their respective families.

Thus, cancer has a profound, both social and economic, consequences for the general population in India. This very often leads to family impoverishment and societal inequity, as the study points out.

The oldest democracy of the world:

The oldest democracy of the world – America, is one of the richest countries in the globe, having perhaps the best healthcare facilities and systems. All the latest drugs and diagnostics are also available there. Despite all these, there is a growing inequity in the cancer treatment in America too, with access to quality diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients becoming a major health, economic and political issue for the country.

‘Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ of August 2015, also expressed concern on the high prices of cancer drugs, which are affecting the care of cancer patients and eventually the American health care system.

The report does ring an alarm bell for high cancer care cost for many patients in America. The ‘Proceedings’ highlighted the following reasons, most of which are, quite interestingly, very similar to India: 

  • Cancer will affect 1 in 3 individuals over their lifetime.
  • Recent trends in insurance coverage put a heavy financial burden on patients, with their out-of-pocket share increasing to 20 percent to 30 percent of the total cost.
  • In 2014, all new US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved cancer drugs were priced above US$ 120,000 per year of use. 
  • The average annual household gross income in the United States is about US$ 52,000.
  • For a patient with cancer who needs one cancer drug that costs US$120,000 per year, the out-of-pocket expenses could be as high as US$25,000 to US$ 30,000 – more than half the average household income and possibly more than the median take-home pay for a year.
  • Thus, cancer patients have to make difficult choices between spending their incomes and liquidating assets on potentially lifesaving therapies or foregoing treatment to provide for family necessities, such as, food, housing and education.
  • This decision is even more critical for senior citizens who are more frequently affected by cancers and have lower incomes and limited assets.
  • Because of costs, about 10 to 20 percent of patients with cancer do not take the prescribed treatment or compromise it. It is documented that the greater the out-of-pocket cost for oral cancer therapies, the lower the compliance. This is a structural disincentive for compliance with some of the most effective and transformative drugs in the history of cancer treatment. 
  • Given the rising incidence of cancer in the aging American population, high cancer drug prices will affect millions of Americans and their immediate families, often repeatedly. 

General public wants the US Government to act:

‘The Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ findings were vindicated by the October 2015 Kaiser Health Tracking poll, which reported, 76 percent of the public believes that a top priority for the American president and Congress should be making high-cost drugs for chronic conditions affordable. Yet another Kaiser poll found 72 percent of Americans believe drug costs are unreasonable and 74 percent think that pharma companies, in general, care more about profits than people.

General public expectations and belief do not seem to be any different in India too. 

I reckon, due to similar reasons in most countries of the world, an urgent action is required from the respective Governments to make cancer diagnosis and treatment affordable to all, sooner than later.

Different responses to the same problem:

Let me reiterate here again, that I am comparing India with America on this issue, not for any other reason, but just to give an example and a feel of how much the promised political intent, made for the benefit of the general population of the country, gets translated into reality in the world’s oldest democracy, as compared to the world’s largest democracy.

In India, despite high sound bytes emanating from various leaders of the principal party in power today, the fragile public healthcare system is still gasping for breath, starved by grossly inadequate resource allocations. This gets reflected on the details of national and state budgetary allocations for healthcare in India.

The delay in finalizing and then putting in place for implementation of the “National Health Policy”, which proposed making health a fundamental right and denial of health an offense, also seems to be of low priority for the national Government, at present. If so, this will indeed be quite contrary to its earlier firm promises on improving healthcare in India.

In the United States, as well, similar promises were made by senior politicians during the last national election campaign. The Presidential candidate for the party, which is now in power, created as much hype with matching sound bytes for healthcare reform in America, while seeking votes.

However, the sharp difference between the two similar situations is, having come to power on November 4, 2008 President Barack Obama, fulfilled his promise with a path breaking healthcare reform in his country. On March 23, 2010 he signed into law the ‘Affordable care Act’. It’s a different matter though, like most political decisions, this one also faced its own share of criticism from the American opposition.

The ‘Moonshot’:

Zeroing in specifically to address the agony of cancer patients in America, President Obama has recently initiated a ‘National Mission’ in this area. He has asked his Vice-President Joe Biden to spearhead this mission and get it done expeditiously. Biden enthusiastically accepted to lead this noble ‘National mission’ for mankind and termed it ‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’. The White House also announced a resource commitment of US$1 billion on this effort over the next two years.

In his ‘White House’ Blog Post of January 13, 2016 the Vice-President wrote about this project, very close to the ‘World Cancer Day’, which is basically symbolic, just as the ‘International Day of Yoga’, but this specific American ‘National mission’ against cancer does not appear to be so, by any stretch of imagination.

The key objective of this mission is indeed profound. With is effective implementation, the American Government wants to ensure that ‘the same care provided to patients at the world’s best cancer centers, is available to everyone who needs it.’

Joe Biden admitted, though several cutting-edge areas of research and care, including cancer immunotherapy, genomics, combination therapies and innovations in data and technology are revolutionary, all these are currently trapped in silos, preventing faster progress and greater reach to patients. 

It’s not just about developing game-changing treatments. It’s about delivering them to those who need them the most. The community oncologists, who treat more than 75 percent of cancer patients, have more limited access to cutting-edge research and advances, even in America, Vice-President Biden elaborated. 

Two key focus areas:

  • Increase resources, both private and public, to fight cancer.
  • Break down silos and bring all the cancer fighters to work together, share information, and end cancer, as we know it.

The goal of this initiative is to double the rate of progress by making a decade worth of advances in five years. He also outlined the details that he would follow to get this mission implemented on the ground within the set time frame.

“If there’s one word that defines who we are as Americans…” – Biden

Joe Biden concluded this announcement with his natural statesmanship, sans any drama, by saying: “If there’s one word that defines who we are as Americans, it’s ‘possibility.’ And these are the moments when we show up.”

The good news is, the project ‘Moonshot’, as the American Vice-President calls it, has already started with the full commitment of the American Government and backed to the hilt by none other than President Obama himself. The American President has already demonstrated to the world, from the very commencement of his Presidency, that he is a project implementer per excellence, as head of the Government.

Some key barriers to effective 'cancer care' in India:

Coming back to the Indian context, experts do indicate that one of the main barriers to cancer care, in the largest democracy of the world – India, is primarily lack of enough public facilities for early detection of cancer. Thus, even when it is detected considerable disease progression usually takes place. Moreover, most patients lack access to expensive cancer treatment and are compelled to give up the treatment for this reason. Consequently, as the data reveals, less than 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer in India survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

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

Conclusion:

It appears to me, even meeting this basic need for cancer care will be extremely challenging with frugal public healthcare spending in India. As I said before, it gets well reflected in the successive annual budgetary allocations for the same, both by the Central and most of the State Governments. Added to this, the ‘National Health Policy’, which was first drafted and released in December 2014 by the Ministry of Health for the stakeholders’ comments, is yet to be put in place. The draft policy recommended, among many others, making health a fundamental right of Indian citizens.

According to ‘The World Bank’ report, the public expenditure for health as a percentage of GDP of the oldest democracy of the world is already hovering over 8, against around just 1 of the largest democracy of the world. On top of this, the present American Government has committed, even more resources to usher in a new era of hope for all cancer patients with its latest ‘National Mission’ – ‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’.

There is a lot to feel good about it, even as an Indian, as this health mission, termed as ‘‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’ by the American Vice-President assures that ‘the same care provided to patients at the world’s best cancer centers, is available to everyone who needs it.’ Its overall benefits could possibly reach even the Indian patients…who knows?

Like 2016, and the previous years, the ‘World Cancer Day’ would come and go with the turn of every calendar year. Hopefully, things will be quite different sometime in future. India would possibly initiate the much awaited health care reform in the country and more specifically effective ‘cancer care’ for all, with requisite budgetary provisions in place. Till then, do the cancer patients in India have any other choice, but to eagerly wait for it, hoping for the best outcome?

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.

 

Just 16% Of Indian Population Has Access To Free Or Partially-Free Health Care?

Posted on by
Reply

Is health care currently a low priority area for the Government of India? Probably yes, and thus it is worth trying to fathom it out.

Besides planned frugal spending on overall public health in 2015-16, even as compared to the past trend, two other health related budgetary decisions of the Government are indeed baffling, at the very least.

As many of you, I too know that the incumbent Government in its first full-year budget of 2015-16 has sharply reduced the budgetary allocation on many important health related other projects, such as:

- Union budget allocation for the National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP) that aims at providing safe drinking water to 20,000 villages and hamlets across India, has been drastically reduced this year. Curiously, this decision has been taken at a time, when India loses 200 million person days and Rs 36,600 crore every year due to water-related diseases.

- The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, which provides food, preschool education, and primary health care to children under 6 years of age and their mothers, has also been hit by a 54.19 percent budget cut this year. This decision too of cutting public expenditure on food, nutrition and health care for children to more than half, defies any logic, especially when 40 percent of growth stunted children in the world are reportedly from India, exceeding the number of even sub-Saharan Africa.

I hasten to add that the Union budget 2015-16 has indicated, as the states’ share in the net proceeds of the union tax revenues has increased, as per recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, these central Government programs will now be run with a changed funding pattern between the Union and states. However, according to financial experts in these areas, regardless of devolution, the total money available to run these critical projects is sharply decreasing.

That said, on the other pages of the same Union Budget, public funding in the current fiscal year for bridges and roads has more than doubled. The budgetary allocation for these two areas now stands more than even education.

I deliberated on similar subject of access to health care in my blog of March 16, 2015, titled, “With Frugal Public Resource Allocation Quo Vadis Healthcare in India?”

Health care sector is important for job creation too:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health care sector is one of the largest job creators, not just in India, but globally. Thus, Indian health care industry being one of the fastest growing industrial turf in the country with a reasonable base, deserves a sharper focus of the Government.

Additionally, the socio-economic benefits that this sector provides in creating a sustainable, healthy and highly productive work force, has been well documented and can’t just be wished away, in any case.

The neglect is intriguing:

Currently, total healthcare spend of India is no more than 4.2 percent of the GDP with public spending being just 1.2 percent of it. Other BRICS nations are way ahead of India, in this area too. To set a direction on country’s public healthcare spend, breaking the jinx of a long period of time, the draft National Health Policy 2015 of the Government aimed at initial increase in health expenditure to 2 percent of the GDP.

As a result of the legacy of neglect over a long period of time, which continues albeit more blatantly even today, only 16 percent of the Indian population declares today that they have access to free or partially-free health care. I shall dwell on this area subsequently in this article.

Keeping these in perspective, it was intriguing, when the union budgetary allocation for health care in 2015-16 was kept at Rs. 297 billion or U$4.81 billion for its main health department, almost the same outlay as in the previous budget.

When compared against public fund allocations, such as, US$ 93 billion for highway projects or US$ 7.53 billion for 100 smart cities in the country, one will get a realistic perspective of this meager health budget allocation, in terms of effectively addressing the health care needs of around 1.25 billion people of India. Over 70 percent of this population live in the hinterland.

Agreed that the Government focus on these ‘infrastructure projects’ are not unimportant by any means. Nevertheless, the above comparison only highlights how much priority the Government assigns to the health care sector of India and for the health of its citizens. This issue assumes even greater significance in combating several challenging health situations, such as, ongoing fight against increasing incidence of life-long chronic ailments and deadly life-threatening diseases like, cancer, fueling already high rate of morbidity and mortality in the high country.

A quick glimpse on a few outcomes of neglect:

The Working Paper No. 1184 dated January 8, 2015, titled “Improving Health Outcomes And Health Care In India” of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), highlights some interesting points, as follows:

  • Chronic diseases are the biggest causes of death and disability accounting for 50 percent of deaths, with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, respiratory conditions and cancers figuring most prominently.
  • Preventive interventions such as improving access to a clean water supply, reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS through better sexual education, and vaccination campaigns for other diseases will each deliver more significant returns in life years.
  • Vaccination rates for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, for measles and for hepatitis B are all much lower than in OECD and peer countries.
  • Minimal access to free or partially-free health care.

It is an irony that ‘life expectancy’ in India still remains well below the countries at a similar level of development.

Abysmal overall hygienic conditions:

The OECD survey brings to the fore  abysmal hygienic conditions still prevailing in India. It can only be improved through active intervention of the Government with necessary budgetary allocations, sans photo ops for some celebrities and most politicians. Sincere support and participation of the civil society and intelligentsia, in general, are also equally important.

The paper underscores, among others, the following extremely unhygienic conditions still prevailing both in urban and rural India:

  • Most households in rural India do not defecate in a toilet or latrine, which leads to infant and child diseases (such as diarrhea) and can account for much of the variation in average child height. Even today the sight of poor children defecating openly in the streets, that too in a city like Mumbai, is also not very uncommon.
  • The burning of solid fuels in particular (undertaken by more than 80 percent of the population in cooking) is a major risk factor behind ischemic heart disease, lower-respiratory tract infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and could also increase cataracts and stroke.
  • Exposure to air pollution is a significant problem.
  • Many of the poor continue to smoke heavily.
  • 11 of the lowest income quintile did not undertake sufficient physical activity, compared with 16 percent in the highest income quintile.

India provides minimal access to free or partially-free health care:

As I mentioned above, India provides minimal access to free or partially-free healthcare to its citizens, as compared to all the BRICS nations, many other countries in South East Asia and even in Africa.

The above OECD paper states that with poor health intertwined with poverty, the greatest gains lie with policies that address the social conditions which enable combating communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Among BRICS countries, India provides least access to ‘Free or Partially-Free Health Care’ Services to its general population. This is despite being the largest democracy in the world, which is now striving hard to emerge as an economic and military superpowers.

The following study shows that only 16 percent of the Indian population declares having access to free or partially-free health care from the government:

BRICS Countries % surveyed said ‘Yes’ to the question: “Does your household have access to free or partially free health care from the State”
India 16
Brazil 24
China 73
Russia 96
South Africa 62

Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute, Emerging Consumer Survey Databook 2014.

As the OECD paper states, in this study approximately 1500 respondents were surveyed in each country, with India and China both having larger sample size of 2500. The male-to-female split between respondents was roughly 50:50 in all cases with rural-to-urban split varying by country.

Poor satisfaction level with existing health care services:

This is very important; as public facilities are the predominant source of qualified health professionals in rural areas where much of the Indian poor reside. In addition, significant population growth is occurring in urban slums, where urban public health care facilities are struggling to provide basic services. In a situation like this, slum dwellers face challenging economic barriers to accessing expensive private health care services (MoHFW, 2012).

The OECD survey indicates that 41 percent of those in rural areas and 45 percent in urban areas were not satisfied with treatment by their doctors or facility.

The reason attributed to this dissatisfaction are as follows:

  • Distance was cited by 21 percent of people in rural areas and 14 percent in urban areas.
  • Public health care centers remain closed more than half the time and lack basic medical supplies, such as stethoscopes and blood pressure scales.
  • Non-availability of required services was cited by 30 percent of people in rural areas and 26 percent in urban areas.

This is quite credible, as according to the Government’s own estimates:

- 10 percent of primary health care centers are without a doctor

- 37 percent are without a laboratory technician

- 25 percent without a pharmacist (MoHFW, 2012)

The above picture is quite consistent with large scale surveys in poor communities of India, by OECD.

Health care business for up market is booming:

Growing inequitable distribution of healthcare products and services is now wide open and blatant, more than ever before. There is no signal yet that the Government would soon consider health care sector as its one of the key focus areas, along with education, just as infrastructure, such as, building roads, highways, e-highways, flyovers, bridges and smart cities.

For up-market patients, the private sector is creating world class facilities in India. We can see today a good number of ‘five-star’ hospitals, with more number of newer ones coming up offering jaw-dropping facilities, quite akin to, may be even surpassing what are being offered for patients’ luxurious comfort in the developed world. Although these facilities cost a fortune, one would usually need to be in a queue to get admitted there for any medical or surgical treatment.

Most of these hospitals are now in high demand for ‘medical tourism’. According to available reports India currently caters to health care needs of over 200,000 foreign patients. ‘Medical tourism’ business reportedly fetched around US$ 2 billion to India in 2012.

On the flip side of it, as we all read in the recent media reports, some of these hospitals in Delhi refused admission even to seriously ill dengue patients, as they can’t afford such facilities. A few of these patients ultimately succumbed to the disease and the parents of one such poor child, who died without any hospital treatment in that process, committed suicide unable to withstand the irreparable and tragic loss.

Giving ‘Infrastructure Status’ to health care sector:

When creating basic infrastructure is the priority area of the present Government for financial resource allocation, why not give ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector now? This is not just for the heck of it, but purely based on merit and earlier detail evaluation by a Government Committee of experts.

To address the critical health care needs for the vast Indian population with appropriate infrastructure, quality products, services and manpower, providing ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector could facilitate the whole process. Additionally, it can transform the Indian healthcare sector as one of the biggest job-generating industry too.

This has been a key demand of the industry until recently, though not so much being talked about it today. A few years back, the previous Government was reportedly mulling to assign full fledged infrastructure status to the healthcare sector, as it merits inclusion in the category of ‘infrastructure’, satisfying all the nine criteria set by the erstwhile Rangarajan Committee.

I find in my archive, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) also demanded ‘infrastructure status’ for the health care sector in its pre-union budget memorandum for 2010-11. In that proposal CII had estimated that health care industry in India requires an investment of around US$80 billion, whereas in the current fiscal year the public expenditure on health still languishes at U$4.81 billion.

This specific issue seems to have taken a back seat today, for reasons not known to me. However, it is interesting to note that not just the Government apathy, no such demand is being made today by the large multi-industry trade associations of India, as vociferously as we witness, for example, in the case of ‘The Goods and Service Tax (GST) Bill’.

Health care debate is not to the fore today:

Critical health care issues of the country don’t seem to be in the fore front today for comprehensive debates even for the Indian main stream media, to influence the government.

We have been experiencing for quite while that Indian media, including social media, in general, usually goes ballistic 24×7 mostly with selective sensational topics. These may include, among others…glitzy events on Government’s high profile advocacy initiatives to attract more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from large overseas companies…Or back home some unfortunate and tragic Dengue fever related deaths due to negligence just in Delhi, though the same and equally grave incidences taking place in the other states of India, are hardly getting any coverage…Or on some high profile alleged murder pot-boilers announcing media verdict conclusively, even before completion of police investigation and charge-sheet being filed in a court of law.

These are probably neither bad, nor unimportant, nor avoidable, nor can come within the ambit of any media criticism. I am also not trying to do that, either.

As the saying goes, variety is the spice of life. We, therefore, generally want to get a feel of it everyday early in the morning, mostly glancing through the newspaper headlines, or in the late evening watching impatient anchor with strong personal opinion trying hard to dominate over all other participants in high-decibel ‘TV debates’, as these are called by the respective channels.

In an era of sensationalized and eye-ball grabbing ‘Breaking News’ of all kinds, flashing everywhere almost every now and then, critical health care issues seem to have become a mundane subject to the newsmakers for any meaningful debate to influence the Government. Serious debates on critical health care issues presumably would not generate all important Television Rating Points (TRPs) to the TV channel owners. Though I have no idea, the TRP of such debates  probably has been estimated to be even lesser as compared to the cacophony aired by the TV channels on the cost to exchequer for the MPs subsidized meals in the Indian Parliament…with intermittent high pitch ‘war cry’ of the dominating anchor… ‘the nation wants to know this’.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, health care environment impacts all of us, quite appreciably. There is not even an iota of doubt on it. However, we can feel it mostly when the reality hits us or our families hard…very hard, as serious and cruel ailments strike suddenly, or as we face avoidable disease related deaths of our near and dear ones, or when illness makes a loving one virtually incapacitated, even after facing financial bankruptcy.

Health care is a serious matter for all of us, just as it is a serious and critical business for every nation and every Government. This criticality factor is independent of whatever level of economic development the country is aspiring for. Thus, the indifference of the Indian Government, if I may say so, despite promising so much on health care earlier this year, is intriguing, and more so, when just 16 percent of the total population has access to free or partially-free health care in our India of the 21st century.

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.

Evolving Scenario of Non-Personal Promotion in Pharma Marketing

Posted on by
Reply

In the Indian pharmaceutical industry, ‘Non-Personal Promotion (NPP)’ is gradually expected to assume much greater strategic importance than what it is today, if at all, in the overall strategic marketing ball game.

This process would get hastened as and when the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) decides to ‘walk the talk’ with mandatory implementation requirement of its ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, with necessary teeth built into it for proper enforcement. Thereafter, pharma sales and marketing process would possibly not remain quite the same.

In that scenario, dolling out ‘Freebies’ of various kinds and values to the customers, that has been happening over a long period of time, would attract penal consequences as would be defined by the Government.

This, in turn, is expected to create virtually a level playing field for all the pharma players in the brand marketing warfare, irrespective of how deep their pockets are. Consequently, without any lucrative incentives to offer to the important doctors, Medical Representatives (MRs) in general, in my view, would find access to busy important doctors becoming increasingly tougher, and much less productive.

Not just an imagination:

This is not totally an imaginary situation, as it has already started happening elsewhere.

Stringent legal and regulatory measures are now being put in place, both for the pharmaceutical companies and also for the doctors, in various developed markets of the world to minimize alleged marketing malpractices.

In tandem, following noteworthy developments are taking place more frequently than ever before:

  • A large number of high value penalties are being regularly levied by the judiciary and/or regulatory authorities of various countries to many big name global pharma players for alleged marketing malpractices.
  • Some measurable changes are taking place in the area of ‘access to busy medical practitioners’ by the MRs, more in those countries.

A recent study:

According to a recent study of 2015 by ZS Associates, published in ‘AccessMonitor™ 2015’, MRs’ access to important prescribers are declining steadily over the last 6 to 7 years. This study was based on analysis of ‘Call Reports’ of 70 percent of all US pharma companies’ MRs. The report reviewed in great detail how often over 400,000 physicians and other prescribers meet with MRs who visit their offices.

The decrease in MR access to prescribers from 2008 to 2015 was captured as follows:

Year MR Access to Prescribers (%)
2015 47
2014 51
2013 55
2008 80

Source: ‘AccessMonitor™ 2015

This trend is indeed striking. It won’t be much difficult either to ascribe a plausible reason to it, when viewed in perspectives of increasingly tough pharma sales and marketing environment in the US.

Over a period of time, stringent laws and regulations, both for the prescribers and also for the pharma players, are being strictly enforced.  The ‘cause and effect’ of the overall development can possibly be drawn, when one finds in the above report that throughout the US, more than half of all doctors are voluntarily “access restricted” in varying degree, as on date.

Most impacted specialty area:

Coming to restricted access to doctors in medical specialty areas, oncology was highlighted in the ZS Associates report among the most restrictive specialties. This is evident from its analysis that today around 73 percent of the cancer specialists restrict MR access, where around 75 percent of them were “MR-friendly” as recently as 2010.

With this increasing south bound trend of “access restricted” doctors over the past decade, at least in the US, and with a strong likelihood of its continuity in the future too, the pressure on getting cost-effective per MR productivity keeps mounting commensurately. Hence, the search for newer and effective NPP platforms of modern times is also becoming more relevant to generate desirable prescription output from the important busy medical practitioners.

Any viable alternative? 

Although virtually unthinkable today, it would be interesting to watch, whether viable alternatives to pharma MRs emerge in the near future to overcome this critical barrier. As necessity is the mother of all inventions, pharma companies are expected to find out soon, how best to respond in this challenging situation for business excellence.

More interestingly, India being a low-cost thriving ground for technological solutions of critical problems of many types, I would be curious to watch how do the pharma players synergize with ‘Information Technology (IT)’ sector to pre-empt similar fall-out in India, as and when it happens.

Non-Personal Promotion: 

In these circumstances, the question arises, when productive personal access to busy doctors through MRs becomes a real issue, what are other effective strategic measures pharma marketers can choose from, for fruitful engagement with those doctors?

Relevant Non-Personal Promotion (NPP), yet personalized, has the potential to create a favorable brand experience and image in the overall brand-building process, leading to increased prescription generation. Application of various high to low tech-based NPP tools is more feasible today than ever before, especially when the use of smart phones, tablet PCs and iPads are becoming so common within the busy medical practitioners.

Major benefits:

There are, at least, the following four key benefits that NPP in pharma marketing could offer:

  • Companies can proactively get engaged with even those doctors who would not prefer visits by MRs or those visits are failing to yield the desired results, as before.
  • Personalized, flexible, persuasive, interactive and cost efficient brand or disease related communication can be made available to even extremely busy doctors, at any time of their choice. This is quite unlike personal ‘one on one’ meetings with MRs, that are now taking place usually during or around the busy working hours.
  • Helps create a positive impression in the doctors’ minds that their busy schedules with patients are valued and not disturbed, respecting their wish and desire for the same.
  • Built-in provisions to encourage the doctors requesting for more specific information online, would enhance the possibility of ongoing customer interactions for productive long term engagement.

Based on all these, it appears to me, creative use of modern technology based NPP tools show a great potential to create a ‘leap-frog’ effect in augmenting the pharma brand-equity in all situation, especially during restricted access to all those heavy prescribers, who matter the most.

From message ‘Push’ to information ‘Pull’:

One of the fundamental differences between Personal-Promotion (PP) of pharma brands through MRs and Non-Personal Promotion (NNP) of the same, is a major shift from ‘Push’ messaging to the modern day trend of information ‘Pull’.

In the era of Internet and different types of ‘Web Search’, people want to ‘Pull’ only the information that they want, and at a time of their personal choice, if not in a jiffy. In this context, broader utilization of especially digital medium based NPP with navigational tools, would be of great relevance.

Any specific request coming from the target doctors in response to personalized e-mails or other direct communications may be delivered through the MRs. This would help creating an important and additional opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the prescribers and the pharma companies.

A good NPP strategy, therefore, needs to be crafted by creating a platform for ongoing engagement with the prescribers, primarily through information ‘Pull’, rather than making it just another part of any specific promotional campaign through message ‘Push’.

The segments to initially concentrate upon:

Till mandatory UCPMP comes into force with stringent compliance requirements, and in tandem MCI guidelines for the doctors acquire necessary teeth, Indian pharma industry, at least, can start warming up with NPP.

A sharper focus on NPP, as I see it, is required in the following pharma marketing situation, at least as a key supporting strategy:

  • Extremely busy doctors, who do not want to meet the MRs
  • Important doctors, who are not too attentive during brand communication
  • Potential heavy prescribers, who do not prefer interaction with MRs during meetings, with poor engagement level
  • For promotion of important ‘mature brands’ or ‘cash cows’ to free MRs’ time to focus on newer products

NPP and “Cash Cows”

NPP could be very relevant for ‘Mature Brands’ or the ‘Cash Cows’, especially for those pharma players having a large number of such brands and at the same time are also introducing new products. This situation is not very uncommon in the Indian pharma industry, either.

With such ‘mature brands’, the MRs have already done a superb job, who are now required to concentrate on making ‘Stars’ with other new products.

It would, therefore, be more meaningful to opt for a lower cost engagement with NPP for these brands, at least for the busy doctors, across multiple channels. Consequently, this strategy would further boost the margins of mature brands, sans deployment of a large number of more expensive MRs.

Platforms to explore:

The emerging situation offers a never before opportunity to use many interesting channels and interactive platforms for flexible and effective tech-based customer engagements. These can be used both for the doctors and also for the patients’ engagement initiatives. Exploration of platforms, such as, custom made health apps, social media, WhatsApp, e-mails and messengers using smartphones and mobile handsets, has already been initiated by some pharma players, though in bits and pieces.

Trapped in an ‘Archaic Strategy Cocoon’?

I wrote an article on the above subject in this blog dated June 17, 2013 titled, “Pharma Marketing in India: 10 Chain Events to Catalyze a Paradigm Shift”

In that article, I mentioned that over a long period of time, Indian pharmaceutical industry seems to have trapped itself in a difficult to explain ‘Archaic Strategy Cocoon’. No holds bar sales promotion activities, with very little of cerebral strategic marketing, continue to dominate the ball game of hitting the month-end numbers, even today.

It is about time to come out of this cocoon and prepare for the future, proactively, boldly, creatively and squarely. This will require a strategic long term vision to be implemented in an orderly, time-bound and phased manner to effectively convert all these challenges into high growth business opportunities.

Conclusion:

Like many others, I too believe that ‘face to face’ meetings still remain the most effective method for MRs’ brand detailing to doctors. It may remain so, at least, for some more time.

Nonetheless, in the gradually changing sales and marketing environment, pharma players, I reckon, should no longer rely on the personal visits alone. Instead, they should start exploring multi-channel, mostly tech-based, interactive and personalized NPP as effective augmentation, if not alternatives, for customer engagement to achieve the business goals.

In an environment thus created, it appears, the same or even a lesser number of MRs would be able to effectively orchestrate a large number of communication channels, facilitated by simple yet high technology online platforms.

All NPP channels and platforms would need to be designed and used as preferred by the busy medical practitioners and at any time of their choice, which could even be outside the usual working hours for a MR. In a transparent and mostly online sales and marketing monitoring process, physical supervision and guidance of, at least, the front line managers may also become irrelevant, as we move on.

In India, most pharmaceutical players are attuned to similar genre of promotional strategy-mix, predominantly through MRs, for all types of doctors and specialties, though the message may vary from one specialty to the other. A large number of companies also don’t seem to have organized research-based credible data. These are mainly on, what types of engagement platforms – personal or non-personal – and at what time, each busy prescriber would prefer for product information access and sharing.

Pharma sales marketing environment is slowly but steadily undergoing a metamorphosis, all over the world. This change is very unlikely to spare India, ultimately. The evolving paradigm of mostly high-tech driven and extremely user-friendly NPP in pharma marketing, has the potential to reap rich harvest. The early adopters, making adequate provisions for scaling up, are likely to gain a cutting edge competitive advantage to excel in business performance.

Scalable and creative use of NPP has a ‘Zing Factor’ too. Nonetheless, pharma marketing strategies have been too much tradition bound, by choice. By and large, most of what are being followed today reflect high attachment to past practices, with some tweaking here or there…tech-based or otherwise.

Well before it becomes a compelling strategic option, as the looming pharma marketing environment unfolds with the UCPMP becoming mandatory for all, would the Indian pharma companies come out of the ‘Archaic Cocoon’ to proactively embrace NPP with required zest and zeal?

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.

TPP: Discord Within A Strange Mélange And Impact On Access To Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

On May 19, 2015, Bloomberg reported that a sizable number of President Barack Obama’s own party colleagues, besides teachers, seniors, Internet freedom groups and nuns, have joined the push to defeat the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

Before I delve into the TPP, solely from the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, it is worth acknowledging upfront India’s firm assertion, repeatedly, to continue with its well-thought out and robust Patents Act 2005.

Even the final draft of the National IPR policy, which is now being circulated for inter-ministerial consultations and will soon be taken up by the Cabinet, reasserted that the country’s IPR policy is fully compliant with the Trade Related aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In this process, global demonstration of India’s firm resolve against dilution of the country’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime, coming under any form of intense external pressure, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general.

This trend now gets reflected from some constituents even within the United States, besides several members of the 12-nation TPP, which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty, aimed at strengthening relationship on economic policies and regulatory issues between the member nations.

Publicly articulated key objectives of the pact are to significantly reduce tariffs between the member nations and open up trade, boosting investment flows between its signatories, to accelerate economic growth.

The member countries of TPP have also agreed to work together on issues such as customs procedures, labor practices, intellectual property and competition policies.

Through its comprehensive coverage of issues and binding regulations, TPP is expected to set new benchmark for international trade. It is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Uneasy secrecy:

However, the uneasy secrecy surrounding the negotiations of the agreement makes its critics seriously apprehensive about its impact on the developing nations of the world. This is because; the concerned delegates of the negotiating team always remain tight lipped about the progress made in coming to an agreement on the scope of the pact. This information is critical for assessment of direct and indirect global impact of TPP on the trade, economy and society, in general.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Besides the above countries, other members of TPP are United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

Large Asian economies are not a part:

Interestingly, large Asian economies, especially, four important members of the G20, namely, China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are not a part of the TPP, just yet.

It is worth noting, TPP is being led by the world’s largest economy and the biggest trading nation – the United States, the country that sees Asia-Pacific as key to its future growth.

Noting all these, many experts in this field, across the world, have already raised a flag saying that the US may be trying to use TPP as a means to undermine China’s growing economic might in the region.

Many gaps still to bridge:

The real negotiations for this treaty started only in 2010 and are still continuing. However, the details of negotiations is so much shrouded under water tight secrecy, even to the lawmakers of the United States, it is indeed challenging for anyone to predict the timeframe of its coming to fruition.

Reuters reported on May 21, 2015, “Chief negotiators from the 12 TPP countries are trying to bridge gaps for a deal at a meeting in Guam that will run through to May 28, 2015. But ministers would need to meet to clinch an accord,”

In this article, I shall only focus on the possible impact of this pact on the access to medicines, especially in the developing world.

Leaked drafts of TPP negotiations:

As the progress of negotiations of this pact continue to remain under uneasy secrecy, on November 13, 2013, WikiLeaks released the secretly negotiated draft text for the entire IPR Chapter of the TPP.

30,000-word IP chapter of the leaked documents, besides others, reportedly contains proposals to increase the term of drug patents beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

TPP and patents:

When it comes to the issue of access to affordable medicines for a vast majority of the global population, the overall patent ecosystem of a nation and how evergreening of patents with monopolistic high pricing are addressed, automatically enter into the broader framework of intense public and stakeholders’ discourse.

Article 8.1 of the draft agreement sets-forth the availability of patents, and provides that “patents shall be available for any new forms, uses, or methods of using a known product; and these may satisfy the criteria for patentability, even if such invention does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the product.”

Interestingly, TRIPS agreement, on the other hand, specifies that patents are available “provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.”

In that sense, the above provision in the Article. 8.1 is quite inconsistent with the patent laws of many TPP member countries, and especially India.

Consequently, experts have raised serious concerns about the impact of TPP on the IP laws of a country, in general, as it may extend the scope of drug patents, preventing free distribution of cheaper generic drugs to the needy patients.

Impact on access to medicines:

As stated earlier, there have been serious apprehensions that TPP would adversely impact the access to medicines.

According to widely reported leaked drafts of TPP negotiations, the US is demanding aggressive IP provisions in the agreement. It is believed, if accepted, these would directly undermine public health safeguards available in international law, making it harder for TPP member countries to gain access to cheaper generic drugs.

Many experts in this field reportedly construe, these stringent IP provisions that the US is demanding may be categorized as ‘TRIPS-plus’ and have the following serious impact adversely impacting access to medicines :

  • Make it impossible to challenge the validity of a patent before it is granted
  • Lower the requirements for patentability, so that minor alterations of existing medicines can be 
given additional protected monopoly status, even if the alteration offers no therapeutic benefit
  • Require the patenting of diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods
  • Lengthen patent monopolies for pharmaceutical firms so that they keep generics out and inflate drug prices for longer periods of time
  • Make it harder for generic manufacturers to obtain regulatory approval for their drugs
  • Create additional monopolies based on clinical data
  • Impose new forms of IP enforcement that give customs officials excessive powers to impound legitimate generic medicines
  • Impose higher prices on national pharmaceutical reimbursement programs
  • Allow pharmaceutical companies to sue governments and limit governments’ abilities to effectively set prices for medicines and legislate in the interest of public health.

Discord within key TPP member countries:

Though Australia is one of the key signatories of TPP, in February 2015, the Medical Journal of Australia also commented that the leaked draft of the agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs.

Quoting the Medical Journal of Australia, ‘The Guardian’ too reiterated: “The most recently leaked draft of the international trade deal includes provisions proposed by the US that would further protect the monopoly pharmaceutical companies hold over drugs, and delay cheaper versions from entering the market. The draft agreement sets in stone low patenting standards, which allow drug companies to practice ‘evergreening’ – when a pharmaceutical company tries to maintain its market monopoly on a drug for longer by applying for extra patents. This prevents other companies entering the market with cheaper versions of the same medicine and imposes large and unnecessary costs on the health system and consumers.”

Similarly, across Canada, people are speaking out about the TPP. They are rallying against the secrecy of the 12-country negotiations and the corporate agenda behind the deal.

On February 12, 2015 legislators in seven of the 12 TPP countries issued the following joint statement about the negotiations:

“We, the undersigned legislators from countries involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, call on the Parties to the negotiation to publish the draft text of the Agreement before any final agreement is signed with sufficient time to enable effective legislative scrutiny and public debate.”

In Canada, the federal NDP and the Green Party of Canada endorsed the above statement. It is the simplest of demands for democracy on a “trade” deal that threatens to undermine the very notion of the public good, by giving corporations more power to undermine public policy.

As stated above, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are also negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement.

Though not in the areas of access to medicines, Japan too expressed its concerns on TPP impacting its agriculture sector. Protests are forthcoming in the copyrights area, as well.

Apprehensions catching-up in the US too:

May 19, 2015 Bloomberg report also indicates, specifically from the pharmaceutical industry perspective, some key stakeholders are worried about the effects of more open markets on drug pricing that could increase their costs and “Foreign corporations or subsidiaries will be able to challenge a number of public health programs.”

In a letter of May 12, 2015 to the House and Senate, the Alliance for Retired Americans has reportedly underscored the possibility of this grave danger to them, if TPP comes into effect.

On May 21, 2015, Reuters reported, just 13 out of 44 Democrats (of President Obama’s own Party) backed the legislation in the Senate’s second procedural vote on last Thursday.

Earlier, a group of over 30 legal academics reportedly sent a letter to the US Trade Representative, expressing “profound concern and disappointment at the lack of public participation, transparency and open government processes in the negotiation of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP”.

Other important areas of criticism: 

Other key areas of criticism of TPP are as follows:

  • Excessive emphasis on trade issues that have remained unresolved or unaddressed at the WTO due to differences between developed and emerging markets.
  • Adopting a negotiating style reflecting the US regulatory approach to international trade
  • Allowing companies to sue foreign governments, which would allow them to dodge health and environmental standards.
  • Giving shape to a geo-political road map of the US that supports its strategic rebalancing towards Asia.

A strange mélange:

An article published in the April 9, 2015 edition of Forbes, titled “TPP Is A Mistake”, very appropriately describes TPP as a strange mélange of 12 members countries that includes five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

In terms of populations, the total American contingent which stands at 535 million, more than half the total population of the Americas (947 million), is significantly larger than the Asian population figures which amount to no more than 256.6 million (285 if one adds Australia and New Zealand), compared to Asia’s total population of 4.3 billion: almost half of the Asian contingent is accounted for by one member – Japan, the articles states.

In this article, former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the architect of Malaysia’s impressive economic growth and development during his tenure from 1981 to 2003, was quoted saying:

“The strongest campaigner of TPP is America … which seeks … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests by exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”.

He further adds, “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”.

Is TPP more than just a trade agreement?

Many experts feel, that TPP is basically a geopolitical tool to contain China with ‘trade’ as its façade.

The votaries of TPP argue that it aims to achieve a very high standard trade agreement and thus the reason of keeping China out of it is not geopolitical. Other Asian nations, including China, can apply and qualify for membership once they commit to meeting these high standards, they reiterate.

The above argument does not seem to be a robust one, as that would mean, a sizable proportion of its smaller current members, such as, Vietnam, already conform to so called ‘high standards’, as required for the TPP agreement.

Besides geopolitical issue, many are also questioning whether TPP is what the developing countries need, especially, at this stage of their development.

Conclusion:

One may quite pertinently ask, in what way TPP is relevant to India?

TPP is relevant to India in the sense that it is expected to eventually mature into a regional trade agreement covering the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Be that as it may, if I restrict myself only to the drug patent related area of the proposed pact, it appears, unless the damaging provisions in the concerned chapters are removed through negotiations before the agreement is finalized, the TPP would possibly turn out to be the most harmful trade pact ever, especially from the perspective of access to medicines in the developing countries of the worlds.

May 2015 issue of ‘amfAR’ – The Foundation for AIDS Research based in Washington DC of the United States captured the essence of possible healthcare related issues with TPP – the pact of a strange mélange of 12 member countries, with the following words:

“By providing avenues for pharmaceutical companies to extend IP protection beyond what is required by current international standards, the TPP could greatly delay the entrance of generic competition for much-needed medicines and keep prices high. Doing so would continue an unacceptable and dangerous trend of irrevocable expansion of IP protections at the expense of access to medicines and would serve as a justification for even more aggressive measures in future FTAs.”

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.

 

India’s ‘National Health Policy 2015′ Needs Wings To Fly

Posted on by
Reply

Ensuring ‘access to healthcare for all’ has remained a key well-articulated good intent of all the successive Governments in India, cutting across the political regimes, since 1983.

The Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare published the first “National Health Policy (NHP)”, in 1983, which was endorsed by the Indian Parliament in the same year. The policy categorically enunciated the following:

“India is committed to attaining the goal of ‘Health for All by the Year 2000 A.D.’ through the universal provision of comprehensive primary healthcare services”.

For the first time after independence, this document captured the key directions and dimension of the national health policy such as, the creation of infrastructure for primary healthcare; close co-ordination with health-related services and activities (like nutrition, drinking water supply and sanitation); active involvement and participation of voluntary organizations; provision of essential drugs and vaccines; qualitative improvement in health and family planning services; provision of adequate training; and medical research aimed at the common health problems of the people. However, it did not elaborate much about the Universal Health Care (UHC).

Abysmal public expenditure to meet the key goal of NHP 1983:

The NHP 1983, which was revised in 2002, recommended an increase in public health expenditure to 2.0 percent of GDP in 2010.

The 12th Fiver Year Plan of the Government of India again acknowledged that the health sector expenditure by the central and state governments, both plan and non-plan will have to be substantially increased during the plan period. It also stated that the health expenditure was increased from 0.94 per cent of GDP in the 10th Plan to 1.04 per cent in 11th Plan and it should be increased to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of 12th Five Year Plan period.

That said, the bottom-line is, the current public spending on health is stagnating around 0.9 percent of the GDP. Leave aside implementation of the 1983 NHP goal of providing “Health for all by the year 2000 A.D”, even in 2015, India continues to grapple with the challenges for ensuring availability, accessibility, affordability and quality of comprehensive healthcare to all, though various governments have come and gone during this period. India’s rank in the Human Development Index (HDI) also remains at pitiful 136 out of 187 countries and despite improvements, India is likely to miss some key MDG targets in 2015.

Pockets of improvements – mostly grossly inadequate:

In the midst of gloom and doom in the health space of India, the 57 page draft NHP 2015 captures some of commendable improvements, as well, and very rightly so, which I am not going to repeat in this article.

A June 2013 report of IMS Institute also acknowledges that the extent of change and improvement in India’s healthcare system over the past decade is remarkable. The Government of India’s initiatives, as well as private sector actions and public-private-partnership programs, have contributed to this progress. Yet a lot more remains to be done.

The report highlights the following areas, which are worth taking note of:

  • The physical accessibility of public or private healthcare facilities is a challenge in rural areas. By contrast, in urban areas, accessibility is less of a challenge due to more facilities being available.
  • An increasing proportion of the population is using private healthcare 
facilities for both in-patient and out-patient treatments. Long waiting times and absence of diagnostic facilities are among the main reasons private healthcare facilities are chosen over public centers for in-patient treatment. For out-patient treatment, the availability or doctors and quality of care are cited as reasons for selecting a private healthcare facility. However, patients would readily switch to public healthcare centers if these issues were addressed, the research report states.
  • The cost of treatment at a public healthcare facility is much more affordable than at a private center. However, due to lack of physical reach, availability of quality treatment and other practices, patients are forced to use more expensive private facilities, thus exacerbating affordability challenges. The majority of Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses are due to medicines.
  • Overall, while there are pockets of improvements, significant healthcare access challenges continue to exist for the Indian population, especially in rural areas.

OoP expenses on health is one of the highest in India:

Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure on health is one of the highest in India at 61.7 percent, as acknowledges by the draft NHP 2015, as well. This is against 35.3 of China, 30.6 of Brazil, 44.6 of Sri Lanka, 61.3 of Bangladesh, 14 of Thailand, 8.9 of United Kingdom and 11.8 of the United States. The reason being, due to lack of access to cheaper and quality public health facilities, a vast majority of the Indian population is forced to turn to expensive private healthcare providers, as confirmed by the IMS Institute in its above report..

Suggested framework for a comprehensive view of healthcare access:

The same June 2013 report of IMS Institute states that healthcare access has varying meaning in different countries, especially across developing and developed economies. In the developed economies, it is often equated to the access status of healthcare insurance, whereas in the developing economies, it is viewed primarily across two dimensions: the physical reach of a healthcare facility, and affordability to the patient.

Thus, it is important to build a framework that would provide a comprehensive view to healthcare access. The framework should be able to define healthcare access in the Indian context, aided by other parameters that are key in ensuring quality treatment to a patient.

The framework also allows understanding of each component of healthcare access separately, including inter-dependencies.

According to IMS Institute, healthcare access has 4 key dimensions as follows:

Physical Reach:

This component defines physical accessibility of a requisite healthcare facility, i.e. availability of a healthcare facility having an out-patient department (OPD) for common ailments, and an in-patient department (IPD) for hospitalization. These facilities may either be public or private in nature. Physical reach is defined as the ability to enter a healthcare facility within 5 kilometers (5km) from the place of residence or work.

Availability/Capacity:

This component defines availability of the requisite healthcare resources to provide patient treatment, i.e. doctors, nurses, in-patient beds, diagnostics, consumables, etc. The availability is governed by minimum specifications defined by the Government of India for public healthcare facilities, and international organizations such as W.H.O.

Quality/Functionality:

This component defines the quality of the healthcare resources available at the point of patient treatment.

Affordability:

This component defines the ability of a patient to afford complete treatment for the illness or disease.

Draft NHP 2015 – ‘Health is a fundamental right’:

Though the above parameters were not quite considered, as such, to define access to healthcare, the new government has done a good job with the draft NHP 2015, while updating NHP 2002. The new draft has evoked good interest among the stakeholders as healthcare has become very costly in India and continues to go north, steadily, as mentioned above.

The draft has covered lots of ground related to health, spanning across the change in the nature of the nation’s disease burden from communicable to non-communicable diseases, shortage of human resources in health sector and right up to the use of information and communication technology. It’s a hard fact that low investment in public health has been placing India consistently at the lower rungs of the development indices.

Against the backdrop of paltry public expenditure on health, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare through its draft National Health Policy, 2015 (NHP 2015) has proposed making health a fundamental right, similar to denial of health an offence.

The draft policy reiterates, “Many industrialized nations have laws that do so. Many of the developing nations that have made significant progress towards universal health coverage, such as Brazil and Thailand, have done so, and … such a law is a major contributory factor. A number of international covenants to which we [India] are joint signatories give us such a mandate – and this could be used to make a national law. Courts have also rulings that, in effect, see health care as a fundamental right — and a constitutional obligation flowing out of the right to life.”

The draft NHP 2015 even states, “The Centre shall enact, after due discussion and on the request of three or more states a National Health Rights Act, which will ensure health as a fundamental right, whose denial will be justiciable.”

The new draft policy acknowledges that primary healthcare of date covers not more than 20 per cent of the health needs and that a very high OoP health expenditure (over 61 percent on medicines) is pushing nearly 63 million people into poverty every year.

One of the key features of the new draft policy is an universal medical insurance scheme that will be virtually free for the poor and affordable for the rest. The government expects the stakeholders to send their comments and suggestions on the draft policy by February 28, 2014.

However, the draft NHP 2015 does not deliberate on some other important areas, such as specific time-bound commitments on public investments, insurance cover on outpatient treatments & care and appropriate regulations for the private sector to contain healthcare costs.

Cut on current year health budget raises may eyebrows:

In the midst of the prevailing lackluster public healthcare scenario, just in the last month (December 2014), the government has reportedly ordered a US$ 948 million (20 percent) cut in its 2014-15 healthcare budget due to fiscal constraints.

It is worth mentioning that at 0.9 percent of GDP, India’s public health expenditure is already among the lowest in the world, as compared to compared to 2.7 percent in China, 4.2 percent in brazil, 1.4 percent in Bangladesh, 1.6 percent in Sri Lanka, 2.9 percent in Thailand and 8.5 percent in the United States.

In addition to the healthcare budget, the finance ministry has reportedly also ordered a spending cut this year for India’s HIV/AIDS program by about 30 percent to US$ 205.4 million.

A report from Reuters, quoting one of the health ministry officials, stated that this budget cut could crimp efforts to control the spread of diseases. More newborns die in India than in poorer neighbors such as Bangladesh, and preventable illnesses such as diarrhea kill more than a million children every year.

Needs wings to fly:

The draft NHP 2015 has come thirteen years after the previous NHP 2002 and following a 20 percent cut even on the paltry budgetary allocation on public health of this financial year. Thus, many skeptics ponder whether this well drafted NHP 2015, pregnant with many great promises, would ever see the light of the day.

The skepticism gets further reinforced, when the draft NHP 2015 says that to achieve its objectives the budgetary allocation on health would be increased to 2.5 percent of the GDP. The Government proposes to rely mostly on general taxation, besides creating a health cess similar to that of education cess, for effective implementation of this health policy. The draft indicates that 40 percent of this budget would come from central expenditure.

A quick reading of the following text from the Reuter’s report makes the scenario even more intriguing:

“The retrenchment (budget cut) could also derail an ambitious universal healthcare program that Modi wants to launch in April. The plan aims to provide all citizens with free drugs and diagnostic treatments, as well as insurance benefits.

The cost of that program over the next four years had been estimated at 1.6 trillion rupees (US$ 25 billion). The health ministry officials had been expecting a jump in their budget for the coming year, in part to pay for this extra cost.

‘Even next year we don’t think we’ll get a huge amount of money,’ said one official, adding that it was now unclear how the new program would be funded.”

Thus, the key point to ponder now: Would the NHP 2015 have wings to fly?

Is India just producing various documents on health without action?

Not too long ago, in October 2010, the Government of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known international medical expert Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

The HLEG Report defined UHC as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

I discussed this subject in my blog post of December 12, 2011, titled “Health being a basic human right, the proposal for Universal Health Coverage augurs well for India”

Most probably, this excellent HLEG report on UHC has already become an archival material for the posterity to refer, if and when required.

Interestingly, despite governments of different political dispensation ruling the country since 1983, the key goal of the NHP 1983 to ‘provide healthcare to all by the year 2000’ continues to haunt us over the last three decades.

Public healthcare infrastructure, especially in rural India, still remains grossly inadequate.

In most of the villages in India, primary health facilities, if available, (except in some progressive states), continue to be shoddy, fragile and is gasping for breath, as it were. Recent examples of Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) sterilization tragedy in November 2014, when 15 women died or the incident of last week in Chatra district of Jharkhand, where about 40 women allegedly underwent sterilization under torchlight, would vindicate this point.

Much hyped program of “free essential drugs for all, from the government hospitals” has not been universally implemented, just yet…again due to financial resource constraints and paucity of other wherewithal.

Conclusion:

Currently, none of the newer constitutional rights, such as right to food, education and employment, enacted by the lawmakers for the well being of the concerned people of the country, is functioning as desired for various financial and administrative reasons. Even making adequate budgetary provisions for all these projects continue to pose a great challenge, both for the central and the state Governments.

Overall, NHP 2015 is a well-drafted and comprehensive policy document. It analyses the successes and failures of the past quite well, with a proposal of making health as a fundamental right. However, the status and experience with the other fundamental right-based legislations in India, do not fuel much optimism in this critical area, at least, as of now.

Consequently, the draft NHP 2015 does not appear to be more than a lucid narration of good intents, just what the NHP 1983 and 2002 did. Next month’s Union budget allocation for the financial year 2015-16 for health, calculated as a percentage of India’s GDP, would hopefully bring more clarity in this area.

Additionally, other important areas such as, specific time-bound commitments on public investments for health; extensions of medical insurance cover to even outpatient treatments & care and appropriate regulations for the private sector to contain healthcare expenditure, are worth considering in the NHP 2015.

Shorn of all these, would the National Health Policy 2015 have its wings to fly?

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.

 

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments

Posted on by
Reply

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide.  This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently.  A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year.  Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

  • The societal goals they aim to achieve
  • The costs they incur on R&D
  • The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

Current mechanism of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in the pharmaceutical space, undoubtedly facilitates spiraling high drug prices with no respite to patients and payers, as access to these drugs gets severely restricted to the privileged few, denying ‘right to life’ to many.

Moreover, the current global ‘Pharma Patent System’ does not differentiate between qualities of innovations. The system extends equal incentives for pricing the drugs as high as possible, even if those offer little advantages to patients. Fortunately, this loophole has been plugged in the Indian Patents Act 2005, to a large extent.

That said, there is no well-structured incentive available to develop clinically superior drugs with public funding, even in India, so that prices could be significantly lower with equally lesser risks to the companies too.

Conclusion:

Current pricing system of patented medicines is even more intriguing, as these have no direct or indirect co-relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. On the contrary, drug prices allegedly go up due to other avoidable high expenditures, such as, physicians’ gratification oriented marketing, which includes even reported bribing, high profile political lobbying and private jet setting key executives lifestyle with exorbitant compensation packages, besides others.

To effectively address this issue, besides public R&D funding, there has been a number of suggestions for creation of a win-win pathway like, creation of “Health Impact Fund’. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as ‘Open Innovation’ and ‘Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)’, to choose from.

A recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access with reasonable affordability.

Be that as it may, ‘Patented Drug Pricing’ does not seem to have any relevance to a company’s investments towards R&D. On the contrary, the companies charge the maximum price that they could possibly handle to maximize profits on these life saving medicines.

In an environment of indifference like this, it is the responsibility of other stakeholders, especially the government, to ensure, by invoking all available measures, that life saving medications for dreaded diseases such as cancer, can get to those who need them the most, come what may.

Is the ever-alert new Government listening?

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.