Tag Archives: Affordability

The need for urgent healthcare reform in India: The way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
If we look at the history of development of the developed countries of the world, we shall see that all of them had invested and even now are investing to improve the social framework of the country where education and health get the top priority. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas of any nation, have proved to be the key drivers of their economic growth.Very recently we have witnessed some major reform measures in the area of ‘primary education’ in India. The right to primary education has now been made a fundamental right of every citizen of the country, through a constitutional amendment.As focus on education is very important to realize the economic potential of any nation, so is the healthcare space of the country. India will not be able to realize its dream to be one of the economic superpowers of the world without sharp focus and significant resource allocation in these two areas.

Healthcare in India:

There are various hurdles though to address the healthcare issues of the country effectively, but these are not definitely insurmountable. National Rural health Mission is indeed an admirable scheme announced by the Government. However, many feel that poor governance will not be able make this scheme to become as effective as it should be. Implementation of such schemes warrants effective leadership at all levels of implementation. Similar apprehensions can be extended to many other healthcare initiatives including the health insurance program for below the poverty line (BPL) population of the country.

A quick snapshot on the overall healthcare system of India:

In terms of concept, India has a universal healthcare system where health is primarily a state subject.

Primary Health Centres (PHCs) located in the cities, districts or rural areas provide medical treatment free of cost to the citizens of the country. The focus areas of these PHCs, as articulated by the government, are the treatment of common illnesses, immunization, malnutrition, pregnancy and child birth. For secondary or tertiary care, patients are referred to the state or district level hospitals.

The public healthcare delivery system is grossly inadequate and does not function with a very high degree of efficiency, though some of the government hospitals like, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) are among the best hospitals in India.

Most essential drugs, if available, are dispensed free of charge from the public hospitals/clinics.
Outpatient treatment facilities available in the government hospitals are either free or available at a nominal cost. In AIIMS an outpatient card is available at a nominal onetime fee and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free to the patient.

However, the cost of inpatient treatment in the public hospitals though significantly less than the private hospitals, depends on the economic condition of the patient and the type of facilities that the individual will require. The patients who are from below the poverty line (BPL) families are usually not required to pay the cost of treatment. Such costs are subsidized by the government.

However, in India only 35 percent of the population have access to affordable modern medicines. The healthcare facilities in the public sector are not only grossly inadequate, but also understaffed and underfinanced. As a result, whatever services are available in most of the public healthcare facilities, are of substandard quality to say the least, which compel patients to go for expensive private healthcare providers. Majority of the population of India cannot afford such high cost of private healthcare providers though of much better quality.

A recent report on healthcare in India:

A recent report published by McKinsey Quarterly , titled ‘A Healthier Future for India’, recommends, subsidising health care and insurance for the country’s poor people would be necessary to improve the healthcare system. To make the healthcare system of India work satisfactorily, the report also recommends, public-private partnership for better insurance coverage, widespread health education and better disease prevention.

The way forward:

In my view, the country should adopt a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process:

1. The government should assume the role of provider of preventive and primary healthcare across the nation.

2. At the same time, the government should play the role of enabler to create public-private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels.

3. Through PPP a robust health insurance infrastructure needs to be put in place, very urgently.

4. These insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate all fees payable by the patients for getting their ailments treated including doctors/hospital fees and the cost of medicines, with the concerned persons/companies, with a key objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the healthcare services regulatory authority.

8. Make this regulatory authority accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare services to the entire population of the country.

9. Make operations of such public healthcare services transparent to the civil society and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

By Tapan Ray

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

Healthcare reform for the needy and poor in the richest and the most populous countries of the world. What about the largest democracy of our planet?

Posted on by
Reply
Healthcare reform to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare services for all, is considered as an integral part of the economic progress of any country. During recent global financial meltdown, this need became visible all over the world, even more.In my last article, I wrote how the most populous country of the earth – China, unfolded the blueprints of a new healthcare reform process in April, 2009, taking an important step towards this direction.Around the same time, in the richest country of the world, after taking over as the new President of the United States of America, President Barak Obama also reiterated his election campaign pledge for a comprehensive healthcare reform process in the USA.

These measures, in both the countries, intend to ensure access to affordable, high quality health care coverage and services to every citizen of the respective nations. In America, the reform process also intends to bridge the healthcare coverage gap in their Medicare prescription drugs program for the senior citizens.

The pharmaceutical industry response to healthcare reform in the USA:

Responding to this major policy initiative of the government, very responsibly David Brennan, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca and the Chairman of Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced recently:

“PhRMA is committed to working with the Administration and Congress to help enact comprehensive health care reform this year. We share a common goal: every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care coverage and services. As part of that reform, one thing that we have agreed to do is support legislation that will help seniors affected by the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.”

For this purpose Brennan publicly announced the following:

1. America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies have agreed to provide a 50 percent discount to most beneficiaries on brand-name medicines covered by a patient’s Part D plan of Medicare, when purchased in the coverage gap.

2. The entire negotiated price of the Part D covered medicine purchased in the coverage gap would count toward the beneficiary’s out-of-pocket costs, thus lowering their total out-of-pocket spending.

American Pharmaceutical Industry pledges U.S$ 80 billion towards healthcare reform of the nation:

With the above announced commitment, it has been reported that the US Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies have offered to spend U.S$ 80 billion to help the senior citizens of America to be able to afford medicines through a proposed overhaul of the healthcare system of the country.

This is a voluntary pledge by the American pharmaceutical industry to reduce what it charges the federal government over the next 10 years.

What is the Medicare plan of America?

According to the explanation of the program given by Medicare, it is a prescription drug benefit program. Under this program, senior citizens purchase medicines from the pharmacies. The first U.S$ 295 will have to be paid by them. Thereafter, the plan covers 75 percent of the purchases of medicines till the total reaches U.S$ 2,700. Then after paying all costs towards medicines ‘out of pocket’ till it reaches U.S $ 4,350, patients make a small co-payment for each drug until the end of the year.

American citizens’ support on the new healthcare reform of President Barak Obama:

A leading American daily reports that American citizens overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the country’s healthcare system and are strongly behind a government run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes, so that every individual could have health insurance. Unlike in India, Americans feel that the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector.

Current American healthcare: High quality – high cost

85 percent of respondents in this survey said the country’s healthcare system should be completely overhauled and rebuilt. The survey also highlighted that American citizens are far more unsatisfied with the cost of healthcare rather than its quality.

President Obama has been repeatedly emphasizing the need to reduce costs of healthcare and believes that the health care legislation is absolutely vital to American economic recovery. 86 percent of those polled in the survey opined that the rising costs of healthcare pose a serious economic threat.

An interesting recent study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services:

A recent study conducted by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that as a part of the new healthcare reform initiative in the US, if the health centers are expanded from the current 19 million to 20 million patients, the country can save U.S$ 212 billion from 2010 to 2019 against a cost of U.S$ 38.8 billion that the government would have incurred to build the centers. This is happening because of lower overall medical expenses for these patients.

Last year the health centers already generated health system savings of U.S$ 24 billion.

What then is happening in the largest democracy of the planet – our own India, towards such healthcare reform?

India in its 1983 National Healthcare Policy committed ‘healthcare to all by the year 2000′. However, the fact is, in 2009, only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to affordable modern medicines. So many commendable policy announcements have been made by the government thereafter. Due to poor governance, nothing seems to work effectively in our country.

Conclusion:

People with access to the corridors of power appear to believe that when the country will clock the magic number of GDP growth of 9 percent, India will have adequate resources to invest in healthcare. Till then frugal healthcare initiatives will continue at the abysmal level of speed of execution, denying access to affordable modern medicines to 65 percent of population of the country.

If and when the healthcare reform plans will be unfolded in India, hopefully like in the USA, all stakeholders will come forward with their own slice of contribution to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all the citizens of our nation.

When the world believes that healthcare reform measures to cover the entire population of the country to provide access to affordable, high quality healthcare services is fundamental to economic progress of a country, the government of India seems to nurture a diametrically opposite view in this regard. The policy makers appear to sincerely believe that 9 percent economic growth is essentiall to provide access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

Are we engaged in the well known “Catch 22” debate at the cost of health to all?

By Tapan Ray

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

China has recently unfolded the blueprints of its new healthcare reform measures, when will India do so?

Posted on by
Reply
Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:

China in 1997 took its first reform measure to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product, as it were. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China…but…:

The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicate that out of pocketl spending on healthcare services had doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.

A series of healthcare reforms was effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address this situation.

The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens. This is the pivotal core principle of the new wave healthcare reform process in China where more government funding and supervision will now play a critical role.

The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given for the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:

Chinese government will monitor the effective management and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.

It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.

Drug price regulation and supervision:

The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in its eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Healthcare scenario in India:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s, overall spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend was about 1.5 times of that of the government.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8% on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

Unlike, recent focus on the specific key areas of healthcare in China, in India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the centre and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Health insurance in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just above 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organised health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address both domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country.

Conclusion:

It is an irony that on one side of the spectrum we see a healthcare revolution affecting over 33 percent population of the world. However, just on the other side of it where around 2.4 billion people (about 37 percent of the world population) reside in two most populous countries of the world – India and china, get incredibly lesser public healthcare support and are per forced to go for, more frequently, ‘pay from pocket’ pocket type expensive private healthcare options, which many cannot afford or just have no access to.

In both the countries, expensive ‘pay from pocket’ healthcare service facilities are increasing at a greater pace, whereas public healthcare services are not only inadequately funded, but are not properly managed either. Implementation level of various excellent though much hyped government sponsored healthcare schemes is indeed very poor.

Moreover, despite various similarities, there is a sharp difference between India and China at least in one area of the healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of publicly funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not the same in India, because of various reasons.

Over a period of time, along with significant growth in the respective economies of both the countries, with China being slightly ahead of India for many reasons, life expectancy in both India and China has also increased significantly, which consequently has lead to increase in the elderly population of these countries. The disease pattern also has undergone a shift in both the countries, mainly because of this reason, from infectious to non-infectious chronic illnesses like, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis etc. further increasing the overall burden of disease.

High economic growth in both the countries has also lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.

A recently published report indicates that increasing healthcare expenditure burden is hitting the poor population of both the countries very hard. The report further says that considering ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL) at U.S$ 1.08 per day, out of pocket healthcare expenditure has increased the poverty rate from 31.1 percent to 34.8 percent in India and from 13.7 percent to 16.7 percent in China.

To effectively address this serious situation, the Chinese Government has announced its blueprint for a new healthcare reform measures for the coming decade. How will the Government of India respond to this situation? It will indeed be interesting to watch.

By Tapan Ray

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

Increasing penetration of Health Insurance: an important way to improve affordability and access to healthcare

Posted on by
Reply
While India is making rapid strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in providing healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population. This is mainly because of the following reasons:1. Inadequate healthcare infrastructure and delivery system2. Lack of proper healthcare financing/insurance system for all strata of society

3. Difficulty in managing costs of healthcare even when the country is producing drugs for the world market

In this article I shall touch upon only on the healthcare financing/insurance part of the problem.

Sporadic initiatives:

We find some sporadic initiatives for population below the poverty line (BPL) with Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural India. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country. Most of the existing micro health insurance units run their own independent insurance schemes.

Some initiatives by the State Governments:

Following initiatives are being taken by the state governments:

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh is planning to offer health insurance cover under ‘Arogya Sri Health Insurance Scheme’ to 18 million families who are below the poverty line (BPL).

2. The Government of Karnataka has partnered with the private sector to provide low cost health insurance coverage to the farmers who previously had no access to insurance under “Yeshaswini Insurance scheme”. This scheme covers insurance cover towards major surgery, including pre-existing conditions.

3. Some other state governments have also started offering public health insurance facilities to the rural poor. In fact, some private health insurers like Reliance General Insurance and ICICI Lombard General Insurance were reported to have won some projects on health insurance from various state governments.

Cost of healthcare is rising but the penetration of health insurance is still very poor:

All over India costs of all types of healthcare be it primary, secondary or tertiary, are going beyond the reach of common man. Even in rural India penetration of such schemes is almost as poor as the organized health insurance schemes available in urban India. In a situation like this one will need to ponder why the penetration of health insurance and micro health insurance is so low in our country covering just around 35 to 40 million of the population.

Government spend on health is too low:

Even today the Government spends just 1.2% of GDP on health. When both public and private sectors expenditures are put together this number works out to not more than 5%.

It has been reported that in 2005-06 the total private expenditure towards healthcare was around Rs 1, 35,000 crore. This number is expected to grow at a 5-year CAGR of around 16%.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare:

Currently around 78% of healthcare expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ and without any health insurance cover. A recent survey of the National Survey Organization has reported that around 40% of the people who get admitted to hospitals for treatment go through extreme financial hardship and many a times are compelled to abandon the treatment or need to sell of their property to meet such unavoidable expenditure towards health.

Disease pattern undergoing a shift increasing healthcare expenditure:

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to non-infectious chronic illness, the cost of treatment is becoming even more. In a situation like this there is an urgent need to have a robust healthcare financing system within the country.

Covering domiciliary treatment through health insurance is important:

Currently heath insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. However, medical insurance schemes should also cover domiciliary treatment costs and loss of income along with hospitalization costs.

Government policy reforms towards health insurance are essential:

Currently Indian health insurance segment is growing at 50% and according to PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry the segment is estimated to grow to US$ 5.75 billion by 2010. Even this number appears to be much less than adequate for a country like India.

It is high time that the Government creates a conducive environment for increased penetration of health insurance within the country through some innovative policy measures. One such measure could be to make it mandatory for all employers, who are required to provide provident fund facilities to their employees to also offer health insurance facilities to all of them.

It is a pity that the concept of health insurance has not taken off in our country, as yet, though has immense growth potential in the years to come. Innovative policy measures of the government towards this direction along with increasing the cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for health insurance will encourage many competent and successful global players to enter into this market. With the entry of efficient successful global players in health insurance segment, one can expect to see many innovative insurance products to satisfy the need of a large number of Indian population in the healthcare space. Such measures will also help increasing their retail distribution network with a wide geographic reach, significantly improving the affordability and access to healthcare of a large number of population of the country.

By Tapan Ray

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

Improving ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India –Public Private Partnership (PPP) is the way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite various measures being taken by the Government of India (GoI) from time to time, around 65% of Indian population are not having access to modern medicines. It appears, GoI is of the view that the reason for poor ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of our population is intimately linked to the issue of ‘affordability of medicines’.To make medicines affordable to the common man, the Government took a radical step in 1972 by passing a law to abolish products patent in India. The change in paradigm at that time, encouraged domestic pharmaceutical players to manufacture and market even those latest and innovative drugs, which were protected by patents, n many countries of the world. The new ball game enabled the domestic players to highly specialize in ‘reverse engineering’ and launch generic versions of most of the New Chemical Entities (NCEs)at a fraction of the innovators price, in India.This shift in Paradigm in 1972, catapulted the Indian domestic pharmaceutical industry to a newer orbit of success. India in that process, over a period of time, established itself as a major force to reckon with, in the generic pharmaceutical markets of the world. Currently, the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India caters to around one third of the global requirement of generic pharmaceuticals.

From 1972 to 2005 domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies focused on replicating all most all blockbuster drugs, like for example, major Cox2 inhibitors (Merck and Pfizer), Viagra and Lipitor (Pfizer) etc, to low price generic substitutes and that too just within a year or two from the date of first launch of these products in the developed markets of the world.

In 1972, the Market share of the Indian domestic companies, as a percentage to turnovers of the total pharmaceutical industry of India, was around 20%. During the era of ‘reverse engineering’, coupled with many top class manufacturing and marketing strategies, domestic Indian pharmaceutical players wheezed past their multinational (MNCs) counterparts in the race of market share, exactly reversing the situation in 2009.

‘Reverse engineering’ was one of the key growth drivers of domestic pharmaceutical industry during this period. In its absence, during post IPR regime, the growth rate of branded generic industry is not expected to be as spectacular. However, the low cost ‘essential medicines’ will continue to be produced and marketed in India in future, as well.

Be that as it may, from 1972 to 2005, India could produce and offer even the latest NCEs, at a fraction of their international price, to the Indian population. There were as many as 40 to over 60 generic versions of each successful blockbuster drug of the world, in India. Cut-throat competition was intense and still it is, which keeps the average price of such medicines well under control. To further tighten its grip over pharmaceutical products pricing, GoI imposed stringent price control and price monitoring mechanism simultaneously, which are in place even today. Despite competitive pricing pressure coupled with Government price control, over nearly four decades, with a key policy focus on ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained abysmal for a vast majority of the population of India?

To address this vexing problem, Industry Associations reported to have suggested a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model to the Ministry of Chemicals and fertilizers in 2006-07. At that time, the Associations seem to have offered that the Pharmaceutical Industry will supply to the GoI the essential medicines at 50% of their Maximum Retail Price (MRP), to cater to the need of the common man, especially those who are below the poverty line (BPL).

However, to make this proposal effective there is a fundamental need for the Government to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercise, initially in our primary and then in the secondary healthcare value chain. Towards this direction, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds.

Frugal budget allocation (1.12%) of the GoI towards healthcare as % of GDP of the country, suggests that Government is gradually shifting its role in this very important area, primarily from healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop it further. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure, leave aside other incentives, impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, effectively.

I have highlighted the remedial measures to be taken to address this situation in my article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/65-of-indians-do-not-have

Over 70 percent of our population are located in rural India. A relatively recent study indicates that despite some major projects undertaken by the Governments, like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals are located in urban India. Another recent initiative taken by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) called ‘Jan Aushadhi’ is also orientated towards urban and semi-urban India.

I had deliberated upon the ways to increase penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ in rural India, in another article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/jan-aushadhi-medicines-for

The net result of such policy initiatives, denies over 65 percent of Indian rural population from having access to quality healthcare services. Such lack of focus on rural areas, perhaps will explain the reason why only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to modern medicines.

Instead of trying to find a solution for this alarming ‘access to medicines’ problem, by limiting focus mainly on the issue of ‘affordability’ of medicines, for several decades, the Government is doing a great disservice to the common man, mainly located in the rural and semi-urban India. It is now high time that the GoI analyzes the available data to address the root cause of poor healthcare delivery, infrastructure and almost total lack of healthcare financing for all strata of Indian society.

Let me hasten to add that in no way I am trying to say that ‘affordability of medicines’ is no issue in India. All I am saying is that an integrated approach towards the root causes will quite effectively take care of ‘affordability’ issue and NOT the vice versa.

Even a problem of such magnitude can be converted into an opportunity. India can certainly be made a global hub for quality and affordable healthcare services, flashes of which we see in medical tourism initiatives.

Therefore, to address the acute problem of ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of the Indian population, GOI should reach all out to attract significant private and even foreign direct investments (FDI) through innovative Private Public Partnership initiatives. A strong will to have an ‘out of box’ solution to this critical problem is the crying need of the hour.

By Tapan Ray

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

‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’ project of DoP is a great idea – is it on course?

Posted on by
Reply
In mid 2008 The Government of India created a new department, ‘The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The new department came out with its following vision statement:“To enable Indian pharmaceuticals industry to play a leading role in the global market and to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices within the country, of good quality pharmaceuticals of mass consumption.”‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’:

In this article, I shall submit my point of view on the second part of the above vision statement, which articulated the responsibility of the department to ensure availability of affordable modern medicine for ‘mass consumption’.

When over 70% of Indian population lives in rural areas, one can quite easily assume that such medicines will be available adequately in rural areas of the country, as well. Obviously the question that follows this admirable vision statement is how?

To respond to this question one will try to address the following two basic strategic issues:

1. Create a workable and viable business model, which can be gradually developed over a period
of time to deliver the promise

2. Create a robust supply chain network to ensure easy access of these medicines to the common
man, located even in remote rural areas.

The first part of the strategic issue has been well addressed by the DoP, within a very short period, by creating ‘Jan Aushadhi’, the medicines for the masses. Importantly, the second point, which will determine the success of the project, has not been clearly articulated.

The objectives of the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ were stated as follows:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.)

2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through private public partnership (PPP). (I support this objective from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would argue below:why do we reinvent the wheel?)

3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality
generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market, like India.)

4. To help patients save significantly towards medicine cost with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets.

5. A national help line is believed to be able to increase awareness level of this initiative.

The statements of intent of the DoP also highlight that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

This particular decision of DoP, as I stated before, appears to be an attempt to ‘re-invent the wheel’, as it were. I shall argue on this subject, very shortly.

An open ended launch plan with inadequate market penetration compared to set objectives:

DoP announced that this scheme will be launched gradually in all the districts of India in four phases. However, for some unknown reasons, besides phase one and two, the other two phases of the launch plan have been kept by the department, as open ended as it could be, despite the Government of India’s having all wherewithals to implement this scheme with a reasonable degree of preciseness.

The four phases were decided as follows:

1. Phase 1: Amritsar Civil Hospital in November 8, 2008

2. Phase 2: Few stores in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), district hospitals in Mohali,
Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar by February 28, 2009

3. Phase 3: Other districts of Punjab and some other states to be covered during 2009 and
2010

4. Phase 4: Remaining districts of the country by 2010 and 2012

I am not surprised that with such vague launch plan and an open ended timeline, the Government seems to have faltered in Phase 2 itself, when it could not go beyond Amritsar and Shastri Bhavan, Delhi outlets, by February, 28, 2009.

Arguing for the need of a course correction:

Despite being a hardcore optimist, I now get a vague feeling that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and may remain just as another good intention of the Government of India, if a course correction is not made at this stage.

The key barrier to improve access to affordable quality generic medicine to the common man, in this particular case, is not conceptualization of a project. We all know that our Government is reasonably good at it, with a good number of brilliant minds working to give a shape to it. The main weakness to translate this laudable idea into reality, in my view, falls well within the general weakness of the Government in visualizing the key barriers to the project and at the same time missing out on some of the key drivers for the same.

In this case, there seems to be some flaw in the ‘ideation’ stage of the project, as well. This flaw lies with the plan of its delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other bodies.

If procurement of cost effective quality generic medicines is not an issue, then the DoP should carefully look within the Government system to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘mass delivery systems’:

The Government of India has two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to even far off rural areas. These two Government owned supply and delivery chains are as follows:

1. Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains and other essential commodities (Ration shops).

2. Indian Post Offices

Like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why then DoP not collaborate with PDS to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man?

Similarly, when postal department are collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas, why not DoP consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend usage of both PDS and Post Offices by the DoP for deeper penetration of such medicines especially for the benefit of those 650 million people of India who do not have any access to affordable modern medicines.

I am aware, the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system or process are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’.

We have many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure success of the project “Jan Ausadhi” – “Medicines for the common man”.

It is worth noting that this project seems to have already started limping with its vague execution plan and a delivery system, the scaling up of which to ensure access to one billion population of our country could be a serious question mark.

By Tapan Ray

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