Tag Archives: and

Global ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services’ (CRAMS) – a new growth opportunity for mid-cap Indian pharmaceutical companies… Are we ready?

Posted on by
Reply
Intense competition within global pharmaceutical industry, patent expiries of blockbuster drugs, ballooning R&D costs together with low R&D productivity, more and more stringent regulatory standards coupled with intense cost containment measures are exerting intense pressure on the bottom lines of the global pharmaceutical companies. The situation, which is continuing for quite some time from now has triggered two important strategic business considerations:1. A rapid consolidation process through ‘mega mergers’ and ‘mega acquisitions’ while medium to smaller M&As continued mostly with an intent to bridge strategic business gaps.2. Increase in interest towards ‘Business Processes Outsourcing’ initiatives of various scales and types, which include contract manufacturing and contract research to lower cost countries with clear objectives of saving both cost and time.

Such a situation has given rise to the evolution of Contract Research and Manufacturing Services, popularly known as CRAMS, especially in countries like India and China.

India is fast emerging as one of the key outsourcing hubs for contract research and global formulations manufacturing activities by improving its manufacturing standards through global benchmarking and simultaneously honing its competitive edge.

CRAMS market – Global and Local:

In 2006 the global market for CRAMS was reported to be of US$52 billion, which is expected to grow to US$76 billion by 2010.

However, the CRAMS market in India was just around US$1.00 billion in 2006, which is expected to grow to around US$3.50 billion by 2010, with an estimated CAGR of around 38% during the period.

Contract Research Market:

In 2006, including clinical trials with data management, contract research market in India was estimated to be around US$370 million with an annual growth of around 45%. In that year out of total contract research market, clinical trials activities contributed over 50%, closely followed by pre-clinical trials with a contribution of around 30%. Custom synthesis together with chemistry and biology related R&D activities contributed balance 18% of the contract research market.

Contract Manufacturing market:

In 2007, the global market for contract manufacturing was around U.S$26 billion. The market is estimated to be of U.S$40 billion in 2011 registering a CAGR of around 12%.

Contract manufacturing market in India was reported to be of U.S$ 660 million with an annual growth of 48% in 2007. However, both India and China are expected to grow faster during this period with a CAGR of around 20% because of availability of skilled human resource and world class manufacturing facilities.

The global market for contract manufacturing is highly fragmented. The market share of top 10 companies in this field is just around 30%. As Catalent Pharma Solutions, USA is the largest contract manufacturer of the world with a turnover of U.S$1.8 billion in 2007; Piramal Healthcare is the largest contract manufacturer in India, which has registered a growth of over 30% in 2007-08. In the field of biotechnology Lonza of Switzerland is the largest contract manufacturer with a growth of over 75% in 2007.

Key Services provided by the CRAMS in India:

Contract Manufacturing Organizations:

They provide mainly:

• Manufacturing capacities to the global pharmaceutical companies
• Formulations development
• Value-added services like process development and process optimization

Contract Research Organizations:

They provide services mainly related to:

• Drug discovery
• Pre-clinical and clinical trial management

The Growth Divers for CRAMS business:

• Collaboration with global pharmaceutical companies in various areas of manufacturing, like local country-specific packaging of finished formulations from bulk packs imported from the originator, to complete manufacturing of the finished formulations, including supply of indigenously made raw material as per originators specifications.

• Outsourcing of formulations of off-patent molecules by the global companies to effectively compete with generics, as has happened between Pfizer and Aurobindo Pharma of Hyderabad, India.

• Expertise in cost-effective custom synthesis for global innovator companies of various scales of operation.

• Clear and sharp focus on CRAMS business by constantly improving manufacturing and supply chain management efficiencies. As is currently being practised by Piramal Healthcare. They have already spun off their R&D activities into a separate legal entity to unleash its commercial potential.

• Anytime readiness for audit of the approved site/s by any global regulator.

CRAMS space in India offers an emerging growth opportunity of global scale, especially to mid-cap domestic pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies are still engaged in their old business model of the old paradigm of pre-IPR regime – manufacturing and marketing of generic brands and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). This business model can still work. But not without its huge inherent risk of continuous heavy pressure on the bottom lines due to intense cut-throat competition.

A strategic shift in the business model by those mid cap Indian pharmaceutical companies, who have wherewithal of creating world class CRAMS facilities for their global collaborators, would, to a great extent, be able to insulate their current high risk generic brands or API manufacturing and marketing business. At the same time, it will be quite possible for them to register a decent business growth by availing the emerging opportunities of the new paradigm of post IPR regime-CRAMS.

By Tapan Ray

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

The Professor, Counterfeit Drugs, CDA Bill and the New Health Minister

Posted on by
Reply
Just a couple of days ago, I met Professor Sam Gupta, an American professor of Indian origin. Prof. Gupta has specialized in nuclear medicine and hails from a well reputed North American University. Dr. Gupta, like many others, had left the shores of India decades ago when he was just a student. During his long arduous journey on the beaten path of life, he almost lost contacts with his roots in India.
An incident that triggered intense passion in Prof. Gupta:

When I met him just the other day, I heard him passionately speaking about the menace of substandard and counterfeit medicines, in the world in general and India, in particular. He was reminiscing how had he decided to wage a war, as it were, against this injustice against humanity. Despite having a nuclear medicine background, Prof. Gupta is fighting this crusade against evil with an intense passion, as intense as it could possibly be.

The professor still teaches and researches on nuclear medicine in North America… but he spends all his balance time driven by this passion, to bring home some change in the uncertain treatment environment, involving well being of a large number of patients, especially in India. What then triggered this ‘burning desire’ in the mind of a seemingly quite and extremely polite Prof. Gupta?

Not a very long ago, a person, very dear and near to the professor, while visiting India became a tragic victim of a counterfeit medicine. Professor lost his dear one, in India. Intense sadness due to loss of this otherwise healthy individual, that too so suddenly, got converted into a potent rage in him… and… the rage into a passion… a passion to stop the menace of substandard and counterfeit medicines, in whatever way he possibly can.

Professor’s dear one is not the sole victim of spurious, substandard and counterfeit medicines in India. Such tragedy strikes many hundreds and thousands of Indians every year. We come to know very seldom and very little about such instances, for various reasons. Real reasons of most of these tragic deaths, usually remain unknown to the civil society, at large… but the ‘merchants of death’ keep making fast bucks with their cash counters constantly ringing. Heart rending cries for loss of human lives, because of their mischief, do not mean anything to them. To the regulators, ironically, price of medicines appears to be more important than the quality of medicines.

Minimum acceptable quality standards for medicines:

Though medicines should offer and promise maximum possible quality standards, in India we are satisfied with the ‘minimum acceptable quality standards’ even for medicines and of varying degree of quality, just as any other commodities. It is not unknown to many that in India, we have broadly two types of quality – one type of quality exists for the domestic consumption and use and the other type of quality is for people living outside India and mainly in the western world, which is termed as ‘exports quality’. ‘Exports quality’ products attract a premium in India to the common man, even in the 21st. century.

Varying degree of acceptable drug quality in India:

Just like ‘domestic’ and ‘exports’ quality, for medicines we have many acceptable quality standards, in India: GMP quality, WHO GMP quality, US-FDA quality just to name a few. It appears that our regulators are just satisfied in ensuring availability of cheaper priced medicines with ‘minimum acceptable’ or ‘varying’ quality standards. If not, why is there no concerted effort by the drug regulator to strike at the root cause of proliferation of substandard and counterfeit medicines in India? When we see so many regulators working so well to ensure ‘affordability’ of medicines, why is the drug regulator failing to stop proliferation of substandard and counterfeit medicines in the country, in a systematic way? Who is accountable, when a patient takes affordable medicines of poor quality and suffer from undesirable consequences? Some estimates indicate that at least 10% of medicines produced in India are substandard.

Some good initiatives were implemented and some equally good initiatives were stalled – why?

A major amendment in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, proposed in October 2007 and enacted into a law in 2008, has increased the minimum jail term for counterfeit drug offenders from 5 to 10 years and the minimum fine for such offenses increased from Rs. 10,000 (about U.S$ 220) to Rs. 10 lakh (about U.S$ 22,000).

However, the amendment of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 to create a Central Drug Authority (CDA) has not seen the light of the day, as yet, due to various vested interests. The CDA, if created, would have been responsible for the entire drug regulatory mechanism in India including all marketing approvals and uniform quality standards of medicines, across the country.

What happens today for manufacturing and marketing approval of drugs in India?

Currently, although the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) gives marketing approval of all new drugs, imported or domestic, the manufacturing permission of these drugs in India is granted by concerned state drug regulatory authorities. It is believed that there is a perceptible variation within the states in quality of inspection, monitoring and enforcement of various regulatory systems and maintenance of uniform drug quality standards.

It is worth noting that ‘new drug’ status of a formulation type, remains for four years. After this period the state drug authorities can grant marketing approval of such products. Huge regulatory quagmire created with unabated proliferation of Fixed Dose Combination products (FDC) in India, is a testimony of how the drug regulatory systems works in India.

Despite existence of such variation in standard from state to state, it is indeed an irony that drugs approved and produced in any state are allowed to be marketed and sold across India or even be exported outside the country. It is quite possible that substandard drug producers can locate themselves in states with weaker regulatory controls and make their cheaper substandard products available for sales across the country, making hundreds and thousands of innocent citizens vulnerable to a possible life threatening risk.

Drug regulatory mechanism deserves a revamp in India without further delay:

Some people believe that hectic efforts by politicians and vested interests from the states with weaker regulatory controls have prevented the CDA bill from getting translated into reality, showing scant respect to the need of patients who may not have any other option but to use these substandard drugs.

How does the western world care for their patients with high quality medicines?

In the western world, drug regulators have taken specific measures to ensure availability of highest quality of medicines for their citizens. It is for that reason Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America (US-FDA) has opened its establishment in India to ensure that the drugs, which are manufactured in India and exported to the USA, are of highest quality standards.

Lackadaisical approach of the Indian drug regulatory authorities has created an environment within the country where many pharmaceutical manufacturers, including some large ones have allegedly placed themselves in a peculiar ‘comfort zone’ by not following prescribed procedures of generating required essential documents, while manufacturing drugs of high quality standards.

Continuous living in such comfort zones led to the largest pharmaceutical company of India, facing ban of 30 of their product formulations in the USA in 2008, against the charge of ‘falsifying’ the product manufacturing documents – a stigma on the pride of India in general and the Indian pharmaceutical industry, in particular, which will remain till the issue is sorted out. As if this was not enough, close on its heel some more incidents came into light with the names of other top Indian companies falling under the scanner of US FDA for not conforming to their regulatory requirements related to drugs manufactured for use in the US market.

When regulators of other countries are so active, why then are our own drug regulators failing to clean up the menace of spurious, substandard and counterfeit medicines in India? Why important bills like CDA are being stalled by the vested interests with the help of politicians, exposing a large number of patients to medical risks?

Will the new government be any different?

I sincerely hope that our new Minister of Health, Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad will sincerely address this very pressing health issue for the country. I also believe that under his astute leadership, the menace of spurious, substandard and counterfeit medicines will receive due consideration of the cabinet and the CDA bill will soon be a law.

Till then…crusade of Prof. Gupta continues:

If it happens, just as Dr. Gupta, the Indian American professor of Nuclear Medicine will get a huge sense of accomplishment, after fighting a long and arduous battle to save patients from the danger of substandard and counterfeit medicines in India, the civil society of our country will at the same time feel a unique sense freedom… the freedom from fear… the fear of substandard and counterfeit medicines.

By Tapan Ray

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

Leverage Information Technology (IT), Health Insurance and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiatives to address the burning issue of ‘Access to Affordable Integrated Healthcare to all’ in India.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of general focus, stringent Government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, a vast majority of Indian population still do not have access to basic healthcare facilities.The degree of poor access to healthcare in general may vary from state to state depending on economic resources and the quality of governance. However, despite the success of the Government to make medicines available in India cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, it has been reported that about 65% of Indian population still do not have access to affordable modern medicines compared to 15% in China and 22% in Africa.Lack of adequate healthcare infrastructure:

One of the key reasons of such poor access is lack of adequate healthcare infrastructure. As per the Government’s own estimate of 2006, India records a shortage of:

1. 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)
2. 2653 Community Health Centres (CHS)
3. Almost no large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live
4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively , as reported by WHO.

Moreover, doctors themselves do not want work in rural areas, probably because of lack of basic infrastructural facilities. We have witnessed public agitation of the doctors on this issue, in not so distant past.

National Health Policy and Healthcare Expenditure:

Two key primary focus areas of the Government, everybody agrees, should be education and health of its citizens. Current National Health Policy also planned an overall increase in health spending as 6% of GDP by 2010. However India spent, both public and private sectors put together, an estimated 5% of GDP on healthcare, in 2008.

If we look at only the spending by the Government of India towards healthcare, it is just 1.2% of GDP, against 2% of GDP by China and 1.6% of GDP by Sri Lanka, as reported in the World Health Report 2006 by WHO.

During the current phase of global and local financial meltdown, as the government will require to allocate additional resources towards various economic stimulus measures for the industrial and banking sectors, public healthcare expenditure is destined to decline even further.

The silver lining:

However we have seen the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government allocating around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHS). The Government announced that NRHS aims to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.

Inefficient healthcare delivery system:

Despite above silver lining of additional resource allocation, the net outcome does not appear to be so encouraging even to an eternal optimist, because of prevailing inadequacy within the system.

The reasons for such inadequacies do not get restricted to just rampant corruption, bureaucratic delay and sheer inefficiency. The way Government statistics mask inadequate infrastructural facilities is indeed equally difficult to apprehend. A recent report from ‘The Economist’, which reads as follows, will vindicate this point:

‘…around 20% of the 600,000 inhabited villages in India still have no electricity at all. This official estimate understates the extent of the problem, as it defines an electrified village—very generously—as one in which at least 10% of households have electricity’.

Leveraging the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the system weaknesses:

One of the ways to address this problem is to utilize the acquired strengths of India wherever we have, to neutralize these weaknesses. Proficiency in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is one of the well recognized key acquired strengths that India currently possesses. If we can optimally harness the IT strengths of India, this pressing healthcare issue could possibly be addressed to a significant extent.

One such IT enabled technology that we can use to address rural healthcare issues is ‘cyber healthcare delivery’ for distant diagnosis and treatment of ailments. Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by utilising the Government controlled distribution outlets like, public distribution system (ration shops) and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

Please use the following links to read more about these subjects:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/healthcare-services-in-india

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

Sources of Healthcare financing in India:

Currently the sources of healthcare financing are patchy and sporadic as follows, with over 70% of the population remaining uncovered:

1. Public sector: comprising local, State and Central Governments autonomous public sector bodies for their employees

2. Government health scheme like:

• ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana’: for BPL families to avail free treatment in more than 80 private hospitals and private nursing homes.
• ‘Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasthya Bima Yojana’ by Textile Ministry: for weavers.
• ‘Niramaya’ by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: for BPL families.

3. Private sector: directly or through group health insurance for their employees.

4. ‘Karnataka Yeshavini co-operative farmers’ health insurance scheme: championed by Dr. Devi Shetty without any insurance tie-up.

5. ‘Rajiv Aarogyasri’ by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for BPL families: a Public Private Partnership initiative between Government, Private insurance and Medical community.

6. Individual health insurance policies.

7. External Aid like, Bill & Melinda Gate Foundation, Clinton Foundation etc.

Grossly inadequate health care financing in India, out of pocket expenses being over 70%:

Proportion of healthcare expenditure from financing source in India has been reported as follows:

• Central Government: 6%
• State Government: 13%
• Firms: 5%
• Individual Health Insurance: 3.5%
• Out of pocket by individual household: 72.5%

Need for Health Insurance for all strata of society to address the issue of affordability:

Even after leveraging IT for ‘cyber healthcare diagnosis’ and having low priced quality medicines made available from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets of DoP, healthcare financing to make healthcare delivery affordable to a vast majority of the population will be an essential requirement.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of populations cannot afford to required treatment at all.

Hence it is imperative that the health insurance coverage is encouraged in our country by the government through appropriate incentives. Increasing incidence of lifestyle diseases and rising medical costs further emphasise the need for health insurance. Health insurance coverage in India is currently estimated at just around 3.5% of the population with over 70% of the Indian population living without any form of health coverage.

Conclusion:

Therefore, in my view an integrated approach by leveraging IT, appropriately structured Health Insurance schemes for all strata of society, supported by well and evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserves consideration by the Government. A detail and comprehensive implementable plan is to be prepared towards this direction to address the pressing issue of improving ‘Access to Affordable Integrated Healthcare’ to a vast majority of population in India, if not to ALL.

By Tapan Ray

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

Fixed Dose Combination’ drugs market in India is growing faster – are there enough regulatory checks and balances to prevent market entry of ‘irrational combinations’ to ensure patients’ safety?

Posted on by
Reply
The WHO Model of FDCs:The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection‘ includes the following statement regarding fixed dose combination products (FDCs):ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

FDCs need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond that for the individual drugs given alone. They would also need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance. FDCs, therefore, are expected to improve compliance reducing the risk of development of drug resistance.

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc. Besides, there are FDCs for various other disease areas, like, infections, respiratory and cardiovascular disorders etc.

New FDCs are patent protected in the USA:

In the western world, like the USA, new FDCs may also get patent protection. A company may obtain marketing exclusivity for a new FDC even when individual active ingredients go off patent. However, in India FDCs cannot be patented as per Patent Acts of India 2005.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India:

In India the market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. Because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of a ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

Lack of regulatory compliance has created a messy situation with FDCs in India:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for the sake of patents’ safety.

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945. In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails relatively more regulatory data generation, besides the time and expenses involved, the above Rule was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals were routinely sought and obtained from the State FDAs. Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flaunting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical companies.

Patients’ safety – the key concern:

This complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ safety. The state FDAs were reminded of the Notification by the earlier DCGI. 294 FDCs got caught in this dispute. The important issue of patients’ safety in that process got converted into a legal issue, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to redress their grievances in this matter.

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got trapped into various prolonged litigations, the current DCGI took initiative of resolving this contentious issue with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, a notification is expected to be issued subsequent to which each of these combinations will be construed to be a new drug and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation will require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45. The process will be completed after the balance 142 FDCs, which need further examination, are individually approved.

This issue sends a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardise the patients’ safety. The number of FDCs banned by CDSCO and also ban of those FDCs agreed and accepted by the industry without any challenge during the above process, will vindicate this point.

Solving the current logjam is not enough:

Solving the current logjam on FDCs by the DCGI is a onetime exercise and will perhaps clear a serious mess-up created over a long period of time. It can definitely not be an ongoing process. Neither will it be desirable. There is an absolute and urgent need to follow the WHO Model for FDCs, in India, as indicated above, through appropriate regulatory processes. At the same time, the DCGI should ensure strict compliance of the Notification issued by Ministry of Health on FDCs, in September 1988. Otherwise, unchecked entry of FDCs of all possible permutations and combinations could pose a serious threat to patients’ interest and safety.

Meeting unmet needs of the patients with high quality drugs of scientifically proven high efficacy and safety profile should always define the purpose of existence of the pharmaceutical industry. Any patients’ safety related issue deserves no scope for any compromise.

By Tapan Ray

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

Healthcare services in India … growing disparity between urban and rural population – can ‘Telemedicine’ play a significant role?

Posted on by
Reply
Healthcare Industry in India is currently valued at US$ 35 billion. This industry is expected to record a turnover of US$ 75 billion in 2012 and US$ 150 billion in 2017, reports Technopak Advisors in their report titled “India Healthcare Trends 2008”.Growing Middle Class Population – the key growth driver:This growth is not expected to come from rural India where over 70% of Indian population lives and a vast majority of them do not have ‘access to modern medicines‘. The key driver of growth of this sector will be growing 150 million strong middle class population with increasing health awareness. Out of this population, 50 million have a disposable income of US$ 4,380 – US$21, 890,, reports McKinsey. Technopak Advisors report recommends an immediate investment of US$ 82 billion to meet this growing demand.

Medical Tourism - another potential growth driver:

Another growth driver is expected to be ‘Medical Tourism’. With a slogan: ‘First World Treatment at Third World Prices’, Medical Tourism is expected to become a US$ 2 billion industry by 2012 from US$ 350 million in 2006, reports a study done by McKinsey and CII. In 2008-09, over 200,000 foreigners, mainly from Middle East and South Asian countries came for medical treatment in India. Hospitals in India are now trying to attract patients from Afro-Asian countries who spend around US$ 20 billion outside their respective countries, towards medical treatment. Thus, the current number of patients visiting India for medical tourism is expected to grow by around 25 percent during next few years.

Medical expertise and facilities – a sharp contrast between the urban and rural India:

India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) reports that over a period of last few years besides cost advantage, high success rate, especially in the following areas has been attracting the medical tourists towards India:

• Over 500,000 major surgeries and over a million other surgical procedures including cardio-thoracic, neurological and cancer surgeries have been performed by the Indian specialists, with success rates at par with international standards.

• The success rate of cardiac bypass in India is 98.7 per cent against 97.5 per cent in the U.S.

• India’s success in 110 bone marrow transplants is 80 per cent.

• The success rate in 6,000 renal transplants is 95 per cent.

• India has the 2nd highest number of qualified doctors in the world.

It is worth noting, the centre of excellence of all these outstanding statistical records are located mainly in the urban areas. In sharp contrast to these most of the rural populations are denied of basic healthcare facilities services. Despite being second highest growing economy in the world after China and having world class healthcare facilities available in the country, a vast majority of rural population is denied of basic healthcare services. Even in those places where primary healthcare establishments are available, poor maintenance, understaffing, non-availability of medicines and antic medical equipment, deny the basic and standard healthcare services to the local population.

India is still the home for world’s ‘largest number of poor people in a single country’, even after 61 years of Independence. A study indicates that in India around 260 million people live below the poverty line (BPL). Out of this number about 193 million people live in rural areas and about 67 million live in urban areas. Over 75% of these poor people live in rural India.

The point to note here, although over 700 million people live in rural India, only 193 million of them belong to BPL families. Therefore, even those who can afford proper medical treatment in rural areas, do not have access to modern healthcare facilities, due lack of healthcare infrastructure and services.

Quoting Oxford University of the United Kingdom (UK), The Economic Times (ET) dated February 2, 2009 reported that due to lack of basic healthcare facilities, around one million women and children die every year in India. This is, once again, mainly because 700 million people in rural India have no access to specialists. 80% of medical specialists live in urban areas. ‘India Knowledge, Wharton’ reported recently that India would require an investment of US$ 20 billion over next 5 years to address this problem.

National Health Policy 1983 promised healthcare services to all by 2000 – has it delivered?

The National Health Policy 1983 announced commitment of the Government of India to provide ‘health care services to all by year 2000′. Unfortunately, even today only 35% of Indian population have access to affordable modern medicines, despite an appreciable growth of this sector during last four decades.

Per capita expenditure towards healthcare in India is one of lowest among Asian countries outside South Asia. The expenditure of the Government for healthcare has progressively grown over the years though, healthcare expenditure as a percentage of total government spending has decreased considerably. Only silver lining is that the private sector spending towards healthcare is steadily increasing at a much higher pace.

Can ‘Telemedicine’ improve access to healthcare in rural India?

Would creation of a cost-effective ‘Telemedicine’ infrastructure in rural areas be able to address this problem? In my view, this area is worth exploring seriously and should be tried out by the Government with Public Private Partnership (PPP) model, initially with pilot projects.

‘Telemedicine’ has been defined as the use of electronic information and communication technologies to provide health care support to patients from distant locations. Thus ‘Telemedicine’ could be used to provide healthcare services where it does not exist at all and at the same will help to improve healthcare services considerably, where something already exists.

With the advancement in telecommunication and satellite communication technology in the recent years, the scope of creating and gradually expanding the ‘Telemedicine’ facilities in India indeed throw open a new avenue to improve ‘access to quality healthcare services’, in rural India.

Besides lack of basic primary healthcare services in rural areas where over 70% of Indian population live, 90% of secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities are also located in large cities and towns.

Thus, in addition to primary healthcare services, even secondary and tertiary healthcare needs of a large number of rural populations can be successfully met locally through consultations with the experts located in distant cities and towns without anyone having to travel to those far off cities and towns.

‘Telemedicine‘, therefore, could also offer solutions to the problem of expert medical assistance during serious or critical illness of people living in rural India. The role of ‘Telemedicine’ on healthcare services will be very meaningful under such circumstances.

‘Telemedicine’ services have already started in a smaller scale though, in Kerala, West Bengal and North-eastern states of India. It is slowly coming up in some other southern states, as well. What is required now is a concerted and integrated approach, spear-headed by the Government of India, taking all State Governments on board, with a robust policy initiative.

However, there are some key concerns with this initiative, as well. The most important of which is related to costs of such treatment for the rural households, besides other regulatory issues.

Appropriate regulatory and policy frameworks should be thoughtfully worked out to extend such innovative services to rural India, under PPP. If the concept of ‘Telemedicine’ can be made to work effectively in rural areas, leveraging world class expertise in information technology available within the country, India will emerge as a role model in the field of ‘Telemedicine’ for the developing nations of the world.

Moreover, over a period of time the ‘Telemedicine’ platform can also be effectively utilized for many other healthcare initiatives, like for example, disease prevention programs, medical/para medical staff training etc.

When ‘e-chaupal’ initiative of ITC for rural farmers of India could be so successful, why not ‘Telemedicine’ for rural patients of India?

The promise of “Healthcare services to all by year 2000” as enunciated in the National Health Policy, 1983 of the Government of India, could still be achievable, albeit late, by the next decade of this new millennium with ‘Telemedicine’.

By Tapan Ray

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

Innovation, IPR and Indian Pharmaceutical Industry – a growth formula is brewing.

Posted on by
Reply
Innovate or perish:Many of us expect that ‘tomorrow’ will be a ‘mega today’ and prefer to run our business more or less the same way, as what we are doing today. At the same time the global market keeps us sending, in very small measures though, but definite and continuous signals of change. As we move on, we realize that ‘tomorrow’ will not be a ‘mega today’, just as ‘today’ is not a ‘mega yesterday’. To meet such challenge of change squarely and realistically, we need to embrace a culture of ‘continuous innovation’.Therefore, the name of the game, while competing within the globalised economy is “continuous innovation”. An innovation, as we know, is more than a novel idea. It is, in fact, the process of translating the novel idea into reality.

Like other industries, the pharmaceutical industry in India will also have to innovate with cutting edge ideas, convert them to innovative and implementable business models, which in turn would help these companies to remain competitive in the market place. The innovation, which I am talking about, extends beyond Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

While innovation is an absolute must to remain and grow the business, having patented products and marketing these brands effectively are desirable and not a ‘must do’ in the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Many would like to ‘stick to knitting’ and innovate:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is now an internationally acclaimed player in process development, contract research, manufacturing and domestic marketing skills. The Government of India created this environment for the industry through amendments of the Indian Patents Act 1970.

During post product patent regime in India, there is no dire need for the entire domestic industry to shift its focus from world class process development skills to new molecule development skill. On the contrary, the strengths acquired by the domestic industry in such skill sets should be further honed, to utilize benefits from opportunities that arise out of basic R&D processes. Some of these are collaborative activities with the multinational companies (MNCs) to create a win-win situation in areas like, contract research, clinical development, contract manufacturing and domestic marketing of in-licensed products.

The domestic pharmaceutical industry should therefore adopt strategies like manufacturing off patent products, like recent collaboration between Aurobindo Pharma and Pfizer, Jubilant Organosys with French company Guerbet, for distribution of its nuclear medicine products in Europe. ‘Financial Express’ dated March 13, 2009 reported “Eli Lily seeks partner for Indian TB initiatives.

Such opportunities will keep on coming, may be more frequently and more in number, especially when global innovator companies take more interest in the generic pharmaceutical business, like, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis etc.

To grab such opportunities, the strategy of ‘stick to the knitting’ with continuous innovation is expected to help the domestic pharmaceutical companies immensely.

IPR regime – emerging opportunities:

Discovery Research:

While above approach will help many small and medium sector enterprises, many large pharmaceutical companies and research boutiques in India are investing significantly to discover New Molecular Entities (NMEs). It has been reported that by 2011, at least two Indian pharmaceutical companies are planning to launch their NMEs.

Biotech Research:

Research in the field of Biotechnology is rapidly evolving, especially in the areas of diagnostics, vaccines, cellular and molecular biology. It is heartening to note that for doing stem cell research National Institute of Health, USA, identified Reliance Life Sciences in Mumbai and the National Institute of Biological sciences in Bangalore to receive state funding from the USA. Both these two organizations entered into contracts to supply embryonic stem cells to the US based researchers. Moreover, in the field of ‘Biometrics’ raw clinical data are now being transmitted to the specialists in India for their scientific evaluation.

It has been reported that in the developing countries of the world malaria afflicts about 300-500 million population and kills 1-3 million of them. Malaria also allows some fatal genetic illnesses, like sickle cell anaemia to thrive in the gene pool. Hence a vaccine developed for this disease through Indian biotech initiatives, would indeed be a great boon for the developing countries of the world.

Industry – Academia Collaboration:

In the Western countries, close collaboration exists between the industry and academic institutes in the field of Pharmaceutical Research. Such type of collaboration has now started developing in India too, where Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is playing major role.

An effective collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and the academia will ensure productive use of research talents where both the parties will draw benefits. The research done by the CSIR, Indian Institute of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Science and various universities is expected to throw open new avenues of collaboration and partnership between industry and Academia.

Benefits of Technology Transfer and increased Foreign Direct Investment (FDI):

The new product patent regime is also expected to facilitate flow of technology and foreign direct investment in India with adequate patent enforcement mechanism being put in place. Inadequate patent and regulatory data protection are considered by the developed nations as the key barriers, which restrict the flow of both technology and foreign investments.

In these areas, India mainly competes with China and Brazil, besides other emerging markets. Degree of patent and regulatory data protection in each of these countries will eventually decide who will emerge as a winner in these fields.

The issue of ‘Access to New Innovative Patented Drugs’:

Innovative pharmaceutical products patented in India will facilitate access to the latest modern medicines to Indian population. Such medicines will help to meet the unmet needs of the ailing population. Many multinational companies like, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have already announced a differential pricing mechanism for such medicines in the developing countries.

Moreover, to improve access of such medicines to the common man, the Government of India should have robust plan to purchase these medicines, at a negotiated price, for supply to Government Healthcare Units

Improving ‘Access to affordable modern medicines’ – a challenge to the nation

There are three key elements to improve access to affordable medicines to a vast majority (650 million) of Indian population:

1. Healthcare infrastructure and delivery
2. Healthcare financing
3. Procurement price of these medicines at the Government Healthcare units

Price of patented products will not have any impact on existing medicines available in the market. However, the reality is, price regulation in some form will continue to play a key role in India. The long overdue new Drug Policy of India is now expected to come only after the new Government takes charge, post General Election of the country. The new policy is expected to articulate the details on this important subject both for patented and generic medicines, in India.

A determined and focused approach of the Government on the above three elements would effectively address the key healthcare issues of India.

Small Scale Enterprises in India – expecting large scale consolidation:

In India over 70% of the small-scale units, within the pharmaceutical industry, currently operate as contract manufacturers, either for the domestic or multinational companies. These small scale units with their low operating cost ,make the contract sourcing model an attractive proposition. Many of these small scale enterprises, are mostly catering to the export business in non-regulated markets.

The demand for high quality standard by the drug regulatory authorities of various countries is fast increasing. It is, therefore, essential for these units to make significant investments to qualify for such stringent quality requirements. Some units would be able to invest enough to meet such regulatory standards. However, the cost of production for those units, which will invest towards facility up gradation is expected to increase significantly, leading to fierce cut throat competition. In a situation like this, we can expect to witness a large scale consolidation process within the industry.

Intense competition from China – cannot be ignored:

Globalisation of the markets could lead to significant dumping of products in different countries. Such a situation may adversely affect the cash flow of business, making the domestic industry highly vulnerable. Currently, Indian manufacturers are facing intense competition from China, in Pharmaceutical Intermediates (PI) and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) segments. This is mainly because China has a much better economies of scale in manufacturing, which gives them a pricing edge over their Indian counterparts.

PI and he API manufacturers in the small scale enterprise segments of India have already been very adversely impacted, leading to closure of many units in various states like, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat.

Conclusion:

The issue of a robust world class patent regime in India has sparked off an intense debate with a heavy dose of acrimony. The key areas of concern of various stakeholders are as follows:

1. General public: inadequate access of affordable modern medicine to the common man
2. Domestic generic industry: overall industry growth and to some extent its survival
3. The Government of India: combination of 1&2

After many years of tough resistance mainly from the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, in January 1, 2005, India re-entered into the pharmaceutical product patent regime. In this article, I have tried to give a snapshot of this new regime, for a quick reading.

Despite tough competition from China and increased possibility of consolidation within small scale pharmaceutical units, overall emerging scenario in India is indeed encouraging. Imbibing innovation culture and with the opportunities available in the new IPR regime, Indian pharmaceutical industry, I believe, will be able to catapult itself to newer heights of global success.

By Tapan Ray

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

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

By Tapan Ray

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

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan Ray

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