Tag Archives: affordable

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technology ‘to stop the spread of the disease’:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Covid-19: Will Pharma Deliver What It Can Do The Best, Soon?

Posted on by
Reply

The news of a bright possibility of finding magic bullets to significantly tame, if not totally annihilate Covid-19, is coming almost every passing day. As expected, these are being initiated mostly by drug companies, alongside various academia, located in several countries of the world, including India. It rekindles hope to return to some kind of normalcy in daily life, work and business.

However, the hype created around each of these, either too early or based on some anecdotal reports, apparently driven by the desire for a windfall commercial gain, may be counterproductive. That some remedial measures to tackle the notorious virus will come very soon, could influence a number of decisions of those who are engaged in managing the situation.

The pressing need to restart the economic activity – come what may, even before the first wave of Covid-19 subsides in a developing country like, India, comes along with a strong storm signal. Balancing life with livelihood has never been so difficult ever. In tandem, it poses a great challenge also for the pharma industry to demonstrate what it stands for the society, such as:

  • Bringing scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccine, in a specified timeframe falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility.
  • Making these drugs and vaccines available, at an affordable price and accessible to all, globally.

In this article, I shall focus on the relevance of these two critical expectations of all, where, incidentally, pharma is expected to do and deliver the very best – particularly against the prevailing and near-chaotic scenario. Let me begin with the first point first.

A great challenge:

Understandably, the above task is not a piece of cake due to many reasons. For example, according to a leading pharma trade association in the United States, ‘On average, it takes at least ten years for a new medicine to complete the journey from initial discovery to the marketplace, with clinical trials alone taking six to seven years on average.’

Thus, logically, a new drug molecule for Covid-19 can’t possibly be expected, by any stretch of imagination, within the next 12 to 18 months. What one can possibly expect for the same is, repurposing older drugs for the same. Quite logically, steps are being taken in this direction. However, even for such drugs, a clinical trial would take ‘six to seven years on average.’ Considering the urgency to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, can a fair clinical trial be completed in the next 12 to 18 months?

Therefore, the challenge in hand for the drug companies, even considering a super fast-track regulatory assessment and approval in 12 to 18 months, appear a pretty tough proposition. The challenge gets more complex, if Covid-19 starts changing.

A new issue is unraveling:  

Recently, a new dimension got added to the mounting challenge of coming out with an effective drug or vaccine to fight Covid-19 pandemic, as evident from the Bloomberg article of May 20, 2020. It carries a headline ‘China’s New Outbreak Shows Signs the Virus Could Be Changing.’

It reported, Chinese doctors are seeing the Coronavirus manifest differently among patients in the new cluster of cases of their northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang, compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan. Apparently, it indicates that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways, complicating efforts to manage the infection. Although, more details need to be unraveled in this area, this incident could flag a fresh uncertainty over the virus mutation that may hinder current efforts of developing safe and effective drugs and vaccine for Covid-19.

Still no available drugs and vaccine for Covid-19 with proven clinical efficacy:

‘The Lancet’ article of April 02, 2020 – ‘‘Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings’ has also emphasized the above point. It reiterated, there is still no available vaccine against Covid-19 infections and no drug with proven clinical efficacy, although there are several candidates that might be effective in prevention or treatment.

As of March 24, 2020, there were 332 COVID-19 related clinical trials, 188 of which were open for recruitment and 146 trials are preparing to recruit. These clinical trials were either planned or being carried out, mostly in China, South Korea, Europe and North America. However, not many trials were planned in south and southeast Asia, Africa, and central and South America at that time, the article pointed out. But the hype for the availability of drugs continues to reverberate, generally in the media reports. Nevertheless, the work is still in progress.

Some unproven hype as on date?

Despite so much of publicity on availability of drugs for the treatment and prevention of Covid-10, starting from Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, which the US President Donald Trump called a “game changer” for Coronavirus – right up to Remdesivir, none has demonstrated scientifically proven clinical efficacy, as yet.

For example, the latest clinical trial results for Covid-19 on 15000 people, published in The Lancet on May 22, 2014 found, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine did not benefit patients with the Coronavirus, either alone or in combination with an antibiotic. Moreover, the drugs caused an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia. Earlier,  ‘The BMJ’ article of May 14, 2020 also found that the administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard care alone in mild to moderate Covid-19 infections. This study also noted, adverse events with the recipients of hydroxychloroquine were higher than non-recipients.

On the other hand, in India, as reported on May 23, 2020, the Union Health Ministry has issued an advisory expanding the pool of people to be given the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic to prevent them from contracting the infection.

Similarly, even Gilead had stated in its Press Release of April 29, 2020: ‘Remdesivir is not yet licensed or approved anywhere globally and has not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective for the treatment of COVID-19,’ besides some  initial success reports. Notably, in India, Union Health Ministry has also recommended the use of anti-HIV drug combinations Lopinavir and Ritonavir for high-risk group patients, although there is no proven clinical evidence for its efficacy and safety in Covid-19 patients, if not against the use of this combination therapy.

Commercial activity progresses even before evidence-based regulatory approval:

Although, a single clinically proven drug is yet to come out, commercial activities for some of these drugs – in a near desperate situation – based apparently on hype created, including by the US President, have progressed or progressing. This had happened for hydroxychloroquine and has now started happening for remdesivir.

Almost every passing day one finds yet another repurposed drug being put on clinical trial by a different company, probably for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong on that, but which drugs work and which do not, must be evaluated in a more cohesive manner and sooner.

The good news is, the World Health Organization (WHO), which is concerned with recommendations for ‘administering unproven treatments to patients with COVID-19 or people self-medicating with them,’ has announced the “Solidarity” clinical trial for the new Coronavirus treatments. This is an international clinical trial, aimed at the scientific assessment of 4 treatment options to slow the disease progression or improve survival rate for COVID-19 patients.

Otherwise, a strong desire for people to survive – ‘somehow’, will prevail in this desperate situation, over what these medicines can actually deliver. Even drug companies never experienced in the past or even could even envisage such a pandemic at this humongous global scale.

A similar scenario is witnessed with some major vaccine development initiatives. For example, stock markets soared with the early signs of viral immune response of the much publicized experimental Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna Inc. However, a few days later, after ‘parsing the data to gauge the company’s chances of success’ by the analysts, it was reported: ‘It’s too soon to assume success for Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Curiously, it continues to happen in the early days with almost all such well publicized initiatives. Nonetheless, the pursuit to find out safe, effective and clinically proven drugs and vaccine continues.

Which is why, bringing scientifically proven safe and effective drugs and vaccine sans the early hype, in a specified time, falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility, becomes a key deliverable of pharma players, in this situation. That said, it brings me to the second point where pharma and biotech companies are widely expected to meet the other expectations of all – making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally.

Making Covid-19 drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally:

Again, this seems to be an equally tough call for most drug players, as has been happening, generally. But Covid-19 drugs and vaccines are just not for saving life, these are also intimately related directly to the livelihood of a very large global population, especially in the developing nations, like India. Therefore, ‘Coronavirus vaccine should be for everyone, not just those who can afford it,’ as articulated in the article, published in the STAT news on March 05, 2020.

This apprehension arises among many in the United States, as well. Mainly because, as reported in the above article, vaccine coming out of the two vaccine development projects funded by the U.S. government, one by Sanofi and another by Johnson & Johnson, may not be affordable to all Americans.

Further, quite a number of countries in the world lack resources, infrastructure, and health care personnel to detect the virus and prevent it from spreading quickly and easily among populations. In which case, without drugs and vaccines, the number of cases is likely to grow exponentially, putting stress on already burdened health care workers and facilities. Consequently, it will make harder to provide timely care for those who are ill. Thus, vaccines will be an important tool for preventing such a catastrophe.

For those with resources – ‘rich countries and rich people,’ a Covid-19 vaccine will certainly be valuable to save lives. However, for most people in all countries, including India, it may be essential for the livelihood, as well. Without it, they will suffer disproportionately and unnecessarily, the article concluded. Thus, in this hour of multiple crisis of global dimension, the drug players are expected to come forward, making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally – a task where they can deliver the best, compared to others.

Conclusion:

Amid ‘Lockdown.4’ in India, as on May 24, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases have mounted to 131,920 with 3,869 deaths. By the way, on the same day, the most populated country in the world – China, where Covid-19 struck first in December 2019, records 82,974 cases with 4634 deaths, so far.

That apart, Covid-19 is a very special situation for all countries, probably more than what happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for several reasons. Comparing these two pandemics, especially during the lockdown period, has been common. Due to this pandemic, as many as 675,000 people, reportedly died only in America, many of them were previously healthy young adults. Almost similar situation is on the horizon with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Agreed, that the overall healthcare infrastructure and global scientific resources to combat these two pandemics may not be comparable. But even in the context of the 21st century, this is a very critical global situation, for both – saving life and also the livelihood. Thus, for pharma and biotech companies ‘this is not a time to make money’, as the chief executive officer of Serum Institute of India, which is helping produce a vaccine for Covid-19 developed by Oxford, puts it succinctly. Be that as it may, the answer to the two questions that I started with, still remains elusive.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key benefits of a strong PHC system:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

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.

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on by
Reply

Many Pharmaceutical companies, both global and local, are struggling with a plethora of critical challenges. With the industry reputation diving south successful navigation through this headwind has become an onerous task, more than ever before.

Under this backdrop, the article, titled “Creating Shared Value” of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its January – February 2011 issue, becomes very relevant to analyze the situation.

The paper says: “Companies are widely thought to be prospering at the expense of their communities. Trust in business has fallen to new lows, leading government officials to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle. A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated, narrow approach to value creation.”

The authors also articulated that pharma players, generally focus on optimizing short-term financial performance, overlooking the greatest unmet needs in the market as well as broader influences on their long-term success. They questioned: “Why else would companies ignore the well-being of their customers and the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?”

Porter and Kramer advised the companies to bring business and society back together – redefining their purpose as creating “shared values”. It means generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges.In this article, I shall explore in this area.

Not CSR or Philanthropy, its engaging business as business, for social progress:

Creation of “Shared values” for a business is quite different from “Philanthropy” or “Corporate Social Responsivity (CSR)”. Philanthropy usually involves ‘donations to worthy social causes’ and CSR is primarily directed at compliance with community standards and good corporate citizenship. Whereas the creation of “shared value” means integrating societal improvement into economic value creation, making social improvement as an integral part of with a business model.

To create “shared values”, it is imperative for business organizations to create “social value” through active participation in addressing the social issues and needs related to the business. Or in other words, the creation of “shared values” would entail striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value.”

An article titled “What Is the Social Value of Pharmaceuticals?”, published by FSG on February 13, 2014 dwells on the business relevance of creation of “social value” in the pharma industry. It writes,creation of “social value” corresponds to effecting positive change along the major societal challenges, such as affordable health care, by working more in collaboration with other stakeholders to address the needs of the underserved through commensurate value creation. This entails engagement of a business as a business, not as a charitable donor, nor through public relations, for social progress.

A resolution to create “shared value” in the pharma industry:

An interesting article, featured in SFGATE of the San Francisco Chronicle on July 11, 2018, elucidated that the reputations of drug makers have taken a hit over the past few years as the public and politicians have called out the companies for high prescription drug prices that even Americans are facing. Recently, President Donald Trump, reportedly, singled out the top pharma companies of the world  for raising the list prices on some of its prescriptions.

Possibly it’s a sheer coincidence, but on the same day, an intent of creating “shared values” with the society got reflected in the statement of the president of the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research. The officialexplained, why his company has a ‘contract with society’. He admitted that: The cost of health care, which has been rising has left many on the hook for a larger amount of their prescription drug cost that can place a big burden on patients in many countries, including the United States.

Consequently, the pressure from the people who need medications is now on the pharmaceutical companies for doing right, he added. Thus, Novartis feels:”We have a contract with society, and society is our shareholder. A company like ours exists to have a definitive impact on life threatening diseases, to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time, full stop” – the official concluded.

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

The concept of pharma having a contract with the society ‘to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time,’ is laudable, but is it credible? This question arises because, just before public articulation of this intent, the same company, reportedly, entered into USD 1.2-million contract with President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly, to provide access to the US President.

The exact reason for the same is being investigated by competent authorities, including the US Senators. However, another report highlighted, “Novartis is among the drug companies that has put through significant price increases for its products since Trump took office in 2017 – in some cases more than 20 percent.”

Another  repot of July 09, 2018, quoting a tweet of the US President, poured more cold water on the warm intent of pharma’s ‘contract with the society.’ According to this article President Trump tweeted: “Pfizer & others should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. They are merely taking advantage of the poor & others unable to defend themselves, while at the same time giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere. We will respond!”

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

Many believe that due to such hyperbolic statements and conflicting actions of pharma, over a long period time, are driving down the public image and trust on the industry, in general, from deep to deeper level, which has not found its bottom, just yet.

The reality gets reflected in various well-recognized polls, conducted even in the top pharma market of the world, which is also one of the richest nations, globally. August 2017 Gallup Poll on ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings,’ features pharma industry at the very bottom of the ranking, just above the Federal government.

The concern gets reverberated in the February 03, 2017 article titled, ‘How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,’ published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The paper observes that the worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation prompts the pharma players, among other actions, developing new treatments for neglected populations, and pricing existing products at affordable levels – avoiding corruption and price collusion.

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

The process of creating “shared values” will involve creating “social value” with all sincerity and a clearly defined purpose. Its outcome should be measurable, and the impact felt by the society. In tandem, striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value” would call for a metamorphosis in the concept of doing business.

There aren’t too many examples of creation ‘shared values’ by pharma companies, yet. However, to illustrate this point, let me quote one such that was originated from India, which I had the privilege to observe closely. This initiative is ‘Arogya Parivar (healthy family) of Novartis in India.

‘Arogya Parivar’ is a ‘for-profit’ social initiative developed by Novartis to reach the under-served millions living at the bottom of the pyramid in rural India. As Novartis claims, since its launch in 2007, ‘Arogya Parivar’ is proving to be both a force for improving health in rural communities and a sustainable business. ‘Arogya Parivar’ is a commercially-viable program and began returning a profit after 30 months with sales increasing 25-fold, since launch. After successful implementation of this initiative in India, the company has created similar programs in Kenya, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to Novartis.

Conclusion:

The concept of ‘shared values’ emphasizes that business success of a company is closely related to the progress, development and wellbeing of the society where it transacts the business. This can be achieved by striking a right balance between the social need and the business need. In the pharma space too, the value creation in the business value chain may need to be redesigned to meet the ‘social value’. This happened as in the case of ‘Arogya Parivar’ initiative of Novartis in India.

Creating robust business models based on ‘shared values’, in sync with the business-specific needs of the society can help make more profit in areas where there is none, at present. It will also facilitate achieving additional growth of the organization and improve long-term competitiveness.

Consequently, pharma can earn recognition of the society as a powerful contributor for containing suffering and even death of many ailing patients, by increasing access to affordable medicines for those who need these most. This, in turn, would help pharma companies to improve their public image and reputation. Let me hasten to add that provided, of course, no countermeasures are taken by them, surreptitiously, as I have discussed above.

The good news is, some pharma players have already initiated action in this direction. Thus, I reckon, many of them would soon realize that creating ‘shared value – based’ business models are the way forward for sustainable business excellence.

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.

Health Care in India And ‘Development For All’ Intent

Posted on by
Reply

‘Development for All’ has become a buzzword, especially in the political arena of India, and is being used frequently during all recent elections as no one can deny its crucial importance in a country like ours.

Nonetheless, some do feel that there should be greater clarity on what all it encompasses. There is no scope for assumption, either, that it definitely covers the economic growth of the nation. But, does it include health care for all, as well? This is a relevant question, since health care plays a crucial role in maintaining high growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by any country, over a long period of time.

The ideal answer to this question would, of course, be an emphatic ‘yes’? However, on the ground is it really so? I explored that subject in my article published in this Blog on November 06, 2017 titled, ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’.

In this article, I shall focus on health care and the ‘Development for All’ agenda of the Government, as witnessed by many in recent elections. Let me illustrate the point using one of the most recent state assembly elections as an example – Gujarat Assembly election of December 2017. I am citing this example, because it generated so much excitement among many, across the country, for different reasons, though.

Who is responsible for public health care in India?

A recent submission made on the floor of Parliament by the Government, explains the point unambiguously. It goes, as hereunder:

“Public health is a state subject. Under the National Health Mission, support is being provided to States/UTs to strengthen their health care systems to provide accessible, affordable and quality health care to all the citizens. Moving towards Universal Health Coverage wherein people are able to use quality health services that they need without suffering financial hardship is a key goal of 12th Plan.” This is what the Minister of State, Health and Family Welfare, reiterated in the Lok Sabha, just about a year ago, on November 25, 2016.

Since, public health is predominantly a state subject, and so important for each individual, besides being one of the key indicators for long-term socioeconomic progress of a country and, one expects health care to be a key issue during the state Assembly elections. This is necessary to maintain the pace of development in this area, be it a state or the country.

Intriguingly, it appears to have no more than a ‘me-too’ reference in the election manifestos of political parties.

Does health care scenario in a state matter?

Now, zeroing on to Gujarat election as an example, the media report of March, 2017 highlighted, gradually reducing budget allocation percentage of health care in Gujarat. It elaborated, the State has reduced its budgetary allocation for health care from 5.59 percent of the total budget in 2015-16 to 5.40 percent of the revised budget of 2016-17, and now to 5.06 percent in 2017-18.

Consequently, the health care budget and spending on the proportion to the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) is going down year after year. Whereas, globally, the percentage of GSDP spent on health and education is considered a key parameter of human development, the report states.

According to a report of the Observer Research Foundation dated December 06, 2017, Gujarat still has a high dependency to the private sector for both outpatient (84.9 percent cases) and also the inpatient (73.8 percent cases). As a result, the out of pocket spending on health care of the state stands at 63.7 percent. This makes Gujarat climbing up the ladder of per capita income, while slipping down the slope of health and social indicators,” the article states.

Just as what happens in all other Indian states, the recent state assembly elections offered an opportunity for the political leadership, cutting across the party line, for a significant course correction. Making health and nutrition one of the top priority focus areas, would have also ensured sustain economic development for Gujarat, in a more inclusive manner, for a long time to come.

What we are witnessing, instead:

The ‘best’ intent of a political party on any area of governance, if it comes to power, generally gets reflected in the respective election manifestos. From that perspective, let’s take a quick look at the key promises on health care, made in the respective election manifestos of the two principal political parties, on the eve of December 2017Gujarat election. I found these, as follows:

Key highlights on health care in BJP Manifesto:

  • The party promised to open more generic medicine shops
  • Introduce mobile clinics and laboratories
  • Making Gujarat free of vector-borne diseases.

Key highlights on health care in Congress Manifesto:

  • Universal health care card

That’s all?… Yes, that’s it.

India is ‘developing’, but public health care is not:

‘The Lancet’ editorial titled, ‘Health in India, 2017’, published on January 14, 2017, discussed about the current status of public health care in India. It underscored that the government expenditure on health being one of the lowest in the world at 1·4 percent of GDP, is totally inadequate to train staff, buy necessary equipment, or efficiently run public health facilities.

Corruption and an unregulated private sector usually fill this vacuum, and in so doing, fuel irresponsible prescribing, and global export of antimicrobial resistance, besides misery and medical bankruptcy for those within the country, lacking financial protection.

The editor articulated that the solution of this important issue is clear. Publicly financed Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has not only been deliberated in India since the dawn of the nation, but has also been highly recommended by both the domestic and the external stakeholders.

Nevertheless, successive governments seem to be lacking either the spine or the heart to act. As recently as 2011, progressive universalism was included in the government’s 5-year plan, but was never funded – the editorial commented.

Both the States, and also the national election campaigns, offer an opportunity for the politicians who the prospective lawmakers, to steer the States, and in that process the country as a whole, moving towards the UHC.

Conclusion:

As heath is a state subject, the issue of providing access to high quality and affordable health care to all should ideally become one of the core issues for all voters, at least, in the State Assembly elections. More so when the sound bite on ‘development for all’ reaches a feverish pitch. There can’t be any holistic ‘development for all’, sans health care and education.

Nonetheless, the reality is, unlike the United States, Europe or Japan, besides a few other countries, the voters in India are also not expressing their concerns in this area, meaningfully. In all probability, ‘development for all’ slogan of the politicians doesn’t include health care to all Indians.

This is likely to continue, in the same way, till the awareness of the socioeconomic impact on health care carves out a niche for itself in the popular political agenda for the voters. Just as what happens with many other economic, technological necessities and other aspirations of people. The recent assembly elections are important pointers to this long persisting trend.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

A course correction without flagging the new course:

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

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

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

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

The silo mentality won’t work:

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

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

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

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

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

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

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

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

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

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

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

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.
  • On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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.

 

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on by
Reply

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

 Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families –  spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

  • Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”
  • Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”
  • However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging.  Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

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.