Tag Archives: Bayer

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on by
Reply

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process: 

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?   

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

  • Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.
  • Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them
  • Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

  • Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.
  • Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.
  • Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

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 Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business­ man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’  However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “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.” He further expressed: “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.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

  • Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.
  • For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as 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.

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

  • 43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
  • 11 percent by less than 3 months
  • 30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
  • Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of 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.

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on by
Reply

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer” 

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked: 

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too. 

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general. 

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” 

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives. 

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.                                         

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies. 

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be. 

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical: 

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach.  In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples. 

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012.  It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC): 

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

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.

Unsustainable New Cancer Drug Prices: Resolution Remains A Far Cry

Posted on by
Reply

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is primarily due to the fact that their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Today, a very large number of poor and even the middle-income patients, who spend their entire life-savings for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new drugs market.

The plights of such patients are worse in India and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

I discussed about the recent decision of the Government for shelving UHC in my recent Blog Post titled, “Would Affordable ‘Modicare’ Remain Just A Pipe Dream In India?”

Irresponsible pricing?

To highlight this point, I shall quote from the research paper titled, “Five Years of Cancer Drug Approvals, Innovation, Efficacy and Costs” published in JAMA Oncology dated April 02, 2015. This report states that just one year’s cost of treatment with a patented new cancer drug now routinely exceeds US$ 100,000. It is much known today that the medical bills for cancer treatment have become the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy, in many countries of the world.

The issue is even more impactful and heart wrenching in India, as with much lower per capita income, compared to the global median, a cancer patient pays around the same price for the same patented drugs in the country. Much talked about Nexavar of Bayer, has been a good example.

The above report underscores, the big global pharma players still vigorously contend to establish that the high cost of drugs is required to support their research and development efforts. However, none would possibly deny the hard data that, when costs and revenues are balanced, the pharmaceutical industry generates high profit margins.

On a lighter vain – the fact that the richest person in India is a pharma player of ‘low price generic medicines’ vindicates this point.

The latest report on pharma R&D costs:

In a ‘Press Release’ of November 18, 2014, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development announced, “Cost to develop and win marketing approval for a New Drug is US$2.6 Billion”.

This is around 2.5 times more than its previous estimate published in 2003, which reads as US$802 million.

Although the study is not publicly available, neither has it been peer reviewed, it does reflect that above overall inflation rate, pharma R&D costs are reportedly going up at an annual rate of around 8 percent!

Even if the R&D cost of US$2.6 Billion is accepted as correct to justify high prices of patented drugs, one should note that this figure is applicable only to those types of New Chemical Entities (NCE) that did not receive any outside funding in their developmental process, such as, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

It is worth noting, such types of NCEs account for less than one-sixth of the annual new drugs approval in the United States.

Interestingly, Tufts Center receives its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, according to reports.

When is a high cost of medicine defendable?

According to some, high price may be justified, if novel products offer significant benefits to patients giving rise to indirect quantifiable economic value through restoration of health of patients.

This is understandable, as those patented drugs represent significant and well-accepted pharmacological advances over the existing ones, offering novel mechanisms of actions for better treatment value through ‘high-risk-high-cost’ research.

Price is a function of the value that a drug offers:

The price of any drug must be a function of the value that it offers to the patients. Not just the cost of its innovation, irrespective of the fact, whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even a ‘Me-too’ NCE.

The above April 2015 research report published in JAMA Oncology, investigated at length, whether novelty of medications or their relative benefits dictated drug pricing.

In that endeavor, the authors found out that from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, the USFDA approved 51 drugs in oncology for 63 indications. During this period, 9 drugs received more than 1 approved indication.

The study observed:

Of these 51 drugs:

- 21 (41 percent) exert their effect via a novel mechanism of action

- While 30 (59 percent) are next-in-class drugs

Despite this fact, there was no difference in the median price per year of treatment between the 30 next-in-class drugs (US$119, 765) and the 21 novel drugs (US$116, 100).

Global cancer market is soaring high fuelled by astronomical prices:

According to a report that quotes an official of IMS Health, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States is now US$10,000, up from $5,000 just a year ago. At the same time, according to a 2014 study by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, global oncology spending has hit US$91 billion in 2013, and despite patent cliff is growing at 5 percent annually.

None likes nightmarish cancer drug-pricing trend:

None likes this worrisome drug-pricing trend, not even in the developed world. God forbid, just one cancer patient in the family can drag even a middle class household to the poverty level, especially in a country like India, where Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses for health hovers around 70 percent and Universal Health Coverage still remains a pipe dream.

Payers, including governments and private insurers, in the top cancer markets such as the United States and Europe, are trying hard to bring the cancer drug prices to a reasonable level through regulatory pressure of various kinds and forms. For example, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and the regulators for drug cost-effectiveness in other large European countries, are coming hard on patented new cancer drugs with small improvements in survival time but priced much higher than the existing ones.

Even many private insurers in those countries are now raising questions about the additional value offerings in quantifiable terms, especially for the new cancer drugs and other treatments for life-threatening ailments, such as hepatitis C. To give an example, in late 2014, Express Scripts in America negotiated hard for an exclusive deal with AbbVie to provide its hepatitis C treatment Viekira Pak over Gilead’s exorbitantly priced Sovaldi.

Action by the doctors outside India:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced in ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut Zaltrap price by half.

Unlike in India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only on their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a recent 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of such drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the U.K.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Tokenism by the Indian Government:

India sent a signal to global pharma players about its unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country on March 9, 2012. On that day, the then Indian Patent Controller General issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating that an article published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 quoted Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer AG saying: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

Be that as it may, India did send a very strong signal in this regard, which some construe as mere tokenism. Nonetheless, this action of the Indian Government shook the global pharma world very hard, that it would find difficult to forget in a foreseeable future.

Government’s determination to make it happen is still eluding:

The headline of this article would probably invoke an instant negative response from my friends in the industry, an understandably so, expressing… ‘Hey, are you talking against innovation and suggesting one more regulator for the heavily regulated pharma industry?’ 

I would very humbly say, no…I am suggesting neither of those two, but requesting to give shape to a very important decision already taken by the Government on this issue, in a meaningful way. That decision has been scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and was notified on December 07, 2012.

On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“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 based on the recommendation of this committee.”

The following long drawn unproductive events would vindicate, beyond even an iota of doubt, that a strong determination to make it happen, by even by the new Government, is still eluding by far.

Is this committee ‘Jinxed’?

To utter dismay of the patients and their well-wishers, the above committee took over six years after it was formed to submit its report.

It recommended ‘Reference Pricing’ for the Patented Drugs in India, after adjusting against India’s Gross National Income and Purchasing Power Parity. The suggested ‘Reference Countries’ were UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand, where there exist a strong public health policy, together with tough bargaining power of the governments for drug price negotiations.

However, our Government found this report useless for various reasons and dissolved the panel. The grapevine in the corridors of power whispers, it could possibly be due to intense pressure from the global pharma players and their powerful lobby groups.

Interestingly, again by the end of 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) set up a brand new inter-ministerial committee with four representatives each from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and one from the DoP to resolve the same issue of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ in India.

Unfortunately, a serious issue of this magnitude has still remained unresolved, even under the new seemingly dynamic Government, till date. There were media reports though, just prior to the Union Budget in January 2015, that ‘the Government may negotiate prices of patented medicines with their manufacturers before allowing pharmaceutical companies to launch them in India.’

The scenario is still far from even sketchy. A lurking fear, therefore, creeps into the minds of many: Is this committee on ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ jinxed or incompetent or has deliberately been kept non-functional under tremendous external pressure on pricing of patented drugs?

The way forward:

To find an implementable ‘Patented Drug Pricing Model’ soon, the new committee of the Government should consider Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model for the country.

Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value of the drug therapy.  Pharmacoeconomics principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

Thus, PBP/VBP basically offers the best value for money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.

To the best of my knowledge, the Public Health Foundation of India, spearheaded by well-reputed internationally acclaimed physician – Dr. Srinath Reddy, has requisite expertise in this area and to build on it further, as required by the committee.

This new model would help establishing in India that the price of any drug is always a key function of the value that it offers and not of the so called ‘high cost of innovation’, irrespective of whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even ‘Me-Too’ NCE.

The concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Price tags of most of the patented new cancer drugs, do not seem to give any indication that the pharma players believe in this pricing model, even remotely. As JAMA Oncology has established in their recent research study, there is no difference in the median price of per year of treatment between ‘Next-in-Class’ and ‘Novel Drugs’.

Thus far, India has been able to address this issue either through section 3(d) or Compulsory Licensing (CL) provisions of its Patents Act. As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the net fall-out of these measures has been demonstrably profound. For example, the global pharma giant Gilead has entered into voluntary License (VL) agreements with several local companies to market in India one of the most expensive products of the world – Sovaldi, at a small fraction of its original price of US$1,000/tablet. 

That said, effective long-term resolution of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ issue, in my view, is long overdue in India, especially for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. This has been necessitated by the fact that in many cases, therapeutic benefits of most of these drugs are not commensurate to their high costs.

The provision for ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ has already been made in the NPPP 2012, though not implemented, as yet. While working out an implementable mechanism for the same, the new committee of the present Government may consider ‘Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model’ to effectively resolve this crucial issue. The specialized group that will operate this system could be a part of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India.

The struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, without having access to new life-saving drugs, has indeed assumed a mind-boggling dimension in India, especially in the absence of Universal Health Coverage. It would continue to remain so, unless the new Government demonstrates its will to act, putting in place a transparent model of patented drugs pricing, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

The bottom-line is: It has to happen soon…very soon. For patients’ sake.

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.

Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Besides all important brand attributes and how well those are communicated to the doctors, the ‘game winning’ differentiating factors in the prescription drug business, as it appears today, would revolve around overall quality of patient-centric approach and offerings of pharma companies, craftily tagged with the associated products.

To hasten business growth, being more and more patient-centric, in increasingly competitive, demanding and complex environment, pharma players would require to leverage the cutting-edge technology to its fullest for significant value addition in their respective sales and marketing models too.

Keeping pace with today’s ‘technology revolution’, rapid advent of various game-changing and user-friendly digital health applications for consumers are showing immense potential for a refreshing catalytic change in the overall landscape for patient-centric healthcare services as a key differentiating tool from the pharma players’ perspective.

The capability and capacity of ‘out of box’ thinking, professional expertise to choose and customize the right technological tools, making them key components of pharma sales and marketing models and above all, their effective implementation on the ground, would eventually differentiate men from the boys in the ball game of competitive excellence in the Indian pharma industry.

This emerging opportunity brings to the fore immense potential to revolutionize the treatment process of many serious chronic ailments with significant value creation, even in India, generating a unique synergy between the drugs and customized disease related digital tools.

In this evolving ball game; wearable, decent looking and user-friendly ‘Health Apps’, installable in smartphones having Internet and Bluetooth connectivity along with touch screens; signal a great potential for augmentation of the overall disease treatment process.

Consequently, it would kick-start a healthy competition within the pharma companies to continuously raising the bar of unique value offerings to patients, more than ever before.

A close experience:

Purely prompted by my keen interest in technology for a long while,the ‘Health App’ that I have bought and installed in my iPhone and wearing for sometime, is basically a multifunctional and multi-dimensional fitness tracker.

From the decent looking digital ‘Wrist Band’ that comes with it, the Health App tracks on a daily basis, kilometers that I have walked (from pre-calibrated steps), calories that I have consumed with intake of different food types and burnt up through physical workouts, total duration of time that I have slept in a day, quality of my sleep (sound and light sleep) with duration, number of times that I woke up at night, precise daily intake with quantity of nutrition, such as, fluid, carbohydrate, protein, fiber, different types of fat, salt etc., pulse rate, breathing and mood, besides many others.

Current users:

Besides some global pharma companies that I shall deliberate below, the current users of ‘Health Apps’ are mostly those people who are increasingly becoming fitness and diet conscious (at any age) and also want to take proactive measures for prevention of many chronic ailments.

A study:

According to a report co-authored by an official of IMS Institute of Healthcare Informatics, a study based on nearly 43,700 purported Health or Medical Apps available on Apple’s iTunes App Store, found that 69 percent of those Apps targeted the consumers and patients, while 31 percent were built for use by clinicians. Most of the ‘Consumer Healthcare Apps’ were simple in design and do little more than provide information.

The study observes, a large number of Health Apps are being designed to track simpler data on health and fitness. However, the more sophisticated Apps are capable to perform advanced functions, such as, real-time monitoring and high-resolution imaging.

Possibility for much wider use in healthcare:

Although, many of these Apps have been devised as personal fitness and health trackers directly by the consumers, the information and hard data thus captured can possibly be shared with the medical practitioners by the patients, as and when required. This data could serve as valuable patient life-style information inputs for the doctors, while managing their serious chronic illnesses.

Health Apps could also help the users reduce, at least, the primary care costs through preventive self-monitoring measures and take control of their own basic health.

In tandem, I reckon, there is a good possibility for a much wider use of such Health Apps in India by the pharma companies, along with many drugs, especially those, which are used for chronic ailments.

For example, real-time data tracking on:

-Exercise, diet and Body Mass Index (BMI) for patients on anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive drugs

- Quality of sleep for patients with sleep disorders and are on related medicines

- Mood for patients taking anti-depressant medications

The data captured by the Health Apps in all such related areas could be useful for both the doctors and the patients in the process of effective disease management along with the drugs. 

Going beyond drugs:

Based on this emerging trend, it is envisaged that in not too distant future, it won’t be very uncommon for patients, suffering from especially serious chronic diseases, to get prescriptions for both the drug and an the related customized Health App, for better quality of life through effective disease control.

Similarly, some hospital discharge orders may possibly include downloading of related mobile Health App on patients’ smartphones, primarily to provide an ongoing link between the doctor and the patient for better patient care and more effective follow-up visits.

Pharma players showing interest in Health App market:

It is, therefore, no surprise that pharma players have started showing keen interest in Health App market. In fact, this emerging market is now dominated by the big pharma players, with Bayer having 11.2 percent market share, followed closely by Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

The top 20 Health App makers are as follows:

No Company No. Of Health Apps
1. Bayer 139
2. Merck 111
3. Novartis 108
4. Pfizer 62
5. Boehringer Ingelheim 51
6. Janssen 45
7. AstraZeneca 44
8. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) 41
9. Roche 41
10. Johnson &Johnson (J&J) 39
11. Novo Nordisk 32
12. Siemens 29
13. Amgen 28
14. Medtronic 27
15. Abbott 24
16. Biogen Idec 20
17. Merial 20
18. Sanofi 20
19. Genentech 19
20. Allergan 17

(Source: Pocket.md as of 12/2/2013) 

A novel business expansion opportunity:

Pharma players in India may consider to actively focus on, with requisite resource deployment, to collaboratively develop and market smartphones based digital Health Apps, for quantum value addition in their brand promotion.

Moving towards this direction, pharma sales and marketing strategy for a chronic disease treatment should consider making Health Apps an integral part of doctors’ prescription along with the related drugs of the company.

Some examples:

To give an idea of the evolving trend, I am citing below a few examples, out of lot many, in this emerging area:

- Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) of Bayer: This drug is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis to reduce the frequency of clinical exacerbations. The company launched its first iPhone App, named ‘myBETAapp’ with ‘Personalized Tools’ to assist people on Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) in managing their Multiple Sclerosis (MS) treatment.

myBETAapp provides patients with injection reminders, injection site rotation assistance and injection history.  Through Internet, myBETAapp also gives patients access to the BETAPLUS Web page on Betaseron.com, including links to educational tools, peer support and contacts listed on the site.  With active phone service, patients enrolled in the BETAPLUS program can dial directly to speak to BETA Nurses, who are specially trained in MS.

- Tobi Podhaler (tobramycin inhalation powder) of Novartis: This drug is indicated for the treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

Podhaler Pro App is an iPhone based navigation tool for patients and also the doctors during treatment with Tobi Podhaler. This Health App is a customizable digital pocket companion that helps, besides many others, with timely reminders to keep track of treatments, real patient stories and access to a live PodCare nurse to answer questions about taking treatment.

- Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate)of Boehringer Ingelheim: This drug is indicated for ‘Reduction of Risk of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation; Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism and Reduction in the Risk of Recurrence of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism’. It comes with a Health App, available in online ‘Apple Stores’. This is a tool providing healthcare professionals with information about stroke risk in Von-valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Pradaxa Health App contains a ‘Stroke Risk Calculator’, ‘Bleeding Risk Calculator’, Renal function and dosing and administration information.

Pradaxa Health App also has a great resource section, split into ‘Patient and Health Care Professionals’ sections, which can be sent to patients via email.

- Xarelto (rivaroxaban) of Janssen Pharmaceuticals: This drug is indicated for ‘Reducing Stroke Risk in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (AF); Treating Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE) and Reducing the Risk of Recurrence; DVT Prophylaxis After Knee or Hip Replacement Surgery’. It  also comes with a Health App, called Xarelto Patient Center and available in online ‘Apple Stores’.

Xarelto Patient Center App features include, personalize questions that help patients speak with their doctors about treatment with Xarelto, Appointment reminder, Xarelto ‘Savings Programs’, Registration to receive more information, Videos that share more information on Xarelto and hear from others who have been treated with the drug, After receiving a prescription the patient can enroll in the ‘XARELTO CarePath’ patient support and savings program.

Thus, especially for high-risk ailments, such iOS Apps directed at patients with information on the drug, including interactions with other medicines, dietary requirements, fitness/health trackers, besides many others, can add additional value both to the prescribers and the patients in the process of effective disease management.

Tightening the loose knots:

A 2014 report titled, ‘r2g mobile Health Economics’ by ‘Research2Guidance’ states, even though they try hard, most of the pharma companies fail to have a significant impact on the mHealth App market. Some pharma companies have published more than 100 Apps available for iOS and Android, but have generated only limited downloads and usage.

It states, pharma companies have created only little reach within the smartphone/tablet App user base. In fact, the leading pharma companies have been able to generate 6.6m downloads since 2008 and have less than 1m active users.

Analysis and comparison of the App activities of the top 12 Pharma companies in the report, gives reasons why pharma companies have not succeeded in becoming leading mHealth Apps providers, as follows:

- The App portfolios are not globally available:  Almost half of the pharma companies’ Apps target only local markets. This means that their apps are available only in 3 or less countries.

- The App portfolio is built around the core products of the pharma companies and not around the actual market demand:  For example, if a company specializes in the treatment of hematological diseases, the App portfolio reflects that. Apps in this case would provide references to the latest research, support diagnosis and facilitate information exchange with/between the experts. There exists an App market for such products, but there are other segments e.g. health tracking, weight loss, fitness or diabetes condition management, which attract more users.

- No cross-referencing or common and recognizable design:  So far, pharma companies have not used the full potential of cross-referencing between their Apps. They also do not use common style guides for their App portfolio. Both of these could improve their App visibility as well as strengthen their corporate identity in the App market.

From this research analysis, it is quite evident that there is a need to tighten the loose knots in the Health Apps space by the pharma players. All improvement areas, as indicated above, should be addressed, sooner, especially, the need to targeting patients globally and inclusion of segments such as health/fitness tracking, weight loss, together with patient management focus areas of chronic illness conditions, such as, diabetes or hypertension, which have been attracting more users.

A comprehensive look and well thought-out action would help realizing true potential of the Health Apps market in India.

Conclusion:

Based on the emerging trend, it appears, those days are not quite far off, when it will become quite common for the doctors and also for the hospitals to co-prescribe with the drugs, user-friendly, disease related smartphone based Health Apps for the patients. This practice would provide an ongoing link between the doctors and the patient, leading to not just better quality of treatment, but a comprehensive overall healthcare in that specific disease condition.

However, currently there does exist a down side to this approach, which can’t be totally ignored either. The reason being, such Health Apps are not quite affordable to many, just yet, especially in a country like India. This affordability barrier could probably be overcome, if Indian IT software and hardware development companies consider this area lucrative from an emerging business opportunity perspective, as the country moves on with its ‘Make in India’ campaign.

If it makes sense…probably it does, it needs to be tried out sooner, in a much larger scale, for a win-win outcome.  To begin with, the interested pharma players can tailor these well differentiated value offerings, at least to suit those, who can afford such augmented treatment process for a better quality of life, going much beyond drugs.

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.

 

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

  • During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion: 

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in 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.

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost

Posted on by
Reply

“Bayer CEO Dr. Marijn Dekkers is happy to have fair Outcomes-Based Pricing”, reported ‘PharmaTimes’ on December 3, 2014.

Dr. Dekkers was quoted saying, “It is okay to be tested on that in the process of price-setting, that is fine, we should only be paid for the value we bring”. However, at the same time he also reminded, “When we have a new drug that is significantly better than the previous drug but the previous drug just went generic, we are compared to the 20% price, not the 100% price”.

I reckon, the above statement of the Bayer CEO sounds quite amazing, if not bizarre, especially considering the legality in the prevailing global pharma patent regime.  Thus, any discontentment in this area, howsoever intense these are, would unlikely to be able to attract any unbiased favorable ear, across the world.

Another aspect of the aggressive patented drug pricing trend, I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?” of October 27, 2014.

What is it really?

As many would know, another common terminology of Outcome-Based Pricing (OBP) is Value-Based-Pricing (VBP). This approach for pricing is basically intended to offering the best value for the money spent in healthcare. It is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’. For pharmaceutical players, VBP/OBP would mean not charging more than the actual real value of the product offerings.

As we shall find below, this concept is gaining ground now in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations such as, the ‘National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’in the United Kingdom (UK) has taken a leading role in this area.

An evolving scenario:

It would be worthwhile to note that over a period of time, while pricing new pharma products, manufacturers have been traditionally considering the costs of all inputs of various kinds incurred to bring these drugs into the market and thereafter adding hefty mark-ups on those medicines in a non-transparent manner to arrive at the market price.

This absolutely opaque process of patented drugs pricing is increasingly making the stakeholders, such as patients’ groups, payors, including the governments and insurers much concerned about the differential value offerings of these high priced new drugs over the existing ones for commensurate improvement in the actual health outcomes for the patients.

The relevance:

In the past decade, there has been a clear trend in the price negotiation of new and complex pharma based on health outcomes models as the pharma players are coming under increasing pressure from the payors/patients to improve the treatment cost-effectiveness.

In an article published in the Harvard Business Review of October 2013, Michael Porter and Thomas Lee had cautioned, “ In healthcare, the days of business as usual are over…it is time for a fundamentally new strategy. At its core is maximizing value for patients: that is, achieving the best outcomes at the lowest cost.”

They elucidated the relevance of value based pricing, supporting very strongly the idea of paying for “value” in healthcare.

Thus, if this trend were not checked, the healthcare spending would keep going up, as it is happening today globally, impacting access of these drugs to patients significantly due to spiraling cost pressure.

 A recent vindication:

‘Gallup’ in an articles titled, “Cost Still a Barrier Between Americans and Medical Care” published in December 5, 2014, has reported that in U.S., 33% of Americans have put off medical treatment because of cost. Interestingly, more of them put off treatment for serious conditions than non-serious and more with private insurance had put off treatment in 2014 than 2013.

Thus, to address this issue, as we shall see below, various governments either have or in the process of developing regulatory policies to rationalize new drug prices based on the Outcome/Value-Based Pricing (OBP/VBP) Models of different kinds.

In this backdrop, Bayer CEO’s acceptance of OBP/VBP is indeed a welcoming development. This process is undoubtedly one of the most reasonable ways to arrive at a patented drug price.

For a large majority of stakeholders, treatment outcomes and differential value offerings of new medicines are the most critical factors to monitor the value pathway of patients’ medical care, irrespective of types of illnesses.

The move has already commenced: 

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions in a study on Value-Based Pricing for

Pharmaceuticals, has highlighted that unlike the United States, many countries, where the government plays a decisive role in pricing and price negotiations of pharmaceuticals, have focused on reducing costs through value-based pricing agreements.

The article gives examples of Denmark, where Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative on Levitra (vardenafil) for erectile dysfunction in 2005.  Patients not satisfied with the treatment were eligible for a refund. Similarly, in 2007, after the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom (UK) initially concluded that Velcade (bortezomib) was too expensive as compared to its estimated benefits to the population, Johnson & Johnson offered to forgo charges for patients who did not have an adequate medication response.

Further, according to the Burrill Report of October 2013, as part of an effort to regain market share for its statin Zocor, which had been losing ground to then Warner Lambert’s Lipitor, Merck had reportedly offered an out of box proposition to consumers and insurers in 1998. Merck’s “Get to Goal” guarantee offered refunds to any takers who failed to reach target cholesterol levels set by their doctors within six months of using Zocor and adjusting their diet.

Could serve the purpose of global pharma too:

The above Burrill Report also states, “The performance-based pricing also serves a simpler purpose for drug makers. It allows them to provide discounts that may be necessary to establish acceptable value in one market without affecting the price for a drug in other markets around the world as a number of payers peg the price they will pay for a drug to what price a specific country may negotiate with the drug maker.”

Following this trend it appears that like Dr. Dekkers, other head honchos of global pharma majors would ultimately be left with no option but to willy-nilly toe this line in most of the countries across the world for their patented products.

This would be necessitated due to increasing product-pricing pressure based on quantification of differential benefits of the new medicines over already existing ones, as would be reflected in the analysis of intensive cost-effectiveness data.

Defining a measure of cost-effectiveness:

One of the several other methods to measure the cost-effectiveness of a new drug, as reported in a case study published by ‘2020 Public Services Trust at the RSA’, is as under:

“The efficiency of new products can be captured through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). These are usually based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are a measure of how many extra months or years of reasonable quality life a patient might gain as a result of treatment, based on average life expectancy. Life expectancy is usually extrapolated from the results of clinical trials whilst the quality adjustment is based on patients’ experiential response to the level of pain, mobility and general mood which are usually expressed as a weighted utility value of between 0 and 1. The final calculation of the ratio is based on the difference in the cost to QALY ratio between the new drug and the standard available treatment. However, to make sense of the ICERs it has been necessary to establish thresholds beyond which drugs are no longer deemed cost-effective.”

As the above case study highlights, “NICE had established a notional upper limit of £20-30,000 per QALY above which a drug will generally not be recommended, although in exceptional circumstances this can be increased as was the case for beta-interferon, where it was raised to £36,000.”

The Indian perspective:

In developing countries such as India, expenditure towards medicines is considered as an investment made by patients to improve their health and productivity at work. Maximizing benefits from such spending will require avoidance of those medicines, which will not be effective together with the use of lowest cost option with comparable value and ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason, as stated above, many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind.

A day may come in India too, when the regulatory authorities will concentrate on ‘outcomes/value-based’ pricing models, both for patented and high price branded generics, where low priced equivalents are available.

However, at this stage it appears, this would take some more time. Till then for ‘health outcomes’ based medical prescriptions, working out ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG)’, especially for those diseases, which are most prevalent in India, should assume high importance.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

STG is usually defined as systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment in specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment.” STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

In India, the medical experts have already developed STGs for some disease areas. However, formulation of STGs covering all major disease areas and, more importantly, their effective implementation would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

The Ministry of health of the respective states of India should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis on ‘health-outcomes/value based’ prescription of medicines, ensuring more cost effective treatment for their patients.

Conclusion:

The medical practitioners in their part should ideally volunteer to avoid prescribing expensive drugs offering no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’, against the cheaper equivalents. The Government should initially encourage it through ‘self-regulation’ and if it does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be strictly enforced, within a reasonable time frame.

Be that as it may, it clearly emerges today that in the healthcare arena, effective implementation of ‘Outcomes/Value-Based-Pricing-Models’ would ensure paying for the best health outcomes at the lowest possible cost, especially for those who deserve it the most, not just in India, but across the world too.

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.