Tag Archives: between

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

Posted on by
Reply

The ‘Big Pharma’ prowls faltered yet again exposing the ‘fault line’ to all, when the GSK global head honcho, a pharma icon in his own right, Sir Andrew Witty supported the pharmaceutical policy of India, while in the country earlier this month. This support is quite in contrary to arrogant displeasure being expressed by his MNC counterparts against the pharma regime in India up until now.

Sir Andrew reportedly spoke against the usual pharma MNC practices of charging very high prices for patented medicines during an interview and said that multinationals need to look at things from India’s perspective. 

The above comment, when analyzed especially in context of one of the recent actions of Big Pharma MNCs complaining in writing to President Obama against India’s prevailing pharmaceutical regime, the fault line gets clearly visible.

In this context, a recent report captured the anger and desperation of Big Pharma. This hostility vindicates the general apprehensions in India that MNCs are once again pushing for a stringent patent regime in the country, against the general health interest of Indian patients for access to affordable newer medicines.

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report reconfirmed the impatient prowl of the mighty lobby group in the corridors of power. This piece states, “Recent policy and judicial decisions (Glivec judgment and Nexavar) that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate.” 

The ‘fault line’, thus surfaced, triggers off yet another critical debate, especially related to the slugfest on a stringent pharmaceutical product patent regime in India, as follows:

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

Global innovator companies strongly argue that stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and stricter enforcement of IP laws have strong link with fostering innovation leading to a robust economic growth for any nation.

However, another group of thought leaders opine just the opposite. They argue that strong IPR and IP laws have little, if any, to do with fostering innovation and economic growth, as there are no robust research findings to drive home the above point.

It has been noticed that the MNC lobby groups quite often very cleverly use their magic word ‘innovation’ on a slightest pretext with an underlying desire of having a ‘very strict patent regime’ in India. Thus they seem to be trying to mislead the common man, as if India is against innovation.

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India, Chairman of the National innovation Council and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development.  I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable.  We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

Recent Indian stand:

On March 5, 2013, the Government of India made a profound statement on the subject of ‘Innovation and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)’ at the TRIPS Council meeting covering the following points:

  • There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.
  • The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.
  • The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.
  • After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.
  • Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.
  • It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

As the Wharton professor of Healthcare Management Mark V. Pauly has been quoted saying that the link between patent protection and innovation has never been definitely proven.

However, Pauly reportedly is aware that the innovator global pharma companies do say, ‘If you don’t allow us to reap the benefits of our R&D expenditure, we won’t put as much into it, and we won’t invent as many great things’.

However, the Wharton Professor counters it by saying, “The problem is that nobody really knows how much less innovation there would be if there were less patent protection. We just don’t know what the numbers are.”

The above report says, according to Pauly, the onus to prove that patent protection matters should be on the drug industry itself.

He argues, “Rather than always just insisting you should never limit intellectual property protection, they really ought to develop some evidence to show that without that protection, there would be an impact on the rate of adoption of new products. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts.“

A French Professor’s view:

In another WIPO seminar held on June 18, 2013, Margaret Kyle, a Professor at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Université de Toulouse I in France, reportedly presented preliminary findings of a study.

This paper explored in detail the impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in various areas related to the speed of launch, price, and volume of sales of drugs across countries and across different drug products.

In this study, as the above report states, Kyle analyzed the trade-off between the dynamic and static effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The dynamic effect of IPRs was considered as an incentive for innovation based on the general belief that patent protection, through granting market exclusivity, incentivizes companies to invest in the research and development (R&D) to develop new drugs.

On the other hand, the static effect of IPRs in the short term is that granting market exclusivity often leads to innovator companies pricing their products at levels, which will be unaffordable by a large number of patients, especially in lower-income countries.

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

  • IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.
  • The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

While highlighting that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property protection is passed by some developing countries in order to implement FTA obligations, another recent paper presents the following examples in support of the argument that there no correlation between strong IP laws and fostering innovation:

  • UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…Strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

  • Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System.  LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…No consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally.  Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

  • Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI.  At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

  • Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.”  Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies.  Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

  • Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage.  What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

  • Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.”  International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

“TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as ‘important, but not essential’ for attracting investment. Many other factors matter like, taxes, human capital, clustering, etc.”

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent  article on this subject states as follows:

“Compulsory licensing and stricter patentability standards allow domestic manufacturers to produce lower-cost versions of patented NCD medications and break into lucrative therapeutic areas, such as oncology, in which multinational drug firms are heavily invested.”

The paper clearly highlights, “If patients are pitted against patents, international support for IP protection—upon which drug firms and many other developed country industries now heavily rely—will again diminish.”

Yet another article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 states:

“Patents are government-granted monopolies. As monopolies, they can drive the prices of drugs up dramatically. For example, in 2000, when only patented antiretroviral drugs for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection were widely available, they cost approximately $10,000 per person per year, even in very poor countries. Today, these same medicines cost $150 or less if they are purchased from Indian generics companies…. patents cause especially acute problems for access to medicines in developing countries – not only because of low incomes but also because insurance and price-control systems are often absent or inadequate.” 

A WHO Report:

To chart the way forward at the backdrop of ongoing global debate elated to the relationship between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health, the World Health Assembly decided in May 2003 to give an independent Commission the task of analyzing this key issue. Accordingly, the Director-General of WHO established the Commission in February 2004. This report titled, “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” was published in 2006 and articulated that neither innovation nor access depend on just intellectual property rights and highlighted, among others, the following:

  • Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where financial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which profitable markets exist.
  • In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientific and technological capability inadequate.
  • In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.
  • Although the balance of costs and benefits of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientific and technological infrastructure, the flexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to find a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

Trashing the anger and displeasure of pharma MNCs, as per the latest international survey, India reportedly has emerged as the most attractive global investment destination followed by Brazil and China. It is worth noting that even recently, during April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in the FDI landscape of India.

Conclusion:

In the Indian context, a 2013 paper titled, “Intellectual Property Protection and Health Innovation: Concerns for India” published by Center for WTO Studies highlights that the regime change in the patent system has not been very supportive for improving access to medicines in India. It reiterates, it has not been established yet that a stricter patent regime in the developing countries like India, has helped health innovation and access to medicines at economically viable prices.

The paper recommends, although India is trying to incorporate all the flexibilities under TRIPS in its Patents Act, the ‘Indian Policy Makers’ should not give in to the pressure of western powers to make IPR more stringent in the country.

In the backdrop of arrogance exhibited by Big Pharma MNCs, in general, against Indian policies and judicial verdicts on this subject, the comments made by Sir Andrew on the issue, as deliberated above, are indeed profound and far reaching. However, it clearly exposes the fault line in the collective mindset of pharma MNCs, without any ambiguity.

I shall not be surprised either, if clever attempts are made now by the MNC lobby groups to negate or trivialize the profoundness of this visionary statement not just in India, but beyond its shores, as well.

Further, as stated above recent emergence of India as the most attractive global investment destination with pharma leading the deck is a point worth noting, more in the context of policy and statutes that India has decided to follow.

Be that as it may, it is beyond the scope of any doubt that innovation or for that matter encouraging innovation still remains the wheel of progress of any nation.

However, have we garnered enough evidence yet, to establish that stringent IPR regime with absolute pricing freedom would lead to fostering more innovation leading to well-being of people of the developing countries, like 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.

 

 

 

Supreme Court Intervened…But ‘Price Control’ needs striking a right balance between ‘Affordability’ and ‘Availability’ of medicines for Patients’ Sake

Posted on by
Reply

On October 3, 2012, the Supreme Court bench of Justice GS Singhvi and Justice SJ Mukhopadhayareportedly asked the government not to disturb the existing price control mechanism while including all medicines featuring  in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) therein and posted the matter for further hearing on October 11, 2012.

This happened during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by All India Drugs Action Network (AIDAN) and others, way back in 2003, complaining that the span of price control of only 74 bulk drugs and their formulations under the existing Drugs Prices Control Order, 1995 (DPCO  95) does not include lot many essential medicines, making those drugs unaffordable to the general population.

It is worth mentioning that during earlier hearing on the subject the council of the petitioner had expressed apprehensions to the honorable Supreme Court that the proposed Drug Policy recommending Market Based Pricing may lead to a steep increase in prices of essential medicines in India.

The purpose of ‘Price Control’:

As we know, the key purpose of the Drug Price Control in India is to ensure adequate access to essential medicines for the common man. To achieve this objective meaningfully, the process that the price regulator should follow must always ensure that all such medicines are:

  • Adequately Available
  • Reasonably Affordable

Therefore, maintaining a right balance between ‘affordability’ and ‘availability’ of medicines, while framing any drug policy, is of critical importance.

DPCO 95 does not meet the above two criteria: 

The prevailing price control mechanism has failed to meet the above two critical criteria. This is mainly because the following 26 out of 74 bulk drugs featuring in DPCO 95, though still very important, are not currently manufactured in India due to unremunerative pricing:

No

Molecule

Therapeutic Segment

No.

Molecule

Therapeutic Segment
AMODIAQUIN Anti-Malarial 14. SULPHADIMIDINE Anti-Infective
CAPTOPRIL Anti-Hypertensive 15. SULPHAMOXOLE Anti-Infective
CHLORPROPAMIDE Anti-Diabetic 16. HALOGENATED HYDROXYQUINOLONE Anti-Infective
SALAZOSULPHAPYRINE Gastrointestinal 17. TRIMIPRAMINE Anti-Depressant
MEBHYDROLINE Anti-Histamine 18. LYNESTRANOL Hormone
CHLOROXYLENOLS Anti-Infective 19. METHENDIENONE Steroid
CEPHAZOLIN Anti-Infective 20. DIOSMINE Anti- Haemorrhoidal
PENICILLINS Anti-Infective 21. PYRANTEL Anthelmintic
NALIDIXIC ACID Anti-Infective 22. PYRITHIOXINE Vitamin
STREPTOMYCIN Anti-Infective 23. VITAMIN-B1  (THIAMINE) Vitamin
CHLORPROMAZINE Anti-Psychotic 24. VITAMIN-B2 (RIBOFLAVIN) Vitamin
BECAMPICILLIN Anti-Infective 25. PANTHONATES & PANTHENOLS Vitamin
SULPHADOXINE Anti-Infective 26. VITAMIN E Vitamin

(Source: BDMA-26th May 2012)

This makes one to conclude that the honest attempt of the government to make the above drugs affordable to the patients through DPCO 95 has resulted into their non-availability, making ‘affordability’ irrelevant. Thus, such a mechanism defeats the core purpose of any drug price regulation and should not be continued with.

What happens when NLEM 2011 is included in DPCO 95?

As explained above, if all the essential medicines featuring in the NLEM 2011 are brought under DPCO 95, solely to make them more affordable to patients, there will be a high possibility that market factors, as stated above, may make many of these important medicines unavailable to the patients, as happened in case of so many bulk drugs covered under DPCO 95.

Search for a balancing formula: 

To correct this imbalance between availability and affordability of essential medicines, there is an urgent need to first work out a balancing formula and then build that into the new price control mechanism, jettisoning DPCO 95.

This will help addressing the issue of improving access to essential medicines for the common man in India much more meaningfully.

Dr. Pronab Sen Committee Report vindicates the point:

In 2005, to explore this possibility, the government constituted a special taskforce, which is widely known as ‘Dr. Pronab Sen Committee’. This committee was mandated to recommend options other than existing methodology of price control (DPCO 95) for achieving the objective of making available life-saving and essential drugs at reasonable prices.

In its report, the committee did suggest an alternative measure at that time, concluding that the present price control system (DPCO 95) is inappropriate, inadequate, cumbersome and time consuming.

High transaction costs make essential medicines more expensive:

Current transaction costs of medicines in India are over 50 percent of their ex-factory cost, excluding Excise Duty (ED). The various components of the transaction cost include ED, VAT, CST etc. and distribution (trade) margin.

As the Honorable Supreme Court arrives at the final decision on price control measures for NLEM 2011, there is a need for the government to abolish all duties and taxes like ED, VAT, CST etc. levied on such medicines for the sole benefits of the patients.

For an important policy decision involving essential drugs, all ‘patient centric’ cost-cuts, in my considered view, should be shared by both the government and the Pharmaceutical Industry together.

‘Drug Price’ control alone cannot improve access to medicines significantly: 

It is a recognized fact that to improve access to medicines, the Governments even in countries like, Germany, Spain, UK, Korea, Brazil and China have recently mulled strict price control measures in their respective countries.

However, it is equally important to note that in India, we have witnessed since almost the past four decades that drug price control alone could not improve access to modern medicines for the common man very significantly, especially in the current socioeconomic and healthcare environment of the country. Thus, there is a dire need to augment other healthcare access related initiatives in tandem for a holistic approach.

Recently the Government of India has taken ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented a landmark initiative of providing unbranded generic formulations of all essential drugs, featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011’, free of cost to all patients from the public hospitals and dispensaries, across the country. This laudable step could well address the issue of availability and affordability of essential drugs for a vast majority of the population in India.

Taming drug price inflation only has not helped improving access to medicines: 

It is quite clear from the following table that food prices impact health more than medicine costs:

Year

Pharma Price Increases

Food Inflation

2008

1.1%

5.6%

2009

1.3%

8.0%

2010

0.5%

14.4%

(Source: CMIE)

Exploring a realistic approach:

Imbibing the direction, as provided in ‘Dr. Pronab Sen Committee Report’ and considering other pros and cons of the key methodologies of price control of formulations featuring in NLEM, I wouldreemphasize that a middle path with a win-win strategy to overcome the weaknesses of DPCO 95 effectively, would be in the best interest of both patients and the industry alike, in the current situation. This path, I reckon, may be explored as follows with a four step approach:

  • The inclusion criteria for price control in the new Drug Policy should be based on the ‘essentiality’ criteria of the drugs, which will mean all formulations featuring in the NLEM, as announced by the Ministry of Health from time to time, will come under price control.
  • Take ‘Weighted Average Price’ of each formulation featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) based on Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) of all brands of high, medium and low, above a certain cut-off point, if required.
  • Abolish all duties and taxes like ED, VAT, CST etc. as currently being levied on essential medicines and rationalize high trade margins of total 24 percent to further improve affordability of such drugs to the patients.
  • Put in place effectively enough checks and balances to ensure proper availability of NLEM drugs for all and also to avoid any possible situation of artificial shortages of such drugs. 

Conclusion:

Come October 11, 2012, let us hope that the honorable Supreme Court of India will pass an order related to drug price control, which will help striking a right balance between ‘availability’ and ‘affordability’ of essential medicines in India and the government will rationalize the transaction costs of such medicines thereafter.

In that case, it will be a win-win solution both for the patients and the industry alike, paving the way for improving access to essential medicines for the entire population of India along with other related strategic initiatives towards this goal. Such measures are absolutely essential, especially when medicines contribute around 72 percent of the total ‘Out of Pocket Expenses’ of the common man of the country.

That said, it is important to realize that there is no single or only right way to arrive at the ‘affordable price’ of any medicine, essential or otherwise. However, how much the government or an apex court will allow the pharmaceutical manufacturers to charge for a drug to make the prices ‘reasonably affordable’, will continue to remain an important, complex and a difficult task, both locally and globally.

By: Tapan Ray 

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

Pharma industry requires striking a right balance between ethical obligations to shareholders and ethical obligations to patients

Posted on by
Reply

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment, for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development.  I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable.  We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

The above comment assumes greater significance, as the U.S. has been the number one pharmaceutical market of the world over a long period of time, although currently growing at a snail’s pace, as compared to the emerging markets of the world or even in absolute numbers.

Being impressed by past success record of America in the pharmaceutical sector, many countries of the world are being influenced to imbibe the U.S. models in various areas of the industry like, R&D, product commercialization process, focus on the “Wall Street” and even the way America walks the talk in fulfilling its various ethical obligations.

As the popular saying goes ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, gradual drying-up of the R&D pipeline, significant decline in the pharmaceutical business growth rate with commensurate adverse impact on the “Wall Street” and regularly published media reports on ‘unethical marketing practices’, lead to pertinent questions on the longer-term sustainability of the U.S. model in all these areas.

It appears, prompted by the prevailing reality in the U.S since quite some time, Dr. Pitroda made the above comment in a wider context of the pharmaceutical industry, including very important scalability, sustainability, desirability and workability of the ethical values in the Indian pharmaceutical business operations.

A burning issue:

As stated above, even in areas related to ethical issues in the pharmaceutical industry, global media reports indicate, as Dr. Pitroda commented above, the American model has not been successful to set an example for others, as yet. Thus, here also India will possibly need to find an Indian model that works and is sustainable.

We have been witnessing, for quite some time from now, among many other burning issues, ethical concerns related to the pharmaceutical industry across the world, have been hugely bothering a large section of its stakeholders, solely for the interest of patients and India is no exception to this stark reality.

Such concerns emanate from widely circulated media reports on legal fines levied to large pharmaceutical companies or out of court settlements on such fines due to alleged ‘unethical’ business practices of some large companies in various parts of the world including India.

Civil Society and other stakeholders including governments do allege that the prescription decisions made by the doctors, having received expensive free products and services from the pharmaceutical companies may not entirely or always be in the best interest of the patients.

In a situation like this, overall robust and healthy bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry in general, may be a tad lesser now, calls for a proper balancing act between its ethical obligations to shareholders and the ethical obligations to patients of all class, creed and color together with the civil society, at large.

Unique situation for the patients:

Healthcare sector in general and the pharmaceuticals in particular is unique in many respects. The Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59th Report clearly articulated that:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives, have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except buying and consuming whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them because of the following reasons:

  • Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
  • Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
  • Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe to their patients
  • Patients are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

Such a scenario gives rise to a situation where patients, by and large, are compelled to buy medicines at any price, which leads many to conclude that the pharmaceutical industry is ‘recession proof’.

The perspective of the Global Pharmaceutical industry:

The global pharmaceutical industry is primarily research driven, as the low cost generic drugs flow from the patent expiry of innovative drugs. Moreover, the R&D process is arduous, expensive (reportedly costs over US$ 1.8 billion), risky and quite lengthy involving, besides others:

  • Discovery and development process of the New Chemical Entity (NCE) or New Molecular Entity (NME)
  • Pre-clinical trials
  • Clinical trials, Phase I, II and III and IV
  • Stringent marketing approval process

Thus they believe that to foster innovation to meet the unmet needs of patients, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of such products must be strongly protected by the governments of all countries putting in place a robust product patent regime.

Further, the industry strongly argues that to recover high costs of R&D and manufacturing of such products together with making a modest profit, the innovator companies set a product price, which at times may be perceived as too high for the marginalized section of the society, where government intervention is required more than the innovator companies.

Aggressive marketing activities, during the patent life of a product, are essential to gain market access to such drugs for the patients.

In support of the pharmaceutical industry the following argument was put forth in a recent article:

“The underlying goal of every single business is to make money. People single out pharmaceutical companies for making profits, but it’s important to remember that they also create products that save millions of lives.”

Marketing expenditure becoming more productive than R&D investments:

It is indeed interesting to note that expenditure towards marketing by the pharmaceutical companies is becoming more productive than the same towards R&D. This is vindicated by the article titled “R&D and Advertising Efficiencies in the Pharmaceutical Industry”,  published in the International Journal of Applied Economics, 8(1), March 2011.

In this research study the authors stated that although advertising as a percentage of sales has not increased during the past twenty years, its effectiveness in generating sales has improved dramatically by way of the Direct-To-Consumers-Ads (DTCA) strategy, which encouraged patients asking their healthcare providers for brand name drugs rather than cheaper generics. The paper also supports the notion that advertising replaces R&D investments when those investments fail to live up to their promise.

Many experts opine that the above scenario is prevailing today, especially when the global innovator companies are passing through a ‘patent cliff’.

Marketing expenditure far exceeds investments in R&D:

Another article concludes through its research paper titled, “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D, quite contrary to the claim by the industry.

The study endorses the public image of the pharmaceutical industry as a marketing-driven sector when it should invest more for research and development and much less for promotion, that too many a times is not ‘ethical’ in nature, as cited above.

Patients are the ultimate victims:

A relatively recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which vindicates the fact, in a similar (though not the same) context, that the alleged ‘unholy relationships’ between many pharmaceutical companies and the doctors, as a result of such aggressive and alleged ‘unethical’ marketing practices, has resulted in over-prescribing and irrational use of injection and drugs causing hardships to the patients.

Conclusion:

As stated above, many experts have been arguing since long, based on available data, that the current business models of many pharmaceutical companies are heavily tilted towards their obligation to the shareholders. These thought leaders are increasingly raising their voices to put forth the view that the industry continues to live in a self-made and a fire-walled cocoon, always trying to change others and refusing to change itself, unfortunately, even for the patients’ sake.

Despite the experts making above comments, my personal view is that in this direction, we have been witnessing no better attitude from our own government either to usher in a much desirable and long pending change in the prevailing scenario, solely for the patients, which is indeed even more disappointing.

In a situation like this, to be ‘patient centric’ in a real sense, there is an urgent need for the industry to first walk the talk along with their respective voluntarily codes of ethical marketing practices both in the letter and spirit.

If voluntary mechanism fails to work, a legal or statutory mechanism should be implemented, like what the Department of Pharmaceuticals had articulated in its draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, last year.

Thus, I reckon, to enhance its image, the pharmaceutical industry in India, as advised by Dr. Sam Pitroda, should imbibe a transparent, workable, scalable, demonstrable and a sustainable business model to strike a right balance between its ethical obligations to shareholders and ethical obligations to patients of all class, creed and color together with the civil society, at large

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

For greater transparency in the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical companies, does India need an Act like, proposed ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the USA?

Posted on by
Reply
As we discussed earlier, to make the pharmaceutical companies disclose and report various types of payments made to the physicians, two Senators of the United States of America, Chuck Grassley and Herb Kohl introduced a bill called ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ in January, 2009.If this bill is passed in 2010, the government will make available to the public by 2011 all types of payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies over a cumulative value of US $ 100.Items of disclosure:

Among various other heads, the following items related to the “payment made to the physicians’’ will require to be reported:

• Consulting Fees

• Compensation for services other than consulting

• Honoraria

• Gifts

• Entertainment

• Food

• Travel

• Education

• Research

• Charitable Contributions

• Royalties or licenses

• Current or prospective ownership or investment interests

• Compensation for serving as a faculty member or as a speaker for a continuing medical education program

• Grant

• Reporting will be required for compensation towards serving as faculty, or as a speaker for a CME program, and grants.

• Any other nature of the payment or other transfer of value as defined by the government

Research payments:

Pharmaceutical companies will also require reporting aggregate amounts of research payments in a specified manner.

Items exempt from disclosure:

There will be items, as mentioned below, which will be exempted from such reporting:

• Product samples

• Payments in the aggregate of less than $100

• The loan of a device for less than 90 days

• Patient education materials

• Warranty replacements (devices)

• Items for use as a patient

• Discounts and rebates

• In-kind items used in charity care

• Dividends from a publicly-traded company

Penalties for default from disclosure:

Proposed penalties have been categorized as follows:

• For unintentional failure to report: fines from US $1,000 – US $10,000 for each payment not reported with a cap of US $150,000/year

• For intentional failure to report: fines from US $10,000 – US $100,000 for each payment not reported with a cap of US $1 million/year.

World Medical Association (WMA) Statement Concerning the Relationship Between Physicians and Commercial Enterprises:

Meanwhile, WMA is also trying to address this vexing issue and coming closer to some sort of voluntary disclosure at their end, as well.

Such type of statement was first adopted by the WMA in its General Assembly at Tokyo, Japan in October 2004. Recently in its General Assembly held at New Delhi in October 2009, the statement was further amended coming closer to the disclosure of payments.
.
The preamble of the amended statement articulates the following:

“In the treatment of their patients, physicians use drugs, instruments, diagnostic tools, equipment and materials developed and produced by commercial enterprises. Industry possesses resources to finance expensive research and development programmes, for which the knowledge and experience of physicians are essential. Moreover, industry support enables the furtherance of medical research, scientific conferences and continuing medical education that can be of benefit to patients and the entire health care system. The combination of financial resources and product knowledge contributed by industry and the medical knowledge possessed by physicians enables the development of new diagnostic procedures, drugs, therapies, and treatments and can lead to great advances in medicine.

However, conflicts of interest between commercial enterprises and physicians occur that can affect the care of patients and the reputation of the medical profession. The duty of the physician is to objectively evaluate what is best for the patient, while commercial enterprises are expected to bring profit to owners by selling their own products and competing for customers. Commercial considerations can affect the physician’s objectivity, especially if the physician is in any way dependent on the enterprise.

Rather than forbidding any relationships between physicians and industry, it is preferable to establish guidelines for such relationships. These guidelines must incorporate the key principles of disclosure, avoidance of obvious conflicts of interest and the physician’s clinical autonomy to act in the best interests of patients.
These guidelines should serve as the basis for the review of existing guidelines and the development of any future guidelines.”

This new statement of the WMA, having a remarkable similarity with the ‘Codes of marketing Practices’ of the pharmaceutical industry associations in India, like Organization of pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) and Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA) is indeed a welcome step in the right direction.

Conclusion:

Along with the self regulation initiatives by both the industry and WMA, this bill, if passed, will surely and significantly improve the transparency related to the transaction between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians to the public at large in the US to start with. However, bringing research within the ambit of this bill could possibly be a contentious issue.

Be that as it may, in India a large section of the civil society still feels that it is now high time for the Government of India to decide whether the nation needs an Act like the proposed ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the US to bring in greater transparency in the process of various financial transactions between the pharmaceutical industry in India and the physicians, along with the continuing initiatives of self-regulations by both the industry and the physicians.

By Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Medical Tourism - another potential growth driver:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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