Tag Archives: affordable

Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Posted on by
Reply

Public access to healthcare in India is a complex issue with several challenges. While India has been making progress over the years in improving healthcare access and reducing the burden of disease, there are still significant disparities in healthcare access and outcomes across the country. The three primary barriers continue to remain:

  • Affordable access to quality healthcare: This arises out of the shortage of healthcare infrastructure and resources, more in rural areas. The shortage includes an inadequate number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, as well as inadequate facilities and equipment.
  • Cost of healthcare: While India has a largely publicly funded healthcare system, the quality of care in public hospitals is often poor, and many people are forced to opt for private healthcare, which can be expensive.
  • Access to affordable drugs: Despite India being a major producer of generic drugs, many people in India still lack access to essential medicines. This is due in part to the high cost of branded medicines, which are often out of reach for many people, as well as a lack of availability of certain medicines in some areas.

Undoubtedly, this remains a weak area for the country, till date. Successive Indian governments have taken steps to address these challenges. However, public funding on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and implementation of policies to increase access to medicine, continue to remain below par. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all people have access to quality healthcare and essential medicines.

Amid this situation, especially on the international political front, drug MNCs are continuously blaming India for the fact that the Indian Patents Act is not robust enough to protect their drug patents on NMEs and technologies. For example, in its 2022 Special 301 Report, the USTR designated seven countries on the Priority Watch List. These are Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela. To give some more examples from the available reports:

  • In February 2021, PhRMA, a trade group representing multinational pharmaceutical companies, raised concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. PhRMA argued that India’s policies were undermining innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 
  • In March 2021, Pfizer’s CEO also expressed concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. He said that Pfizer was facing challenges in obtaining patents for its products in India, and that the lack of adequate patent protection was discouraging investment in research and development.
  • In May 2021, Novartis’s CEO criticized India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. HE stated that the lack of adequate patent protection in India was discouraging innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India. 

Against this backdrop, in today’s article I shall deliberate on this vexing issue – starting from some key grievances of drug MNCs in this regard. Thereafter we will look at the Indian industry response to drug MNCs’ concern about the robustness of the Indian Patents Acts. This could possibly help us to understand the key question – Is it then an attempt to exploit India’s weakness regarding inadequate overall access to medicines for monopolistic gain by the vested interest?

Key grievances of drug MNCs for poor access to medicines in India: 

One can recall that the Patent Act in India was amended in 2005 to comply with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The amendment made it more difficult for multinational pharmaceutical companies to obtain patents for their products in India for the ‘me too’ type of innovation, which has led to lower prices for medicines and increased access to affordable drugs for the Indian population.

However, drug MNCs generally argue that:

  • The lack of adequate patent protection in India discourages innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately limits the availability of new drugs for patients in India.
  • They have also criticized the Indian government’s use of compulsory licensing, which allows the government to authorize a third party to produce a patented drug without the consent of the patent holder. They argue that this undermines their intellectual property rights and discourages investment in research and development, which ultimately limits access to new and innovative drugs for patients in India.

Counter argument by Indian companies:

Indian companies, on the contrary, defend their position and policies related to access to medicines and healthcare in India, and have responded to the accusations made by drug MNCs in the following ways:

  • Provides adequate patent protection: The Indian Patents Act provides adequate IP protection, in accordance with the TRIPS agreement. They have also pointed out that the patent laws in India allow for the grant of patents for genuine inventions, while preventing the grant of frivolous or secondary patents (the me-too types), which can result in excessive monopolies and high prices for medicine. 
  • Encourage innovation: Indian policies have not discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have pointed out that Indian companies invest heavily in research and development and have developed several innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities in India and around the world. 
  • Rare occurrence of Compulsory licensing: The use of compulsory licensing is a legitimate tool under international law and is aimed at promoting public health and ensuring that life-saving drugs are accessible and affordable to patients in India. They have also pointed out that the use of compulsory licensing is a rare occurrence in India and is only used in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, Indian drug companies have emphasized their commitment to improving access to medicines and healthcare in India, while ensuring that their policies are in line with international laws and regulations. They have also emphasized the need for collaboration and dialogue with multinational pharmaceutical companies to find mutually acceptable solutions that benefit patients in India and around the world.

Examples of innovative drugs developed by Indian drug companies:

It’s interesting to note that in the same IP scenario, Indian companies with limited resources, are developing innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities around the world. Here are a few examples, as reported at different times:

  • Lipaglyn: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Lipaglyn is the first-ever drug approved for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. It has been approved in India and several other countries, including the European Union. 
  • Tafinlar: Developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tafinlar is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma. 
  • Mycapssa: Developed by Sun Pharma, Mycapssa is a novel oral formulation of octreotide, a hormone therapy used to treat acromegaly. It has been approved by the US FDA. 
  • Saroglitazar: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Saroglitazar is a dual PPAR agonist that has been approved in India for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). 
  • Nexavar: This much discussed drug, originally developed by Bayer and by Natco Pharma, is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of liver and kidney cancers.

Conclusion:

The IP issues keep haunting India and are being captured in different Special 301 Reports of the USTR, even after The Indian Patents Act 2005 came into force – till 2022. Any change to this Act seems very unlikely now as this is an important piece of legislation that helps balance the interests of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and access to affordable medicines. Any dilution of this Act could have negative consequences for India and its citizens.

From this perspective, I reckon, any further pressure in this area may be construed as an attempt to exploit India’s weakness of inadequate access to medicines for monopolistic gain by vested interests. 

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.

To Reduce Disease Burden India Launches A New Study On Access to Affordable Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

As India is struggling hard to come out of economic meltdown, and more – while navigating through the Covid-19 pandemic, the issue of reducing the National Disease Burden (NDP) with comprehensive measures resurfaces. According to a World Bank study, with ’17.5% of the global population, India bears 20% of the global disease burden.’

It’s also a well-reported fact that one such critical measure in this area is expanding access to affordable medicines to a vast Indian population. This is essential, despite some laudable measures taken by the country in this space. Which is why, it has attracted the government’s focus – yet again, even in the new normal.

This is evident from the Notification of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) dated 13.01.2022. This pertains to the DoP’s request for Proposal (RFP) from reputed companies, “To study the drug pricing policies of different countries/ region and lessons learnt from these countries/ regions in terms of access to medicine at affordable prices.” The selected company will conduct the study, on behalf of the government to understand the drug pricing methodology adopted in at least 10 countries, it said.

According to the RFP document, a minimum of ten countries/regions that should be covered are – Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, EU, UK, Australia, USA, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand. It also mentioned, after selection – the chosen company has to submit its final report in four months, besides quarterly progress report during this period.

This article will focus on the relevance of a renewed government focus on access to affordable medicines, after the third wave of the pandemic, even after various recent measures undertaken by the government in this direction.

What does ‘access’ mean in the healthcare context – a recap:

Although, ‘access’ is a well-used word in the health care scenario, let me recapitulate the same to be on the same page with my readers in this discourse. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Access to health care means having “the timely use of personal health services to achieve the best health outcomes.” It has four components, namely:

  • Coverage: facilitates entry into the health care system. Uninsured people are less likely to receive medical care and more likely to have poor health status.
  • Services: provides a source of care, associated with adults receiving recommended screening and prevention services.
  • Timeliness: ability to provide health care when the need is recognized.
  • Workforce: capable, qualified, culturally competent health care personnel.

Let me emphasize again that the purpose of recapitulating what does healthcare ‘access’ mean, is to give a sense of how are we positioned in India, in this regard.

Key reasons for inadequate access to healthcare, especially in India:

Following are three fundamental reasons for lack, or inadequate access to healthcare, as relevant to India:

  • A large section of the population cannot access healthcare owing its cost relative to their respective income.
  • Many others can’t access, as no quality and affordable facilities are located nearby where they live.
  • Most importantly, a large Indian population can’t have adequate access to quality health care, because they don’t have any healthcare coverage. This point was flagged by the AHRQ, as well.

It is, therefore, noteworthy that to ensure access to quality healthcare, either free or affordable, health coverage for all – public or private, is critical for any nation. Whereas a large Indian population still remains without any health coverage, as the recent government publications vindicate.

Despite high OOPE a large population is still without any health coverage:

On this issue, NITI Aayog report, published in October 2021, shared some important facts. A staggering number of over 400 million Indians, still live without any financial protection for health. This is despite the launch of ‘Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY)’ launched in September 2018, and State Government extension schemes, the paper says. Notably, ‘the actual uncovered population is higher due to existing coverage gaps in PMJAY and overlap between schemes,’ the report added.

Interestingly, the paper acknowledged: “Low Government expenditure on health has constrained the capacity and quality of healthcare services in the public sector. It diverts most individuals – about two-thirds – to seek treatment in the costlier private sector. “As low financial protection leads to high out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). India’s population is vulnerable to catastrophic spending, and impoverishment from expensive trips to hospitals and other health facilities,” it observed.

The government spending on public health at 1.5% of GDP, remains among the lowest in the world impacting reach, capacity, and quality of public healthcare services. It is compelling people to seek treatment in the costlier private sector. Almost 60% of all hospitalizations, and 70% of outpatient services are delivered by the high-cost private sector, NITI Aayog highlighted.

Major part of OOPE goes for buying drugs:

According to the W.H.O’s health financing profile 2017, 67.78% of total expenditure on health in India was paid out of pocket, while the world average is just 18.2%. Moreover, the Union Health ministry had also reported that ‘medicines are the biggest financial burden on Indian households.’ Around 43% of OOPE towards health, reportedly, went for buying medicines and 28% in private hospitals.

Thus: ‘Much of this problem of debt can be solved if medicines are made available to people at affordable prices. The National Health Policy 2017 also highlighted the need for providing free medicines in public health facilities by stepping up funding and improving drug procurement and supply chain mechanisms,” the report added.

Access to affordable drugs continues to remain a top priority today:

The above point was also emphasized in the Annual Report 2020-21 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals. It underscored: ‘The Government is now contemplating to introduce a new National Pharmaceutical Policy, where – ‘Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses,’ featured at the top of the policy objectives, as follows:

  • Making essential drugs accessible at affordable prices to the common masses.
  • Providing a long-term stable policy environment for the pharmaceutical sector.
  • Making India sufficiently self-reliant in end-to-end indigenous drug manufacturing.
  • Ensuring world class quality of drugs for domestic consumption & exports.
  • Creating an environment for R & D to produce innovator drugs;
    Ensuring the growth and development of the Indian Pharma Industry.

What happens when all will come under health coverage, if at all:

Even when, and if, all Indians comes under health coverage – public or private – drug cost will continue to play a major role even to the institutional payers. This is mostly to ensure the cost of health coverage remains reasonable, and affordable to all. This can possibly be done either through:

  • Price negotiation with the manufacturers, or
  • Price control by the government

In any case, there needs to be a transparent mechanism for either of above two, which the government seems to be refocusing on, as it appears today.

Conclusion:

Thus, to reduce the burden of disease in India, especially after going through a harrowing experience of the Covid-19 pandemic, where co-morbidity posed a major threat to life, India is likely to up the ante, as we move into the new normal.

From this viewpoint, a brand-new study, as mentioned above, initiated by the government to facilitate expanded access to affordable medicines, is a laudable initiative for all Indians. It’s a noteworthy point for the drug industry, as well, especially, the research-based pharma and biotech companies. As I wrote before, they should also pick this signal to focus on all 3 areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs, not just on costly patented drugs for only those who can afford.

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.

 

 

Focus On All 3 Areas of Innovation For Affordable Access To Innovative Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Medical treatment has made astonishing advances over the years. But the packaging and delivery of that treatment are often inefficient, ineffective, and consumer unfriendly. This was articulated in an article on innovation in healthcare, published in the Harvard Business Review, way back, in its May 2006 issue.

Highlighting soaring healthcare cost, including ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, and its impact on public health, the paper recommended innovative solutions for every related aspect of health care. These encompass – healthcare delivery, unleashing the power of technology, and customer-centric business models. Interestingly, despite enormous investment in drug innovation, the access to affordable health care for all, continued over the years.

The consequential scenario was well articulated in another paper on rising consumerism among healthcare consumers, published in the Deloitte Review issue 16, 2015. It noted, the existing business models are increasingly being challenged by all concerned. The aim is to find new sources of value – as expected by patients and deliver them effectively with innovative approaches for better outcomes. This has, initiated a recalibration of the healthcare system, as it were, in many parts of the world, including many -both developed and developing countries, across the globe.

In this article, I shall try to explore this area, especially from the perspective of relevance of innovative business models for affordable access to innovative drugs in the new normal. Let me start with three basic innovation needs in the pharma business that may help chart out a meaningful pathway to attain this goal.

3 innovation areas to make health care better and cheaper:

In pharma industry, people mostly talk about product or treatment innovation. Although, this is of paramount importance to make healthcare more and more effective with time, but may not help save or heal more patients, commensurately.

Going by the ‘health care innovation catalog,’ as charted by the above Harvard Business Reviewarticle, ‘three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper.’ These innovations are primarily related to:

  • Use of ‘technology’ to develop new products and treatments or to improve care
  • Bringing in innovative changes the ways ‘consumers’ buy and use healthcare.
  • Generating new ‘business models’, particularly those that involve the horizontal or vertical integration of separate health care organizations or activities.

As I have deliberated in the past, related to the first two areas, this discourse will deliberate on the third type of innovation to explore the above specified area. Let me hasten to add that several studies published in the later dates, echoed similar approach.

Subsequent studies reinforce the point:

One such example, is the paper titled ‘Innovative Approaches to Increase Access to Medicines in Developing Countries’, published in the Frontiers in Medicine on December 07, 2017. This study also captured: ‘Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e., drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries.’

The paper highlighted, several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, can further stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities, significantly. It underscored: ‘No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions.’

Changing business model concept gaining steam during Covid pandemic:

The issue of affordable access to innovative medicines drew attention of all stakeholders, even the common man, during the Covid pandemic – more than ever before. Several publications raised a flag on this barrier to public health, especially amid a pandemic or epidemic like situation.

One of these papers, titled ‘COVID-19 and the global public health: Tiered pricing of pharmaceutical drugs as a price-reducing policy tool’, was published in the Journal of Generic Medicines, on October 07, 2020. The paper emphasized, COVID-19 has raised serious concerns about affordable and equitable access to critically needed innovative medicines and other health technologies. It pointed out: ‘Patent exclusivities add to the cost of healthcare by allowing supra-competitive prices of protected technologies’, it commented. At the same time, ‘the prices and availability of drugs also depend on certain other factors that are not related to IP protection.’

Here comes the concept of ‘differential pricing’ or ‘tiered pricing’. This is a voluntary price-reducing policy option of the innovator to sell innovative drugs at lower prices in developing countries – compared to developed nations. The study articulated, more and more innovators imbibing this option in the future, could be a way forward to address for the future. Could it be a win-win solution for this critical issue?

Is it a win-win solution to this critical issue?

Since, at least, the last decade, the concept of differential pricing or tiered pricing ‘has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to these life-saving products.’ This was also noted in the paper - ‘A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries,’ published in the journal Globalization and Health, on October 12, 2011.

Even at that time, the paper said: ‘International tiered pricing has been proposed as an alternative to high prices when separable high- and low-to-middle-income markets exist for a medicine and when the seller exerts significant power over pricing, such as when there is limited or no competition due to patent protection, data exclusivity, or other market-entry barriers.’

Interestingly, despite above findings, tiered pricing has not been a widely followed concept in the old normal to ensure affordable access to life-saving innovative drugs, for all. One of its reasons could possibly be commercial considerations. Company specific business threshold of tiered pricing may not necessarily be able to offer a price that is equitable or affordable for all. That said, there are a few laudable initiatives of some major innovator companies in the past.

Some laudable past initiatives for affordable access to innovative drugs:

Since the beginning of this millennium, one can witness some laudable pricing initiatives for affordable access to critical, innovative drugs to save lives in developing countries and poorer nations. Let me give a few reported examples below:

  • Abbott Laboratories – the patent holder of lopinavir and ritonavir had initially announced a tiered price of $650 in 2001 for African countries and 16 non-African least developed countries. In 2002, the Company reduced the price to $500 for these countries and in August 2009 dropped it to $440 – slightly below the lowest generic price.
  • In 2001, Novartis offered “at-cost” tiered price of $2.40 per adult treatment course for artemether-lumefantrine FDC to WHO for developing countries After 5 years when a generic version of the same was available, Novartis decreased its tiered price to $1.80, thereafter to $1.50.
  • Eli Lilly’s two key DR-TB drugs, capreomycin and cycloserine were not widely available from other suppliers even after it went off patent. In 2002, Lilly transferred the drug manufacturing technology to several generic drug companies in TB-endemic countries. Eli Lilly’s tiered price has consistently remained below the generic prices for these drugs.

More examples of voluntary licensing during Covid pandemic:

Gilead signed non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Egypt, India and Pakistan to manufacture remdesivir for distribution in 127 countries that face significant obstacles to healthcare access.

Notably, the licenses are royalty-free until the World Health Organization declares the end of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern regarding COVID-19, or until a pharmaceutical product other than remdesivir or a vaccine is approved to treat or prevent COVID-19, whichever is earlier.

On May 11, 2021, several media reports revealed that ‘US pharma giant Eli Lilly has issued royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licenses to three Indian drug makers – Cipla, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Lupin – to manufacture and distribute Baricitinib, which is being used to treat Covid-19.

As announced on October 27, 2021, the global drug major MSD and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) entered into a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including India following appropriate regulatory approvals. The Indian companies, reportedly, include, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure Pharma and Hetero Labs.

On November 16, 2021, Pfizer Press Release stated: Pfizer and MPP has signed a voluntary license agreement for Pfizer’s COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate PF-07321332, which is administered in combination with low dose ritonavir (PF-07321332; ritonavir). Under the terms of the license agreement, qualified generic medicine manufacturers worldwide that are granted sub-licenses, will be able to supply this combination drug to 95 countries, covering up to approximately 53% of the world’s population.

Conclusion:

Covid Pandemic, which apparently, is refusing to vanish anytime soon, makes the issue of making affordable access to critical innovative drugs for all, more intense. Since long, researchers, academicians, practitioners, and the stakeholders involved in addressing this healthcare challenge for the majority of the population have suggested several innovative approaches.

These include, focus on three kinds of innovation simultaneously, and with similar zest, can make health care better and cheaper. One such area is changing pharma business models for critical innovative drugs. The good news is a few pharma players have already charted on this pathway in the past, successfully, by extending royalty-free, voluntary licenses to manufacturers in the developing countries and poorer nations. Some of them even tried to match their tiered pricing with equivalent generic drug prices. But the overall response was rather lukewarm in the old normal. Interestingly, the new normal signals a mindset change in this regard within a larger number of global innovators.

The current trend gives a hope to many that an increasing number of global innovators will sincerely explore – not just one, but all the three areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs. This could possibly reduce, if not eliminate the future need for the grant of compulsory licenses for such drugs, as happened during the peak of Covid pandemic, especially in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Focus More To Create Patient-Perceived Value of Brand Outcomes

Posted on by
Reply

Healthcare providers, including many drug companies aim to create a beneficial effect on patients with their respective products and services. However, and more importantly, these benefits need to be such that recipients are able to sense, feel, and perceive as they expect – or may often go much beyond their expectations.

In this endeavor, when the perceived value of health care offerings exceeds the perceived cost of the products or services, the beneficiaries get naturally delighted. Conversely, when the perceived cost of the product weighs more than the perceived benefits, especially when it is incurred in lieu of some other essential living expenses, the patients accept the benefits grudgingly – without having any choice, or alternatives. The situation often fuels growing healthcare activism, across the globe and more involving expensive patented products.

Such expectations of many customers have increases manifold during Covid-19 pandemic, as many studies highlight. Thus, creating a win-win situation while aiming for a beneficial effect on patients, would call for in-depth understanding of the complex changes in the value delivery process. This is critical for all in the health care environment, and particularly the pharma marketers.

In today’s article, I shall dwell on some recent developments in this area, beginning with the basic need for in-depth understanding of the complex changes in the value delivery process. This process flows from ascertaining what have and have not changed in pharma industry’s new normal. The core intent is to find an answer to the key question: Should markers now need to focus much more on creating patient-perceived value of brand outcomes to business excellence?

Understanding complex changes in the value delivery process:

In today’s scenario – amid expressive customers, to get to know the needs, wants and expectations of the target audience, pharma marketers would need to listen to them carefully, and capture the same as they are – in an organized way. In-depth analysis of the data, thus captured, would help marketers chart a cutting-edge strategic pathway – converting data into actionable insights, in pursuit of excellence.

Covid-19 pandemic expanded digital media use even by older age group: 

Many studies have shown, since the onset of Covid-19 pandemic, the use of digital media for various purposes, including health care products ad services, has increased among older age groups, more than ever before.

One such April 2021 Press Release of AARP Research was captioned, ‘Tech Usage Among Older Adults Skyrockets During Pandemic.’ It reported, technology enabled older adults, to better weather – the isolation of the pandemic, started using digital platforms and social media, from ordering groceries to telehealth visits to connecting with loved ones.

More specifically, in the present context, the study found, among others - ‘50+ use of smartphones increased dramatically. For instance, use for ordering groceries grew from 6% to 24%; use of personal health increased from 28% to 40% for activities like telehealth visits, ordering prescriptions, or making appointments; use of health and fitness information increased 25% to 44%; and use of financial transactions increased 37% to 53%.’

Another AARP publication on September 2021 was captioned: ‘Personal Tech and the Pandemic: Older Adults Are Upgrading for a Better Online Experience.’ It also articulated: ‘Texting, email, social media, and video chatting have become commonplace as the COVID-19 pandemic has forced people to remain home, separated from friends and family. More than 80% of those 50-plus said they use technology in some form to stay connected, many on a daily basis.’

I hasten to add that the above study, although was conducted in the United States, the overall trend is expected to be similar in India – of course, with varying numbers. Be that as it may, the new opportunity of listening to customers from their reach, use, interactions, and conversations through digital channels, and sieving out relevant information from the same, needs to be adequately leveraged.

This space could provide high-quality data, when used in a structured manner, for in-depth understanding of the pandemic-triggered changes in customer dynamics. No wonder, why some major pharma players’ greater focus on listening intently to healthcare customers’ conversation is assuming increasing criticality, today. This process would also help immensely while delivering value of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs.

Increasing criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs:

Alongside the pre-Covid 19 ailments, new disease complications in the pandemic – or, now, in endemic-prone areas, would enhance manifold the criticality of the value of access to innovative drugs – for all to be up and running. This area, was well articulated in a similar context in the article, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on September 20, 2021.

The authors reiterated, ‘Patient affordability and access enablement, along with health system sustainability and affordability, are critical factors that impact current patient access to these innovations as well as sustained future access to new innovations.’

Many pharma companies, who have both resources and knowledge to develop and supply new and innovative medicines at scale, are already talking about it, even in the new normal. But, they would now need to walk the talk with a greater sense of inclusivity that can be seen and felt by all. Let me cite a very recent example in this area from the Covid-19 perspective.

A recent example in this area from Covid-19 perspective:

An encouraging recent development about affordable access to innovative drugs was reported by The New York Times on October 27, 2021. It reported: ‘Merck has granted a royalty-free license for its promising Covid-19 pill to a United Nations-backed nonprofit in a deal that would allow the drug to be manufactured and sold cheaply in the poorest nations, where vaccines for the coronavirus are in devastatingly short supply.’

More, such examples, also involving treatment in other critical disease areas, would have a salutary effect, even on the public image of the concerned pharma innovators. The ball seems to have started rolling in this direction, as evident from the key findings of the ‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’.

‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’ elucidates the point:

The ‘2021 Access to Medicine Index’, published by the Access to Medicine Foundation, on January 26, 2021, reiterates the increasing criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs. It adds, with the resources and the knowledge to develop and supply new medicines at scale, pharma players have a responsibility to ensure these are made available to people regardless of their socioeconomic standing.

The key findings of the report include the following:

  • Eight companies adopt processes to systematically address access to medicine for all new products
  • Less than half of key products are covered by pharma companies’ access strategies in poorer countries.
  • R&D for COVID-19 has increased, yet another pandemic risk goes unaddressed.

In sync with other experts, the report further emphasizes, ‘Pharmaceutical companies have the power to address affordability by refining their access strategies; and the ability to strengthen supply chains and support healthcare infrastructures. Considering their size, resources, pipelines, portfolios and global reach, these companies have a critical role to play in improving access to medicines.’

Why affordable access to innovative drugs is more critical in India:

The much-deliberated issue of why affordable access to innovative drugs is so critical in India, was aptly analyzed in an article, published by Brookings on March 03, 2020. The backdrop of the discussion was the W.H.O data on global health expenditures that compares out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) as a proportion of current health expenditure.

It revealed, India does much worse in comparison to the world average of OOPE. This was 65% for India versus the world average of around 20%, in 2016, with a similar scenario as compared to other Asian countries.  It specified, Thailand and China have reduced the proportion of OOPE over time, while Sri Lanka and Bangladesh witnessed an increase over time.

Conclusion:

The current healthcare spectrum of possibilities to address these issues haven’t changed significantly, since then. Interestingly, this is despite the increasing need of innovative drugs that’s keeping pace with the complexity in the health care environment since the onset of Covid-19 pandemic.

Thus, the criticality of affordable access to contemporary innovative drugs in the new normal, deserves an out of the box solution. Even today, OOPE continues to remain very high in India, and mostly for outdoor patient treatments. Thus, it is imperative that pharma marketers should focus more to create greater patient-perceived (not self-perceived) value of brand outcomes, in an innovative way – for business excellence in the new normal.

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.

A Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Posted on by
Reply

Amid high decibel deliberations on Covid-19 pandemic, something similar to groundbreaking happened – involving Biosimilar drugs, in just a couple of months ago. On July 28, 2021, in the Eldorado of the pharma industry, the US-FDA approved  the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, for wider access to modern and much affordable treatment of diabetes. This is expected to open new vistas of opportunity for biosimilar drugs, in general, across the world.

The development is even more interesting, as the product named Semglee belongs to India’s largest biopharmaceutical company - Biocon Biologic. It’s an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine, referencing Sanofi’s, reportedly  the second best-selling product in 2020 - Lantus. Notably, the Biocon product was launched in 2020 without the ‘interchangeability’ designation.

Although, the patent of this long-acting insulin (glargine) – used to treat diabetes type I and II, expired during 2015, in 2020 also Lantus generated some 2.7 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. Many envisage, the approval of this first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine will foster stronger competition in the insulin market, which is currently dominated by a handful of brands, like Lantus – and characterized by their stubbornly high prices.

In today’s article, I shall focus on what it means to pharma marketers for greater market access to ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs.

What ‘interchangeability’ really means:

As I wrote in my article on July 31,2017, there are two key barriers to improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, and one of which is the issue of their ‘interchangeability’ with original biologic drugs. It means, besides being highly similar, a biosimilar drug would require indisputable clinical evidence – that it gives the same result to patients, just as the original biologic medicine.

Thus, lack of the ‘interchangeability’ designation makes many physicians hesitant to switch, for all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs, to less expensive available biosimilar alternatives. Only new patients in that case, are prescribed biosimilar drugs, sans ‘interchangeability’ label from the drug regulator, especially in the US.

Overcoming a tough barrier to biosimilar market growth:

This was echoed by another article on ‘Interchangeability’ of biosimilars, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal on July 22, 2020. It wrote, ‘One of the hurdles in the adoption of biosimilars is the lack of interchangeability with reference biologics.’ While interchangeability is an important issue for doctors, ‘different definitions and regulatory frameworks that exist in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions add to the complexity.’

What the ‘interchangeable’ designation of Semglee will really mean, in terms of affordability to patients, was lucidly explained in an article, published in the AJMC – the center for Biosimilars – on July 29, 2021. It underscored: ‘An interchangeable designation means that Semglee can be substituted for Lantus automatically by pharmacists without physicians’ permission.’ As reported, Semglee will cost nearly 3 times less than the list price of Sanofi’s Lantus, which in 2019 clocked in at $283.56 for a single vial and $425.31 for a box of five pens, in the US.

Are interchangeable biosimilars superior to other biosimilars?

The ‘interchangeable’ designation is not meant to suggest that such biosimilars are superior to ones without this label. However, to obtain the ‘interchangeable’ designation, biosimilar manufacturers are required to perform ‘switching studies.’ These provide evidence that patients who are using originator’s biologic drug, when switch to a comparable biosimilar, do not experience higher rates of adverse events or decreased efficacy. The same has also been clearly explained in the AJMC article of July 29, 2021, as mentioned above.

But, if marketed well, ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars can provide a cutting edge to encourage consumers to switch to the less-expensive ‘interchangeable’ versions of the original higher priced biologic drugs. Consequently, more economical ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars would carve out a larger market share, creating a win-win situation. For patients, it will expand affordable access to biologic drugs- and for the company increased revenue from the expanding biosimilar market, as several studies point out.

Expanding biosimilar market:

According to the IQVIA report of March 04, 2021, the global biosimilars market currently shows double-digit growth and is expected to maintain a similar level of uptake in the coming years. This will be driven by the rising incidence of chronic diseases and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, especially as more stringent cost-containment measures are likely – post COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper concluded, biosimilars will continue to register impressive growth in their market share, aided by patent expiries and regulatory improvements which will permit easier and more rapid market access. Many pharmaceutical companies – having witnessed this trend, are now preparing to leverage the biosimilar opportunity. However, marketing large molecule biosimilar drugs will not be quite the same as marketing small molecule generics. 

Estimated savings to patients with biosimilars – in Covid-19 context:

As the IQVIA Institute estimates, over the next five years biosimilars could globally contribute a cumulative $285 billions of savings to patients and payers. To put this in context, it says, over the same period, around $150 billion will be spent on COVID-19 vaccines. According to a senior IQVIA official, as quoted by Reuters Events of July 2, 2021: “The five-year savings from biosimilars could almost double the amount of incremental spending that will be going out to get everybody vaccinated around the world.”

Going by the IQVIA data, biosimilars are between 20% and 50% more affordable. And this is especially at a time when affordability drives a lot of healthcare - sustainability that has emerged as a major issue during the pandemic.

Conclusion:

Currently, in many countries of the world, alongside Covid vaccination drive in top gear, creation of a disruptive pandemic-specific – a robust health infrastructure for the future, is yet to be in place. More importantly, public health facilities, especially in India, are still struggling hard to meet affordable health care needs of patients – sans restrictions or apprehensions of getting infected by Covid-19.

Against this backdrop, the very first approval of an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, in the Eldorado of pharma business – the US, brings a new hope to many patients, in 2021. An expectation of reducing their healthcare burden, significantly. This will happen, as the prescribers muster enough confidence to advise patients switching from highly expensive original biologic to more affordable ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, as and when these are launched.

In tandem, with this growing new confidence, others – even ‘non-interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, will be able to deliver more value being, besides greater affordability – wider access to sustainable-treatments for patients.

This comes, possibly with a caveat. Biosimilar drug marketers will need to chart a new marketing frontier, without holding on to their pre-covid strategies – especially for large molecule biosimilar drugs.

From this perspective, the US-FDA’s regulatory approval of the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin to Sanofi’s high-priced Lantus, carries a game-changing potential in the biosimilar drug market, for astute pharma marketers to leverage.

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.

A Rare Strategic Acrobatic Feat in Covid Time

Posted on by
Reply

‘Keep nose to the grindstone while lifting eyes to the hills.’ Quite a while ago, all-time global management guru – Peter Drucker used this essential acrobatic feat as an example, for the business strategists. This illustration signifies the criticality of harmonizing decisions affecting both the short and the long-term goals of an organization, for a sustainable business excellence.

In most recent times, the pharma major AstraZeneca that has virtually become one of the household names, for developing a Covid-19 vaccine candidate with the University of Oxford, has performed the above acrobatic feat – with precision. During the prevailing unprecedented health crisis, the Company has unequivocally proven that it remains on course – in achieving its dual objectives, as Drucker had prescribed in his management classic – ‘The Practice of Management.’

It happened in tandem – without getting overwhelmed by the disruptive forced of Covid pandemic, unlike most others. Immediately, the Company focused on an urgent objective of saving the humanity – by developing, manufacturing and delivering a Covid vaccine to the world, in a record time. This was possibly a relatively short-term goal. And closely followed the other – a critical strategic decision for the organization’s long-term sustainable business excellence.

I have discussed before, the Company’s first initiative – developing a Covid vaccine candidate with the University of Oxford. Hence, in this article, I shall focus on two other related areas:

  • Deadly impact of rare diseases in some Covid infected young patients.
  • Why not some large Indian companies also explore similar strategies as demonstrated by AstraZeneca – and the reasons behind the same?

Before going into those areas up front, let me start with a brief description of AstraZeneca’s intent to expand its footprint in the of area of rare diseases, besides immunology area to help treat rare types of cancer.

The acquisition:

On December 12, 2020 AstraZeneca announced that to accelerate its strategic and financial development, the company will acquire Alexion valuing $39 billion. Subject to all statutory approvals, the deal is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021. Interestingly, Alexion’s top brand – Soliris, is the world’s one of the most expensive drugs in the world. It is prescribed to treat a rare – life-threatening blood disease paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Incidentally, rare diseases have also some significant relevance for Covid infected patients. Let me now recapitulate, some key aspects of rare diseases.

Some key aspects of rare diseases: 

Rare Diseases (RD) – also referred to as Orphan Disease (OD), are diseases affecting a small percentage of the population, and include genetic diseases, rare cancers, infectious tropical diseases and degenerative diseases. There is no universally accepted definition of a rare disease, yet. Different countries define these differently. However, the common considerations in the definitions are, primarily, disease prevalence and to a varying extent – severity and existence of alternative therapeutic options.

Impact of some rare diseases in Covid infected patients: 

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, people with underlying diseases, such as, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disorders, are considered to fall in the high-risk group. They are more likely to have severe disease and complications and need to be extra cautious of the infection. Importantly, it has been recently reported that some rare diseases also increase risk of dying during Covid-19 pandemic at a younger age.

For example, as reported on December 07, 2020, recent studies indicate, rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases increase risk of dying during Covid-19 pandemic for younger patients. The researchers also found that women with rare autoimmune rheumatological diseases (RAIRD) had a greater increase in all-cause mortality rates during the pandemic when compared to men with RAIRD. However, there seems to be an India specific issue also in this situation, as well.

India specific issue for Covid infected patients with some rare diseases:

Some India specific issues on RD, could have a significant adverse impact on Covid infected patients in the country. One such critical issues is the ‘Baseline Knowledge of Rare Diseases in India.’ This fact was well captured in an important survey that was published with the same name, as an original article, in the ‘International Journal of Rare Diseases & Disorders,’ on November 06, 2019.

The study noted, among others:

  • Although, rare diseases have recently received worldwide attention, the developing countries are seriously behind in regard to awareness, drug development, diagnosis, and social services, in this area. India, which has one-third of the world’s rare disease population, has no accurate assessment of the problem.
  • The drugs for ‘Rare Diseases (RD), also called Orphan Drugs (OD)’, often cost exorbitant with difficulties in diagnosis and treatments.
  • Indian policymakers want to find out the number of RD and the extent of the population suffering from them and help provide treatment for them, which is a challenging task with 1.45% GDP health care budget for 1.3 billion people.
  • The health care professionals appear to have some awareness as compared with non-healthcare professionals, but even among health care professionals, only one third had a rudimentary understanding of RD and OD, whereas three-fourths have virtually no knowledge of RD.
  • Forty-three percent of health professionals had not seen rare disease patients, and a large percent of practicing physicians had not seen even one rare disease patient in their entire professional practice.

Thus, it is clear from this survey that the most important issues are awareness and diagnosis, as many rare diseases are not diagnosed or possibly misdiagnosed. Besides, the survey also observed, since 1983, many global companies started developing orphan drugs after the Orphan Drug Act implementation. There is none at this time in India, although in 2017, the Drugs & Cosmetic Act. 1945 has been amended to include “rare diseases and orphan drugs”.

The National Policy on Rare Diseases flagged some of these facts:

The ‘National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020,’ for India, released by the Union Ministry of Health on February 07, 2020, acknowledged many of these important facts. It also said, ‘Considering the limited data available on rare diseases, and in the light of competing health priorities, the focus of the draft policy is on prevention of rare diseases as a priority as identified by experts.’

Interestingly, the first of such policy was prepared by India in 2017 and a committee was appointed to review it in 2028. However, recently published the National Policy on Rare diseases, has also noted one more important point. It noted: ‘Paradoxically, though rare diseases are of low prevalence and individually rare, collectively they affect a considerable proportion of the population in any country, which according to generally accepted international research is – between 6% and 8%.’ Currently, India, reportedly, doesn’t have any registry of rare disease, which has now been entrusted to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in the National policy.

Common symptoms can hide underlying rare diseases, leading to misdiagnosis:

The above policy has also noted, rare diseases are characterized by a wide diversity of signs and symptoms that not only, reportedly, vary from disease to disease, but also from patient-to-patient suffering from the same disease. Importantly, relatively common symptoms can hide underlying rare diseases, leading to misdiagnosis.

During Covid treatment, similar circumstances could lead to a serious life-threatening situation. The 2020 RD Policy also reiterates: “Early diagnosis of rare diseases is a challenge owing to multiple factors that include lack of awareness among primary care physicians, lack of adequate screening and diagnostic facilities etc.” That said, yet another key question arises – will developing and marketing such drugs be profitable for the pharma industry?

Will developing such drugs be profitable for the pharma industry?

It is worth noting that the National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020, aims more at lowering the incidence and prevalence of rare diseases based on an integrated and comprehensive prevention strategy, rather than ensuring patient access to affordable treatments. Nonetheless, it also says, within the constraints on resources and competing health care priorities, India will try to enable access to affordable health care to patients of rare diseases which are amenable to one-time treatment. In general, the policy suggests, ‘voluntary crowdfunding for treatment’ of rare diseases.

With this being the prevailing situation in India, even during Covid pandemic, an interesting article – ‘How Orphan Drugs Became a Highly Profitable Industry,’ published in The Scientist, noted some important facts in this area. It highlighted: ‘Government incentives, advances in technology, and an army of patient advocates have spun a successful market—but abuses of the system and exorbitant prices could cause a backlash.’

It also articulated, despite higher costs and less-certain returns, investments in drug development on the rare diseases side appear to ‘be bucking the trend.’ The result of the global focus on RD nowadays is: ‘Firms with marketing authorization for orphan products, are now more profitable than those without.’

This also partly explains the financial rationale behind AstraZeneca’s recent acquisition of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, valuing $39 billion.

Conclusion: 

As of December 20, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 10,031,659 of new Coronavirus cases with 145,513 deaths. The country has already crossed 10 million in Covid cases as the vaccine approval remains pending. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection continues to loom large in many states. Meanwhile, many studies indicate that comorbidity should now include rare diseases, as well, especially to prevent deaths in younger patients. From this perspective effective diagnosis and treatment of RD are also coming under spotlights. Curiously, the National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020 focuses more on awareness and prevention of RD rather than access to affordable treatment, particularly in Covid infected patients to save precious younger lives. As I wrote previously and still believe, the ‘National Policy on Rare Diseases’ becomes more meaningful with ‘Orphan Drugs Act.’

Vaccines to prevent Covid infections are also expected to get emergency approval in India, shortly. At lease, some of these being available at affordable prices, including AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, according to reports. As recent reports indicate the same company, is also entering into RD therapy areas, through a key acquisition, yet another hope looms large. A hope for availability of relevant RD drugs at an affordable price for Covid infected patients, despite other apprehension, as I wrote before.

That apart, purely from the business management perspective, as well, this rare strategic acrobatic feat of AstraZeneca - ‘Keep nose to the grindstone while lifting eyes to the hills,’ during the Covid crisis, I reckon, is exemplary for the practicing managers.

By: Tapan J. Ray     

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

 

Covid Propels Healthcare Into A Virtual World: A New Growth Driver For Pharma?

Posted on by
Reply

Amid ongoing Covid pandemic, most discussions on pharma specific ‘digitalization’ initiatives continue to predominantly hover around its traditional business growth drivers. In fact, even before the Covid time, it was no different, in a smaller scale and with a lesser intensity, though.

Incidentally, since quite some time, with the explosion of different types of web-based businesses, offering opportunities to buy and receive, virtually everything, at one’s doorstep, many things started changing rapidly. Almost all businesses started offering the state of the art, easy to use smartphone app-based e-commerce solutions, in different formats, to grow their businesses. Alongside, more and more people started managing their daily needs and wants online, even in India. Intriguingly, despite the availability of telemedicine, telehealth and e-pharmacies, even in the old normal, most people continue to prefer in-person health care solutions, including buying medicines.

Then came a bolt from the blue – the unprecedented global health crisis, caused by Covid-19. Almost overnight, amid requirements of maintaining stringent personal measures to keep Covid at bay, making in-person doctor-calls for brand demand generation activities, posed a great challenge. Doctors, too, became hesitant to meet general patients and medical representatives, in that situation. Thus, to keep the business up and running, most pharma companies gave top priority in finding out a digital solution for the brand demand generation processes. Interestingly, this was happening, when many patients, especially those with non-Covid ailments, also faced a similar situation to meet their health care needs.

Finding no other viable alternatives, many patients were pushed to search for a robust digital solution for health care needs, as well – just as they were already meeting their other regular needs – online. In that sense, Covid propelled many patients to step into a new virtual world of healthcare - telehealth or telemedicine. As mentioned above, although, these services were up there in pre-Covid days, many patients, apparently rediscovered them, in a new Avatar, to get relief from ailments and also save their lives.

On a hindsight, it appears, why the need to leverage telehealth or telemedicine in that crisis, did not appear to be a priority for most pharma companies to foster patient-centric growth of the business. Thus, continuing with the core concept of my previous article, – this article, will focus on the possibility of pharma spearheading the process, aiming for a win-win outcome – boosting access to high quality affordable care for all, on the one hand. And simultaneously, harnessing this new growth driver to excel in the business, on the other.  

Telehealth or e-health will grow just as other e-businesses, unhindered: 

With the Government of India issuing guideline for telemedicine practices on March 25, 2020 and later, on May 12, 2020, publishing those guidelines in the gazette, ‘Telemedicine’ has been made a high priority health care enabler. The notified guidelines also make telemedicine consultation provided by a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, legally permissible. In addition, effective October 01, 2020, Telemedicine costs will be covered under medical insurance in accordance with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India’s (IRDAI) new guidelines.

The net effect of these measures will not just help reduce pressure on the fragile public healthcare infrastructure of the country, but will also expand access to lower cost and high-quality private care to a large number of people.  

Telemedicine is here to stay and be a key pharma growth driver:

With Covid propelling health care into virtual platforms, providing and receiving medical care through telehealth has become a necessity for many people, for different reasons. However, the question that surfaces, will patients return to the old normal, if and when the pandemic ends?

The article – ‘3 reasons telehealth is here to stay,’ published by the MedCity News on October 09, 2020, presents a practicing physician’s perspective on this issue. The author envisages, ‘telemedicine will continue to gain traction with my colleagues and most likely, become a permanent clinical option for patient care.’ Going by such hands-on experience, I reckon, telemedicine will continue to grow for several important reasons, such as:

  • Technology to make telehealth increasingly user friendly: Ongoing IT innovation is making telehealth platforms simple and more effective for doctors and a large number of patients belonging to all age groups. “All they have to do is click a link on their smartphones, which is sent to them via text automatically.” Thus, these tools will increasingly become the best option for treating a broad range of conditions, long after the pandemic subsides.
  • Telemedicine costs are covered under medical insurance, now: Effective October 01, 2020,Telemedicine costs will be covered under medical insurance, even in India. Moreover,‘Telemedicine’ has now been made a high priority health care enabler, carrying a permanent legal status in India. 
  • Health Equity and affordable care: Access to affordable health care is not evenly distributed across the India. Telehealth can help fill these gaps, with increased affordable access for all, even in rural India, as patient location won’t be a problem in getting prompt and quality care at a low cost.

From the above perspective, it appears, it’s high time for pharma to leverage Telemedicine and Telehealth as a major growth driver, powered by innovative business strategies.

Is there any difference between Telemedicine and Telehealth?

Very often these two words are used interchangeably. Mostly because, both telemedicine and telehealth are the practice of medicine using technology to deliver care at a distance.

Telemedicine offers remote clinical services, such as, virtual consultations, diagnosis, prescriptions, preventative care, monitoring via telecommunication platforms, including text, video chat, wearable devices or even phone calls. Whereas, telehealth, in addition, can include remote non-clinical services, such as health care training, administrations and continuing medical education.

Reasons for pharma’s cashing on this new growth driver at a low cost:

Besides Government’s support to telehealth and telemedicine, growing health care consumer demand and user-friendly technologies, are catapulting virtual care to the mainstream health care delivery systems. In tandem, driven by unique and long-term value offerings, telemedicine is being increasingly recognized as a critical means to get prompt care for minor but urgent ailments. Consequently, moreusers are getting attracted to its convenience and benefits, which may have a snowballing effect. Some of which are as follows:

  • Prompt access to disease treatment services, as and when needed by patients, without any long waiting time, for any reason.
  • Significant health care cost saving for all – more for rural population who will be able to avoid long distance travel, involving both time and money, besides associating hassles.
  • Prompt follow-up consultation facilities, will help avoid disease complications, reducing the burden to hospitals for secondary or tertiary care.
  • Further, pharma can offer even greater patient satisfaction by leveraging virtual healthcare platforms, as these will help ensure more effective follow-up and enhanced treatment convenience than traditional in-person visits. Several studies, such as the article, published in ‘The American Journal of Managed Care,’ on January 15, 2020, vindicate this point.

In short, accelerating rate of use – with the increasing need for prompt, easy and affordable access to care, are driving telemedicine to be an integral part of healthcare service delivery system. Which is why, expansion of pharma business in this new virtual space, with well-integrated collaborative strategies, could prove to be a key growth driver – over a long period of time.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any need to deploy a large and cost-intensive field force, as is usually followed for expansion of pharma business in newer areas. This is because, ‘telemedicine requires a different approach to promotion.’

Telemedicine requires a different approach to promotion

That telehealth requires a different approach to marketing and promotion from traditional pharma marketing, was deliberated by ZS in the article -‘Four telemedicine myths for pharma to avoid,’ published on July 05, 2020. The paper underscored, ‘instead of building brand awareness and engaging patients in education and information, telehealth promotion needs to drive patients to take one specific action: call today!’ It further elaborated:

  • Brands that bury the telehealth link on page 8 of their website or make linking to a physician one of more than 20 different calls to action, will find low patient engagement and low pull through.
  • As virtual health care is here to stay, telehealth itself should be a strategy for active promotion, by optimizing the steps to get patients connected to a physician in the shortest and the easiest way possible.

From this perspective, brands that will find the right pathway for engaging in telehealth, will reap the benefits of increased engagement with patients and telehealth physicians. To achieve this objective, with a robust, commercial strategy, the first step for each brand will start with understanding the needs of patients and physicians that needs to be addressed on priority. Then comes, mapping out how the brand will get used to meet those needs.

Conclusion:

We are still in the midst of an unprecedented new Coronavirus pandemic. As of October 18, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 7,494,551 of Coronavirus cases with 114,064 deaths.

With the pandemic severely curbing most patients’ access to care – following the traditional process, Covid propelled health care into a virtual world, almost in no time. Telemedicine brought to the fore, its game changing potential to provide expanded access to high quality and affordable health care, through multiple channels, sans physical presence. Location of a patient or of a competent physician isn’t an issue, any longer, in the disease treatment process. With telemedicine patients will be able to get treated as and when they will want.

The future of Telehealth or telemedicine appears to be promising even beyond Covid time, with more people preferring digital platforms for affordable and more convenient medical care than in-person visits. With virtual care getting integrated into traditional health care delivery systems, pharma players will need to explore this space, as a new growth driver – for wider reach, and greater share of mind of customers for their respective brands.

For Telemedicine to be successful – benefitting a vast majority of both urban and rural populations, country’s health policy makers and, especially the pharma industry should work in unison. Only then, the net outcome will offer a win-win situation – both for the Government and also for the drug industry. It will help expand access to high quality and affordable care to all – seamlessly, irrespective of location. Consequently, pharma marketers will get access to another powerful business growth driver – in telemedicine. Its time about time for all to act – sooner the better.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

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

 

Covid-19 Vaccines – A Multifaceted Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Even after the destruction of millions of lives, livelihoods, social fabric and national economy of almost all countries – the mayhem of the Coronavirus pandemic continues, unabated.

Echoing what many other global experts, the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director has also reiterated ‘that the only “ultimate solution” for the Coronavirus would be a vaccine.’ He added, the social distancing measures and travel restrictions could help curb the outbreak but can’t last forever. Moreover, the virus might come back. Thus, only a vaccine could help in the long run.

That a speedy progress in achieving this goal, is the most critical remits for the global medical scientists and technologists, attract not many contrarian viewpoints. Nevertheless, some red flags are also visible in this critical area. Thus, to give a multifaceted perspective to the ‘Covid-19 vaccine story’, let me dwell on some of these contentious areas.

Vaccines may not be ‘silver bullets’ for all:

According to the news release of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) on July 15, 2020, 75 countries have submitted expressions of interest to protect their populations and those of other nations through joining the COVAX Facility. This is a mechanism designed to guarantee rapid, fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines worldwide. These countries would finance the vaccines from their own public finance budgets and partner with up to 90 lower-income countries.

It further added, interest from governments representing more than 60 percent of the world’s population offers ‘tremendous vote of confidence’ in the effort to ensure truly global access to COVID-19 vaccines, once developed.

Expressing its optimism and also a concern at the same time, the W.H.O on August 03, 2020, informed – out of a number of vaccines, which are now in phase-3 clinical trials, it hopes to have a number of effective vaccines that can help prevent people from infection. Interestingly, in the same breath, it cautioned, “there’s no silver bullet at the moment and there might never be.” The question, that may arise, if a ‘silver bullet’ in the form of Covid-19 vaccines is not available and a vaccine doesn’t work for all, how complicated would then the situation be? Can one expect Covid-19 to end, at all?

When can one expect Covid-19 to end, if at all?

Closely following the above message – “there’s no silver bullet at the moment and there might never be,” another message, a bit intriguing, though, came from the W.H.O on August 22, 2020. This time the W.H.O said, “it hopes the planet will be rid of the Coronavirus pandemic in less than two years — faster than it took for the Spanish flu.” Elaborating the point, the W.H.O Chief underscored, by “utilizing the available tools to the maximum and hoping that we can have additional tools like vaccines, I think we can finish it in a shorter time than the 1918 flu.”

The impact of anti-vaccine movement to end Coronavirus pandemic: 

The question may sound crazy to many people, especially in India, but a similar concern has been expressed by many experts. The article – ‘Anti-vaccine movement could undermine efforts to end Coronavirus pandemic, researchers warn,’ published by the Nature on May 13, 2020, also raised this issue. The researchers of the study at the George Washington University, wrote - ‘studies of social networks show that opposition to vaccines is small but far-reaching — and growing.’

That anti-vaccine sentiments continue growing online, as medical scientists are flooring the gas pedal, has also been reported by ‘India Today’ on May 28, 2020 in an article titled, ‘Experimental Covid shots inject anti-vaccine sentiments.’ This belief was ‘prompted by theories that fast-tracked programs are profit-driven, loaded with health risks and will eventually lead to enforced immunization,’ it underscored. Notably, the W.H.O also has flagged the growing anti-vaccine feeling.

W.H.O flagged the growing anti-vaccine feeling:

The issue of growing anti-vaccine feeling has also been flagged by the W.H.O. It noted several reasons for fear of or opposition to vaccination, such as:

  • Some people have religious or philosophical objections,
  • Some see mandatory vaccination as interference by the government into what they believe should be a personal choice,
  • Others are concerned about the safety or efficacy of vaccines,
  • Or may believe that vaccine-preventable diseases do not pose a serious health risk.

Several of these could be significant in some geographical areas, within activist groups, community leaders, people with a different mindset, which may not be too difficult to overcome. Whereas, a few others may throw huge financial and logistical challenges to the nations. Interestingly, ‘one in three Americans is reluctant to take a COVID-19 vaccine.’

One in three Americans appears reluctant to be vaccinated:

According to a Gallup poll conducted between July 20, 2020 and August 02, 2020 ‘one in three Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine.’ This poll brought out the fact that ‘many Americans appear reluctant to be vaccinated, even if a vaccine were FDA-approved and available to them at no cost. Asked if they would get such a COVID-19 vaccine, 65 percent say they would, but 35 percent would not.’ Moreover, the percentage of Americans who feel strongly that parents should get their children vaccinated has also dropped by 10 percentage points, since 2001.

Other recent polls, reportedly, also found, whereas, around 50 percent of people in the United States are committed to receiving a vaccine, another quarter is still wavering. Some of the communities most at risk from the virus are also the “most leery.” ‘In France, 26 percent said they wouldn’t get a Coronavirus vaccine.’

Which is why, Covid-19 vaccines, which are expected to be available by early 2021, ‘won’t be mandated by the federal government’, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “I don’t think you will ever see mandating of a vaccine, particularly for the general public. If someone refuses the vaccine in the general public you cannot force someone to take it,” he opined.  

But how broad is this ‘spectrum of doubt’?

As captured in the article, “The Coronavirus pandemic is the moment of truth for anti-vaccine movement,” published by the Financial Times on April 28, 2020, some of the emerging issues are worth pondering. It wrote, although, there is a small, highly organized group of people who are implacably against vaccinations, ‘there is a whole spectrum of people who are concerned, or are on the fence, about them.’ According to a poll it conducted in late March 2020, Covid-19 ‘outbreak has the potential to change their minds’ in different ways, such as:

  • Just 5 per cent of people in the UK say they would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if it were available, down from 7 per cent the week before.
  • Whereas, in Austria, 18 per cent said they would not take a Covid-19 jab, compared with 16 per cent three weeks previously.
  • The figure is similar in France, where 33 per cent – the highest proportion in the world — disagree with the statement “vaccines are safe”, according to another 2018 survey by the health research organization – the Wellcome Foundation.

Is there any anti-vaccination movement in India?

This issue has been well deliberated in many papers, one such is the article, “Theme – Ethical And Legal Challenges Of Vaccines And Vaccination, Public trust in vaccination: an analytical framework.” It was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME), Vol 2, No 2 (NS) (2017). It makes some noteworthy points:

  • While vaccination is one of the most successful public health interventions, there has always been a parallel movement against vaccines.
  • Apart from scientific factors, the uptake of vaccinations is influenced by historical, political, socio-cultural and economic factors.
  • In India, the health system is struggling with logistical weaknesses in taking vaccination to the remotest corners; while on the other hand, some people in places where vaccination is available, resist it.
  • Unwillingness to be vaccinated is a growing problem in the developed world. This trend is gradually emerging in several parts of India as well.
  • Other factors, such as heightened awareness of the profit motives of the vaccine industry, conflicts of interest among policymakers, and social, cultural and religious considerations have eroded many people’s trust in vaccination.

The paper concludes by arguing that engaging with communities and having a dialogue about the vaccination policy is an ethical imperative. Be that as it may, the question still remains: With vaccines can people go back to the old normal?

Despite vaccines ‘We cannot go back to the way things were’:

It is for sure now that despite vaccination, people won’t be able to get back to the old normal. On August 21, 2020, the W.H.O further clarified ‘that a vaccine will be a “vital tool” in the global fight against the Coronavirus, but it won’t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own and there’s no guarantee scientists will find one.’ One can find a clear meaning to this statement, if the same is read along with the W.H.O Chief’s earlier statement that “there’s no silver bullet at the moment and there might never be.”

Other challenges for mass vaccinations in India:

There are some research studies in this area. Let me quote one of those, published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. The paper noted – although, immunization is the most cost-effective intervention for infectious diseases, there exists a scarcity of information on vaccination status of young adults and the role of socioeconomic conditions in India.

The study concluded – although Td/Tdap (97.3 percent) and MMR (66.4 percent) coverage was in line with the recommendations, for all the other vaccines the coverage was lower – varying from 5.5 percent to 35.4 percent. A number of factors were found responsible for limited growth and penetration of vaccines in India, such as:

  • Lack of adequate awareness among both physicians and patients.
  • Patients prefer treating rather than preventing diseases.
  • Vaccines are provided free under UIP program, but only for highly communicable and life-threatening diseases.
  • Obtaining vaccines through private system is expensive and medical insurance policies do not cover vaccines.
  • A lack of quality data on disease burdens and vaccine efficacy is the biggest obstacle in vaccine coverage in India.
  • Distribution is hampered by inadequate cold chains and constrains to last mile distribution. Storage in the clinics is limited due to frequent electricity blackouts in India.

The vaccination coverage was found better in respondents with higher educated and higher income parents. The researchers suggested patient education, planning by government for the implementation of policy for adult vaccination and involvement of physicians are must for better adult vaccination coverage.

Conclusion:

The United States, Brazil and India now account for more than half the total of over 22 million Coronavirus cases, globally. The number of fatalities had also gone past 782,000, as on August 20, 2020.  However, the Coronavirus cases in the country, as recorded in the morning of August 23, 2020, have also reached a staggering figure of 3,044,940 with 56,846 deaths, despite all measures that the country has been taking. No signs of any respite, just yet.

The Government of India has officially acknowledged that for protection from Covid-19 infection, ‘the herd immunity level is “far away” for the Indian population and it can only be achieved through immunization by vaccines.’ Hence, the country’s dependence and stake on this ‘silver bullet’ are very high. From this angle, the vaccine story needs to be viewed from a multifaceted perspective, including what the W.H.O has already cautioned:

  • ‘There’s no silver bullet at the moment and there might never be.”
  • ‘That a vaccine will be a “vital tool” in the global fight against the Coronavirus, but it won’t end the Covid-19 pandemic on its own and there’s no guarantee scientists will find one.’
  • The Coronavirus vaccines alone won’t end pandemic: ‘We cannot go back to the way things were’ in the old normal. In other words, people should try to adapt to the new normal to lead a normal life.

Besides, there could be other problems like, making vaccination mandatory. Or, distributing affordable Covid-19 vaccines through uninterrupted cold-chains in the remotest part of India, and appropriate storage there. Does India have a robust logistics support for the same, in place? Who will pay for all these? And more importantly, are there Plan B, C & D ready, to meet any unforeseen critical situation. Each of these warrants a deep-stick analysis – with a multifaceted perspective, as the devastating impact of Covid-19 pandemic is so real for all, especially for India.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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