Higher The Healthcare Spend, Better The Healthcare Performance: A Myth?

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Tapan Ray

It is generally believed, higher the per-capita expenditure of healthcare, better is the overall ‘healthcare performance’ of a nation.

However, this myth has recently been busted by a new study, the take-home message of which would be quite relevant for India too. It flags a very important point, just as too low per-capita expenditure on healthcare fails to deliver an optimal healthcare performance to the target population, higher health expenditure, on the other hand, does not have any linear relationship with commensurately better healthcare performance either.

The question, therefore, comes up: What then would be the optimal per-capita spending on healthcare to offer quality healthcare performance in a country like India?

The study:

According to this recent Commonwealth Fund report , per-capita expenditures on healthcare in 2011 of eleven wealthy nations were as follows:

Per-Capita Healthcare Spend in 2011

Rank	Country	US $
1.	United States	8,508
2.	Norway	5,669
3.	Switzerland	5,643
4.	Netherlands	5,099
5.	Canada	4,522
6.	Germany	4,495
7.	France	4,111
8.	Sweden	3,925
9.	Australia	3,800
10.	United Kingdom	3,405
11.	New Zealand	3,182

Against the above spend, the ‘Healthcare Performance’ rankings of the same 11 nations were as under, showing no linear relationship between higher per-capita healthcare expenditure and better healthcare performance:

Performance of Healthcare System

Rank	Country
1.	United Kingdom
2.	Switzerland
3.	Sweden
4.	Australia
5.	Germany
6.	Netherlands
7.	New Zealand
8.	Norway
9.	France
10.	Canada
11.	United States

The basis of ranking:

Interestingly, though the healthcare expenditure of the United States of America at 17.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the highest in the world, according to this report, America ranks worst among all these nations, namely, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The ranking was made based various factors, which include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country.

The U.K. ranked best, with Switzerland following a close second, though their respective per-capita expenditures on healthcare were much less than the United States.

Holds good in BRIC perspective too:

Coming to the BRIC nations’ perspective, though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been the lowest among these 4 countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that here also the healthcare performance does not have any linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country	US $	World Rank	Physician/1000 people	Hospital/1000 people	Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil	1120.56	41	1.76	2.3	73.4
Russia	806.7	55	4.31	9.6	69.0
India	59.1	152	0.65	0.9	67.08
China	278.02	99	1.82	3.8	73.5

(Source: WHO data)

Taking the United States as an example:

To illustrate the point further, let me take the US details as an example, as it incurs the highest per-capita expenditure on healthcare. When that is the fact, does high healthcare spending of the US help the patients commensurately?

Going by these reports, it does not appear so, as:

The Commonwealth Fund report also states, “Moreover, US patients were the most likely to find it very difficult to get after-hours care without going to an emergency room – 40 percent said it was very difficult, compared with only 15 percent in the Netherlands and Germany, the lowest rates of any country on this measure.”

The 2008 Commonwealth Fund survey, of 7,500 chronically ill patients in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, reportedly also found that: “More than half (54 percent) of the US patients did not get recommended care, fill prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs, compared to 7 percent – 36 percent in other countries. About a third of the US patients – more than in any other country – experienced medical errors or poorly-coordinated care, while 41 percent spent more than US$ 1,000 in the past year on out-of-pocket medical costs, compared with 4 percent in the UK and 8 percent in the Netherlands.”

The study also highlighted the following for the United States with the highest health expenditure:

Lesser number of doctors and hospital beds among developed nations:

The US has fewer physicians per 100,000 populations than any of the other countries apart from Japan, and the fewest doctor consultations (3.9 per capita) than any except Sweden. Relative to the other countries in the study, the US also had few hospital beds, short lengths of stay for acute care and few hospital discharges per 1,000 populations.

Highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes:

While the US performs well on breast and colorectal cancer survival rates, it has among the highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes, and rates that are no better than average for in-hospital deaths from heart attack and stroke.

Individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers:

In the US, individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers, a system that leads to complexity – and varying prices for the same goods and services, says the study.

Where is the high healthcare spending of US going?

High health costs in the United States are mostly due to higher prices driven by free-market economy and not quality of care, says the study. Some of the key characteristics of the US healthcare space in the areas under discussion are as follows:

High and totally decontrolled drug prices:

The drug prices are totally decontrolled in the US, unlike most other developed nations, where price negotiations for reimbursed drugs are the common norms.

The above study highlights that US prices for the 30 most commonly-used branded prescription drugs are more than double the prices paid in Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, and they are a third higher than in Canada and Germany. In contrast, prices of generic drugs are lower in the US than in any of the other 12 nations due to very high competition. This reinforces the point that any delay in the entry of generics after patent expiry would impact the patients and the payor very adversely

Expensive hospital stays:

US hospital stays are far more expensive than in other countries, at more than US$18,000 per discharge compared with about US$13,000 in Canada and under US$10,000 in Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, France and Germany.

Conclusion:

In 1999, according to a WHO Study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004 and US $ 59.1 in 2011, which reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011. The absolute numbers may be far from adequate; nevertheless, the trend is ascending. This needs to be accelerated, possibly by the new health minister with the prime minister’s direct help and intervention.

There is a lot to learn from the US healthcare model too, especially from its pitfalls and regulatory structure, as deliberated above.

Finally, taking a cue from all these, India should decide at what per-capita spend, with all necessary regulatory measures being firmly in place, the country would be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for all its citizens.

Mere comparison of per-capita healthcare spend of each country, I reckon, may not mean much now. India needs to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this area, as it were, to arrive at its own health expenditure model for quality healthcare service delivery to all in the country. This is more important than ever before, as higher healthcare spends do not necessarily mean commensurately better healthcare performance.

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.

RHDS: A Simmering Promise in Despondency

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Eric Topol, a leading cardiologist who has embraced the study of genomics and the latest advances in technology to treat chronic disease says, “We’ll soon use our smartphones to monitor our vital signs and chronic conditions in future.”

By clicking on this video clipping, you can watch how Dr. Topol in his talk titled “The Wireless Future of Medicine”, highlights several of the most important wireless devices in medicine’s future – all helping to keep more patients out of hospital beds.

In achieving similar objectives, India’s potential is indeed immense. The good news is, though in India Internet penetration has just crossed 16 percent of its total population, in absolute numbers this percentage reportedly works out to nearly 10 times the population of Australia. According to a report released by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI) and IMRB, there will be around 243 million internet users in India by June 2014, overtaking the US as the world’s second largest internet base after China. This situation must be leveraged to improve access to healthcare in the country significantly.

‘Remote Healthcare Delivery Solutions (RHDS)’

However, for several other reasons the situation is quite challenging in India. Out of its total population of over 1.2 billion, nearly 72.2 percent live in the hinterland and remote rural areas spreading across over 700,000 villages. In all these places, despite huge prevalence of diseases, inadequate healthcare infrastructure and delivery mechanisms offer an ideal backdrop to explore innovative healthcare solutions such as, ‘Remote Healthcare Delivery Solutions (RHDS)’ or ‘Telemedicine’. In that endeavor, smartphones could play a key role in improving access to healthcare for a very large number of population.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined ‘Telemedicine’ as:

“The use of information and communications technology (ICT) to deliver healthcare, particularly in settings where access to medical services is insufficient.”

Thus, to effectively improve access to healthcare, especially in rural India, RHDS holds a great promise.

A complex mix:

Healthcare space in India is generally a complex mix of issues related to access, availability, affordability and quality of healthcare, compounded by inadequate public healthcare infrastructure and delivery system on the one hand and expensive private healthcare facilities on the other. The degree of this complexity is rather stark in rural areas.

In a situation like this, RHDS holds a great promise to satisfy healthcare needs of the hinterland and rural India, as this would entail effective medical care, despite understaffed Primary Healthcare Centers (PHCs) and undertrained healthcare staff, with low start-up costs.

Equipped with modern Internet enabled technologies, RHDS would facilitate transmission of patient related information through SMS, email, audio, video, or other image transmissions, like MRI and CT Scans to relevant specialists of different disciplines of medical sciences located in other places. With RHDS, these specialists can monitor even blood pressure or blood glucose levels of patients on computer screens without examining them in person.

Key advantages:

The key advantages of a structured and well committed implementation of RHDS or ‘Telemedicine’ in india are as follows:

Elimination of many costs, including travel expenses for specialists and patient transfers – especially in a critical health situation, improving access to quality healthcare.

Reduction of feeling of isolation of the rural medical practitioners by upgrading their knowledge through Tele-education or Tele-Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs.

RHDS in India:

In India, RHDS initiative in form of telemedicine commenced more than a decade ago in 1999, when the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) deployed a SATCOM-based telemedicine network across the country. ISRO’s telemedicine program has now been reportedly enhanced to multi-point systems with a network of 400 centers across India.

The good news is, besides Department of Information Technology, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and many state governments, some well-reputed medical and technical institutes, corporates and academia have also started taking active interest in this area, especially oriented for the rural population of India.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in March 2014, Biocon Foundation reportedly partnered with Canara Bank and the Odisha Government for an e-healthcare program that aims at setting up of diagnostic facilities in PHCs to improve healthcare access to 51,000 villages.

Simultaneously, the Department of Information Technology has put in place the ‘Standards for Telemedicine Systems’ and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has constituted the National Telemedicine Task Force to provide further thrust to RHDS in India,.

To cite an example, US based World Health Partners (WHP) have reportedly set up an extensive Tele-Medicine network in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), which has received almost 35,000 calls in two years requesting for services. After receiving the calls, the patients requiring intervention were directed to WHP’s franchisee clinics in the respective areas. This model included three areas namely, Meerut, Bijnor and Muzzafarnagar.

Apollo group, Narayana Hruduyalaya, Aravind Eye Hospital and Asia Heart Foundation are also running similar system in India. Unfortunately, none of these or even all put together can extend such facilities to patients across the whole of India, just yet.

The Market:

According to a report of Infinity research the global market for telemedicine is around US$ 9 billion with a CAGR of 20 percent. However, another report quoting KSA Technopak indicates that the Indian market is currently relatively very small with a market size of around US$ 7.5 Million. Considering future growth opportunities, as deliberated here, RHDS market holds a great promise.

Telemedicine or RHDS market is classified based on the type of technology and services used and usually analyzed on the basis of telemedicine applications, such as Tele-consultation, Tele-cardiology or Tele-dermatology etc. However, Tele-consultation reportedly dominates the telemedicine services market.

To give an idea of its market potential, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) telemedicine market was reportedly at US$ 200.5 million in 2009 and was expected to expand at a CAGR of 15.8 percent from 2009 to 2014.

The telemedicine technology market segment forms the largest segment of the overall BRIC telemedicine market and is expected to be US$ 307.4 million by end 2014 with a CAGR of 16.6 percent from 2009 to 2014. The services segment in the overall BRIC telemedicine market is expected to reach US$ 111 million in 2014 with a CAGR of 13.8 percent.

The Challenges in India:

Again there are following two critical challenges in this areas:

The biggest challenge is undoubtedly the broadband Internet connectivity.

Transmitting patients’ medical records through Internet could infringe upon patient privacy giving rise to ethics related issues, besides avoidable litigations.

I reckon, these concerns can be well addressed, if both the private healthcare providers and the Government together resolve and chart a time-bound pathway to improve access to quality healthcare in a cost effective manner to a large majority of Indian population.

Conclusion:

Various public and private RHDS solution providers are gradually getting actively engaged, though incoherent way, to create awareness about telemedicine in the country. This brings with it a never before hope of ensuring access to quality healthcare to almost the entire population of the country.

A survey conducted in the United States highlighted that 85 percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their telemedicine consultation. Back home in India, a similar study in Odisha reported a satisfaction rate as high as 99 percent post telemedicine consultation.

Having a large base of medical and IT manpower with requisite expertise in RHDS, India holds a great promise to become a major telemedicine hub even for its neighboring countries, transforming the healthcare delivery scenario in all those places significantly.

Bundling all these, together with the increasing use of Internet enabled smartphones as explained by Dr. Eric Topol in his video clipping above, RHDS does offer a simmering promise in an otherwise despondent healthcare scenario of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony

Posted on December 30, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Indian Healthcare space is by and large an arena, where perceptions prevail over the changing reality in many important areas. Consequently, fierce discourse in those areas mostly gives rise to a cacophony of ‘Your Perceptions Against Mine’.

It is intriguing, why even in some well-hyped research studies of recent times, multiple interpretations are made not based on specific analytics-based numbers, but around critical data gaps and then the vital ‘conclusion’ is craftily packaged in a particular way to reinforce a set of perceptions and view points.

Serious discourse on ‘Access to Medicine’ in India often falls in these data crevasses, resulting nothing more than abject cynicism and expert sermons sans accountability from all quarters. Suggestions for precise quantification of magnitude of the problem, so far as ‘Access to Medicine’ is concerned, and then measuring the same periodically for sustainable corrective measures, obviously fade away in the din of multiple shrill voices, heavily loaded with self-perceptions attempting to score favorable brownie points.

A quantifiable number on overall ‘access to medicines’ remains illusive:

A quantifiable recent number on overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, which could well form the base to measure progress of the country in this critical area subsequently, still remains illusive.

It is an irony, no one seems to know today what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, in real term.

A recent study too goes around it, but NOT into it:

A 2012 industry sponsored study carried out by IMS Consulting, instead of giving just one number for overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, went around it by reiterating the obvious that ‘access’ has 4 dimensions such as, Physical Reach, Availability/Capacity, Quality/Functionality and Affordability.

That is fine. No issue. However, the much sought after number of overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ still remained illusory in this study too. Interestingly, there are no numbers available to public for each of the above 4 important dimensions either. Thus the cacophony got shriller.

Clutching on to ‘Dinosaurian data’ in modern times:

Against the above backdrop, like many others, both local and global, even the honorable President of India on January 16, 2013, while addressing the ASSOCHAM 10th Knowledge Millennium Summit, quoted the ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’, the base year of which is reportedly 1999. This study indicated, ‘only 35% of the population of India, against 53% in Africa and 85% in China has access to modern medicines’.

Thus in the absence of any recently updated number, the ‘Dinosaurian data’ of 1999 (published in 2004) is being considered relevant by many even in 2013, including the esteemed industry body that probably provided those irrelevant data to the president of India’s office for his speech, at the beginning of this year.

Importance of capturing today’s ‘Access’ data to provide ‘Healthcare to all’:

There should not be even an iota of doubt that the above reported scenario has changed quite significantly, at least, during the last decade in India, making the 1999 (published in 2004) ‘Access to Medicines’ numbers irrelevant, having no sense whatsoever in 2013.

To drive home this point, I shall now focus on just three sets of parameters, besides many others, to vindicate my comment on ‘dinosaurian data’. These parameters are as follows:

Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per-capita expenditure on healthcare from 2006-11
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the domestic pharmaceutical industry in this period
Quantum of increase in use of public healthcare facilities

1. Per capita Healthcare expenditure from 2006-11:

Year	US $
1999	18.2
2004	28.7
2006	33.0
2007	39.9
2008	42.7
2009	43.6
2010	51.4
2011	59.1

(Source WHO Data)

The above table vey clearly highlights that in 1999, the base year of the above study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004, when that study was published. The number reached to US $ 59.1 in 2011. This reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011.

No doubt, this number is still much less than many other countries. Nevertheless, in 2013, per capita healthcare expenditure in India will be even more, indicating significant increase in ‘Access’ as compared to 2004.

2. Growth of domestic pharmaceutical market:

According to the PwC – CII report titled “India Pharma Inc.: Gearing up for the next level of growth”, the domestic drug market has been clocking a CAGR of more than 15 percent over the last five years. Thus, high growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, would certainly signal towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines. Moreover, fast growing rural and semi-urban markets would also clearly support the argument in favor of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India.

A back of the envelope calculation:

Improvement in access as compared to what ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’ had highlighted, may not have a linear relationship to the volume growth of the industry during this period. However, a large part of this growth could indeed be attributed to increase in overall consumption of drugs, leading to improvement in access to medicines in India.

For example, out of the reported 15 percent CAGR of the IPM, if one attributes just 8 percent volume growth/year to increased access to drugs, a back of the envelope calculation would indicate that during last nine years over the base year of 2004, the access to medicines has improved at least to 70 percent of the population, if not more, and has NOT remained just at 35 percent, as many tend to establish a point or two by quoting the above dated report.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend, as evidenced in the honorable President of India’s speech in 2013, as quoted above. Official communications of the government also keep quoting the outdated statistics stating that 65 percent of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today.

Be that as it may, around 30 percent of Indian population would still perhaps not have ‘Access to Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can possibly be achieved through effective implementation of a holistic public health policy model like, ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’.

3. Increase in use of public healthcare facilities:

According to a study done by the IMS Consulting Group in 2012, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for Out Patient (OP) care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). This increase will have significant impact in reducing ‘Out of pocket (OoP)’ healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Overall impact on some key health indicators:

The same 2012 study of IMS Consulting highlights that an objective and comprehensive assessment of healthcare access in India was last undertaken in 2004, through a survey performed by the National Survey Sample Organization (NSSO).  The survey reported on multiple parameters related to healthcare, including morbidity in broad age groups, immunization status, episodes of outpatient/ inpatient treatment across geography/ income segments together with expenditure on treatment. These measures, the study indicates, were taken collectively to indicate the status of healthcare access.

According to this report, the Government of India had undertaken multiple programs to improve healthcare access. These programs have addressed numerous issues, in varying proportion, that are linked to healthcare access, including lack of infrastructure, high cost of treatment, and the quality and availability of treatment. Some of these programs have been enormously successful: for example, India is a polio-free country today, the study reinforces.

The study also highlights significant progress in some basic healthcare indicators. The examples cited are as follows:

Maternal mortality rate has decreased by ~50 percent, and was reported at 200 deaths per 100,000 live births in the year 2010 as compared to 390 a decade ago. A few states such as Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Kerala have already achieved the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of a maternal mortality ratio less than 109 maternal death per 100,000 live births, with multiple other states close to achieving this target.

Infant mortality rate has decreased by greater than 25 percent over the period 2000–2009, and was reported at 50 deaths per 1,000 live births. Correspondingly, the under-5 child mortality rate (U5MR) has decreased by similar percentage levels, and was reported at 64 deaths per 1,000 live births. While U5MR for urban India has achieved the MDG target of 42 the same for rural of 71 is significantly lagging the target level.

Immunization coverage has increased significantly, for example diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization among 1 year olds has increased from 60% to 70%, and the Hepatitis B coverage has increased from 68% in 2005 to 91% in 2010.

National programs have successfully improved detection and cure rates for tuberculosis and leprosy.

No direct relationship established between healthcare spend and outcomes:

Though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been lowest among the usually compared BRIC countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that the healthcare outcomes do not have a linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend either:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country	US $	World Rank	Physician/1000 people	Hospital/1000 people	Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil	1120.56	41	1.76	2.3	73.4
Russia	806.7	55	4.31	9.6	69.0
India	59.1	152	0.65	0.9	67.08
China	278.02	99	1.82	3.8	73.5

(Source: WHO data)

Thus, taking a cue from these numbers, India should decide at what percapita spend the country would possibly be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for 100 percent of its population. Mere, comparison of percapita spend of each country, I reckon, may thus not mean much.

Conclusion:

The moot point, I reckon, is that, to measure progress in any sphere of activity, one will need to have a robust well-derived base point. Thereafter, progress needs to be monitored and quantified periodically from one point to the next.

So far as the access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular are concerned, it becomes difficult to fathom why is this basic approach still not being considered to measure progress in ‘Access’ and its rate in India.

As a result, discussions among the stakeholders do not take place around those updated numbers, either. Instead, what we hear is a high decibel cacophony of perceptions, at times groping around various dimensions of ‘Access’ and that too without quantification of each, as stated above. This makes the task all the more complicated in pursuit of providing ‘Healthcare to All’ in India.

That said, the question to ponder now:

Does any one know what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ number in India and at what rate the progress is being made in that direction to achieve ‘Health for All’ objective of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Tapan Ray

An interesting situation emerged last week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Commerce proposed a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma sector. Just two days after that, the Prime Minister of India vetoed the joint opposition of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Ministry of Health to clear the way for all pending pharma FDIs under the current policy.

On August 13, 2013, Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce laid on the Table of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament its 154 pages Report on ‘FDI in Pharmaceutical Sector.’

The damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee flags several serious concerns over FDI in brownfield pharma sector, which include, among others, the following:

1. Out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one has been in green field, while all the remaining FDI has come in the brown field projects. Moreover, FDI in brown field investments have of late been predominantly used to acquire the domestic pharma companies.

2. Shift of ownership of Indian generic companies to the MNCs also results in significant change of the business model, including the marketing strategy of the acquired entity, which are quite in sync with the same of the acquirer company. In this situation, the acquired entity will not be allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges or compulsory license to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo is a case in point.

3. Serial acquisitions of the Indian generic companies by the MNCs will have significant impact on competition, price level and availability. The price difference between Indian ‘generics’ and MNCs’ ‘branded generic’ drugs could sometimes be as high as 80 to 85 times. A few more larger scale brownfield takeovers may even destroy all the benefits of India’s generics revolution.

4. FDI inflow into Research & Development of the Pharma Industry has been totally unsatisfactory.

5. FDI flow into brown field projects has not added any significant fresh capacity in manufacturing, distribution network or asset creation. Over last 15 years, MNCs have contributed only 5 per cent of the gross fixed assets creation, that is Rs 3,022 crore against Rs 54,010 crore by the domestic companies. Further, through brownfield acquisitions significant strides have not been made by the MNCs, as yet, for new job creation and technology transfer in the country.

6. Once a foreign company takes over an Indian company, it gets the marketing network of the major Indian companies and, through that network, it changes the product mix and pushes the products, which are more profitable and expensive. There is no legal provision in India to stop any MNC from changing the product mix.

7. Though the drug prices may not have increased significantly after such acquisitions yet, there is still a lurking threat that once India’s highly cost efficient domestic capacity is crushed under the weight of the dominant force of MNCs, the supply of low priced medicines to the people will get circumvented.

8. The ‘decimation’ of the strength of local pharma companies runs contrary to achieving the drug security of the country under any situation, since there would be few or no Indian companies left having necessary wherewithal to manufacture affordable generics once a drug goes off patent or comply with a Compulsory License (CL).

9. Current FIPB approval mechanism for brownfield pharma acquisitions is inadequate and would not be able to measure up to the challenges as mentioned above.

The Committee is also of the opinion that foreign investments per se are not bad. The purpose of liberalizing FDI in pharma was not intended to be just about takeovers or acquisitions of domestic pharma units, but to promote more investments into the pharma industry for greater focus on R&D and high tech manufacturing, ensuring improved availability of affordable essential drugs and greater access to newer medicines, in tandem with creating more competition.

Based on all these, The Committee felt that FDI in brown field pharma sector has encroached upon the generics base of India and adversely affected Indian pharma industry. Therefore, the considered opinion of the Parliamentary Committee is that the Government must impose a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma projects.

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

Unmoved by the above report of the Parliamentary Committee, just two days later, on August 16, 2013, the Prime Minister of India, in a meeting of an inter-ministerial group chaired by him, reportedly ruled that the existing FDI policy will apply for approval of all pharmaceutical FDI proposals pending before the Foreign Investments Promotion Board (FIPB). Media reported this decision as, “PM vetoes to clear the way for pharma FDI.”

This veto of the PM includes US $1.6-billion buyout of the injectable facility of Agila Specialties, by US pharma major Mylan, which has already been cleared by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

This decision was deferred earlier, as the DIPP supported by the Ministry of Health had expressed concerns stating, if MNCs are allowed to acquire existing Indian units, especially those engaged in specialized affordable life-saving drugs, it could possibly lead to lower production of those essential drugs, vaccines and injectibles with consequent price increases. They also expressed the need to protect oncology facilities, manufacturing essential cancer drugs, with assured supply at an affordable price, to protect patients’ interest of the country.

Interestingly, according to Reserve Bank of India, over 96 per cent of FDI in the pharma sector in the last fiscal year came into brownfield projects. FDI in the brownfield projects was US$ 2.02 billion against just US$ 87 million in the green field ventures.

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

In the same August 16, 2013 inter-ministerial group meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, it was also reportedly decided that DIPP will soon float a discussion paper regarding curbs that could be imposed on foreign takeovers or stake purchases in existing Indian drug companies, after consultations with the ministries concerned.

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

The arguments allaying fears underlying some of the key apprehensions, as raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, are as follows:

1. FDI in pharma brownfield will reduce competition creating an oligopolistic market:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.6%. The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM (Source: AIOCD/AWACS – Apr. 2013). Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination.

In a scenario like this, the apprehension of oligopolistic market being created through brownfield acquisitions by the MNCs, which could compromise with country’s drug security, needs more informed deliberation.

2. Will limit the power of government to grant Compulsory Licensing (CL):

With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical producers in India, there is expected to be enough skilled manufacturers available to make needed medicines during any emergency e.g. during H1N1 influenza pandemic, several local companies stepped forward to supply the required medicine for the patients.

Thus, some argue, the idea of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDIs to prevent domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative otherwise, just from the CL point of view may sound unreasonable, if not protectionist in a globalized economy.

3. Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company is believed by some to have no bearing on pricing or access, especially when medicine prices are controlled by the NPPA guidelines and ‘competitive pressure’.

In an environment like this, any threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, is unlikely, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (comment: whatever it means).

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries:

A study of the United Nations has indicated that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

Even after paying heed to all the above arguments, the Commerce Minister of India has been expressing his concerns since quite some time, as follows:

“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharma sector has neither proved to be an additionality in terms of creation of production facilities nor has it strengthened the R&D in the country. These facts make a compelling case for revisiting the FDI policy on brownfield pharma.”

As a consequence of which, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly been opposing FDI in pharma brownfield projects on the grounds that it is likely to make generic life-saving drugs expensive, given the surge in acquisitions of domestic pharma firms by the MNCs.

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

Further, the DIPP and the Ministry of Health reportedly fear that besides large generic companies like Ranbaxy and Piramal, highly specialized state-of-the-art facilities for oncology drugs and injectibles in India are becoming the targets of MNCs and cite some examples as follows:

Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.

In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.

Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.

In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.

Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.

With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

“It should be made mandatory to invest average profits of last three years in the R&D for the next five years. Further, the foreign entity should continue investing average profit of the last three years in the listed essential drugs for the next five years and report the development to the government.”

Another report indicated, a special group set up by the Department of Economic Affairs suggested the government to consider allowing up to 49 per cent FDI for pharma brownfield investments under the automatic route.However, investments of more than 49 per cent would be referred to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

It now appears, a final decision on the subject would be taken by the Prime Minister after a larger inter-mimisterial consultation, as was decided by him on August 14, 2013.

The cut-off date to ascertain price increases after M&A:

Usually, the cut off point to ascertain any price increases post M&A is taken as the date of acquisition. This process could show false positive results, as no MNC will take the risk of increasing drug prices significantly or changing the product-mix, immediately after acquisition.

Significant price increases could well be initiated even a year before conclusion of M&As and progressed in consultation by both the entities, in tandem with the progress of the deal. Thus, it will be virtually impossible to make out any significant price changes or alteration in the product-mix immediately after M&As.

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

It is argued that M&As, both in ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ areas, and joint ventures contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for Indians but also access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. It cannot be refuted that technology transfer by the MNCs not only stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but also positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. However, examples of technology transfer by the MNCs in India are indeed few and far between.

This school of thought cautions, any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investments even in the R&D sector of India less inviting.

As listed in the United Nation’s World Investment Report, the pharmaceutical industry offers greater prospects for future FDI relative to other industries. Thus, restrictive policies on pharmaceutical FDI, some believe, could promote disinvestments and encourage foreign investors to look elsewhere.

Finally, they highlight, while the Government of India is contemplating modification of pharma FDI policy, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in pharmaceuticals. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the Euro Zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any hasty step by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

While India is publicly debating policies to restructure FDI in the ‘Brownfield’ pharma sector, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries. Between October 2010 and January 2011, as mentioned earlier, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Thus the moot question is, what type of FDI in the pharma brownfield sector would be good for the country in the longer term and how would the government incentivize such FDIs without jeopardizing the drug security of India in its endeavor to squarely deal with any conceivable eventualities in future?

Conclusion:

In principle, FDI in the pharma sector, like in any other identified sectors, would indeed benefit India immensely. There is no question about it…but with appropriate checks and balances well in place to protect the national interest, unapologetically.

At the same time, the apprehensions expressed by the Government, other stakeholders and now the honorable members of the Parliament, across the political party lines, in their above report, should not just be wished away by anyone.

This issue calls for an urgent need of a time bound, comprehensive, independent and quantitative assessment of all tangible and intangible gains and losses, along with opportunities and threats to the nation arising out of all the past FDIs in the brownfield pharma sector.

After a well informed debate by experts on these findings, a decision needs to be taken by the law and policy makers, whether or not any change is warranted in the structure of the current pharma FDI policy, especially in the brownfield sector. Loose knots, if any, in its implementation process to achieve the desired national outcome, should be tightened appropriately.

I reckon, it is impractical to expect, come what may, the law and policy makers will keep remaining mere spectators, when Indian Pharma Crown Jewels would be tempted with sacks full of dollars for change in ownerships, jeopardizing presumably long term drug security of the country, created painstakingly over decades, besides leveraging immense and fast growing drug export potential across the world.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only assess any possible adverse impact of Mergers & Acquisitions on competition, not all the apprehensions, as expressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and so is FIPB.

That said, in absence of a comprehensive impact analysis on pharma FDIs just yet, would the proposal of PSC to ban foreign investments in pharma brownfield sector and the PM’s subsequent one time veto to clear all pending FDI proposals under the current policy, be construed as irreconcilable internal differences…Or a clever attempt to create a win-win situation without ruffling MNC feathers?

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It is very important for any country to ensure access to most appropriate medicines for the patients as and when they require. In many disease areas such access can be remarkably improved through affordable generic drugs, which offer significant savings in cost for absence of monopolistic situation and intense competitive pressures.

In many countries like, India and China to further augment this process, the Government price control on essential medicines is already in force.

A paper titled, “Generic Medicines: Essential contributors to the long-term health of society” highlights the following facts on such drugs:

• Provide an affordable, gold standard medication for many major illnesses

• Allow access to medicines for a greater proportion of the population

• Stimulate healthy competition with the branded sector

• Deliver savings to national health bills

• Are high quality products

Generic companies also innovate:

The same paper also highlights, though innovation has been traditionally perceived as the domain of the research-based originator companies, generic medicine companies often spend significant sums on innovating and improving formulations, enhancing delivery systems and finding solutions to patient compliance issues.

It also says, the generics medicine industry spent 7 percent of revenues on R&D alone, in 2007 and created 150, 000 jobs only in the EU.

Continuous growth of generic drug industry is critical:

Taking all these factors into consideration, continuous growth of the generic drug industry is critical in ensuring broad access to medicines to the population of any country at an affordable price. Nothing else can achieve this objective.

In the developed countries like, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, UK and even USA, large volume of generic medicines are prescribed. Most of these countries have put in place appropriate regulations that facilitate market entry of generic drugs soon after patent expiry. All of them, by and large, encourage even more prescriptions of generic medicines.

Of course, there are many instances of deliberate attempts to slow down generic entry, which I shall deal with separately at some other time.

Quality perception for generic drugs:

In many countries the general perception of efficacy and safety standards of generic drugs is still not satisfactory. In many occasions, these are reportedly prompted by well orchestrated campaigns by interested private stakeholders in this area.

However, in markets, like the EU, Canada and the USA Governments do take public awareness measures to dispel such doubt. Unfortunately not enough similar initiatives have been taken in India with tangible results. The reason could probably lie in the existence of a powerful branded generic lobby in the country, unlike many other markets of the world.

The market:

A report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Generic Pharmaceuticals Market – A Global Analysis” stated, the global generic pharmaceuticals market registered a revenue of US$ 135.85 billion in 2010 with a growth rate of 11 percent. The top eight global markets, namely the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain and Japan account for 80 percent of the total generics market. The United States will continue to remain the largest market in the world for generic pharmaceuticals in value terms.

It is estimated, the global generic drug market will grow to US$ 231.02 billion by 2017 with a CAGR 9.3 percent from 2010. The key growth drivers being:

Patent expiration of some blockbuster drugs
Entry of more biosimilars
High growth of emerging markets
Cost containment measures of governments and healthcare service providers in various countries

BRIC Countries strongly defend generic drugs:

Allegation of attacks on the generic industry by the patent holders of various drugs is also heard quite frequently.

It was reported that in a TRIPS Council meeting in mid 2012 held at the World Trade Organization (WTO), India, Brazil and China defended the right of access to cheap generic medicines by poor countries, strongly resisting attempts by the US, Japan and some other developed countries to club counterfeits or copies of patented drugs with fake or spurious ones.

They also argued that infringing intellectual property rights should not be confused with sub-standard products.

Many believe that because of the reported ‘clout of India, China and Brazil’ in the WTO, this attempt may not fructify despite such attempts.

India is surging ahead:

It is interesting to note that out of top 10 fastest growing generic companies of the world, 4 are of Indian origin namely Glenmark, DRL, Sun Pharma and Taro (owned by Sun Pharma) and 3 definitely are home grown Indian companies, as follows:

Top 10 Fastest Growing Generic Companies of the World:

No.	Company	Country	Sales US$ Million	Growth 2011 (%)	Growth 2010 (%)
1.	Sagent Pharmaceuticals	USA	152	106	153
2.	Perrigo	USA	620	80	45
3.	Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical	Japan	1300	79	25
4.	Watson Pharmaceuticals	USA	3320	46	38
5.	Glenmark	India	778	37	17
6.	Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL)	India	1480	34	15
7.	Taro Pharmaceutical	Israel	436	33	11
8.	Sun Pharmaceuticals	India	1650	29	52
9.	Veropharm	Russia	156	24	28
10.	Polpharma	Poland	580	22	20

(Source: FiercePharma)

India the pharmacy of the developing world:

According to a recent report India is now emerging as the ‘Pharmacy of the Developing World’, as it produces a large volume of high-quality, affordable generic medicines.

The study also highlights, “as a result of tough competition from the generic players of India, the price of first-line ARVs dropped from more than US$ 10,000 per person per year in 2000 to around $150 per person per year today. This significant price decrease has helped to facilitate the massive expansion of HIV treatment worldwide: more than 80 percent of the HIV medicines used to treat 6.6 million people in developing countries come from Indian producers, and 90 percent of pediatric HIV medicines are Indian-produced.”

Another study indicates, as a result of phenomenal success of the homegrown pharmaceutical companies:

67 percent of medicines exports from India go to developing countries.

Main procurement agencies for developing countries’ health programs purchase their  medicines in India, where there are quality products at low prices.

Approx. 50 percent of the essential medicines that UNICEF distributes in developing countries  come from India.

75-80 percent of all medicines distributed by the International Dispensary Association (IDA) to  developing countries are manufactured in India. (IDA is a medical supplier operating on a  not-for-profit basis for distribution of essential medicines to developing countries.)

In Zimbabwe, 75 percent of tenders for medicines for all public sector health facilities come from  Indian manufacturers,

The state procurement agency in Lesotho, NDSO, states it buys nearly 95 percent of all ARVs  from India.

This situation is going to further improve at a galloping pace in the years ahead with proper encouragement from the Government of India.

India tops the chart for ANDAs:

India, with its rapidly growing homegrown generic players, continues to top the Chart for Abbreviated New Drugs Applications (ANDAs) with USFDA by increasing its share year after year, as follows:

Year	Global	India	India’s Share %
2007	492	133	24.1
2008	483	143	27.9
2009	419	132	31.3
2010	419	142	34.0
2011	431	144	33.4
2012	476	178	37.4

Source: Pharmabiz, January 7, 2013 / US FDA

India tops the Chart in DMFs also:

Similarly, India continues to top the Chart with its Drug Master Files (DMF) for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), as follows:

No.	Countries	Filing Type II DMF
1.	India	2759
2.	USA	1323
3.	China	870
4.	Italy	644
5.	Japan	270
6.	Spain	268
7.	Germany	266
8.	France	170
9.	Israel	170
10.	Switzerland	136

Source: Pharma Times, August 2012

Moreover, domestic pharmaceutical companies have now between themselves, around 175 USFDA and approximately 90 UK-MHRA approved manufacturing units, to cater to the needs of high quality and affordable pharma products across the world.

India not loosing its R&D Focus:

Discovery of new drugs being the bedrock for the pharmaceutical industry, domestic Indian companies are also not loosing focus on R&D activities. The New Chemical Entity (NCE) pipeline of the homegrown companies as on 2012 is as follows:

Piramal Healthcare	23
Suven Life Sciences	14
Zydus Cadila	11
Glenmark	8
Biocon	7
Torrent Pharma	6
Sun Pharma	5
Wockhardt	5
Ranbaxy	2
Dr Reddy’s Lab	2
Others	5

Source: Citeline Intelligence Services: Pharma R&D Annual Review 2013

Is the “west pressurizing India to change tack?”

In an interesting article published in ‘The Guardian’, the author observed that the western Pharmaceutical companies are putting health of world’s poor at risk. It commented that India makes cheap medicines for poor people around the world, but the EU, pharmaceutical firms and now the US are pressuring the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ to change track. The same sentiment was echoed in another article published in Pharma Times.

However, the experts do feel that the Government of India, mostly due to intense public pressure, is well prepared to address any such situation, come what may. Thus, despite any retarding forces coming into play, the incessant march of the home grown pharmaceutical companies in search of excellence, especially in this space, is expected to continue even at a brisker pace.

The triggering factor:

Experts opine that the reason for excellence of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry, especially in the generic pharma landscape, is due to the amendment of the Indian Patents Act in 1970 allowing only process patents for drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Government of India reportedly had taken such a path-breaking decision in the 70’s to lay the foundation of a vibrant domestic pharmaceutical industry capable of manufacturing low cost and high quality modern medicines for the health security of the country leveraging latest technology, including IT.

This decision was also directed towards creation of ‘drug security’ for the country as in the 70’s India was very heavily dependent on drug imports and the domestic pharmaceutical industry was virtually non-existent.

Conclusion:

Paying kudos to the pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’ of India, many industry watchers feel that the global pharma players are now keener than ever before to work with the domestic pharma industry, in various areas of business. This augurs well for all, as it will help creating a win-win situation to add further momentum to the growth of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Be that as it may, taken in entirety and strengthened by its well-balanced patent laws, India will continue to have a significant force multiplier effect to emerge as a global force to reckon with, particularly in this important space.

In tandem, with other significant cutting edges, as mentioned above, India is now well poised to be an “armageddon” – a contender of supremacy as a “pharmacy of the developing economies” despite selective allegations and detrimental efforts by some vested interests.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

- Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

CL through a different route:

This time the government can reportedly notify its intent to grant CL under Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act 2005, only if any of the following three conditions are met:

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

After such Government notification in the gazette, any company interested in manufacturing any or all of these three products can directly apply for a CL to the Indian Patent Office (IPO).

This route is also expected to save usual litigation costs for the interested pharmaceutical players.

In such case, this will be the first time in India, when instead of pharmaceutical players applying for CL the Government on its own will trigger the CL process.

A situation like this will undoubtedly signal immense unpredictability in the IPR environment of the country.

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

Interestingly, section 4(xv) of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) under ‘Patented Drugs’ states as follows:

“There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated 1st February, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

A media report also highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

Thus, it is rather intriguing for many to fathom, why is the Government contemplating to grant CL on the above three anti-cancer drugs in January 2013, despite the decision of the Union Cabinet on the same in the new Drug Policy as recent as December, 2012.

Medicines come at the third stage of a medical treatment process:

For all patients, including the cancer victims, medicines will come at the earliest in the third stage of any treatment process, the first two or in some cases first three stages being:

A doctor’s intervention
Correct diagnosis through diagnostic processes
Surgical interventions (in some cases)

In India, there is no regulation to address the ‘cost issues’ of the first two or three stages of treatment, though there is a dire need to facilitate the entire process and not just one. Coming straight to cancer medicines considering these as the only ‘magic wands’ to improve access to treatment, may well be considered as ‘jumping the gun’ by the Government, if not an imprudent decision.

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

Healthcare distribution in India is rather skewed and cancer treatment is no exception mainly because of the following reasons:

Medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas.
74 percent of doctors work in urban settlements, which is just around 1/4^th of the population.
61 percent of the medical colleges are in the 6 states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pudicherry.
Whereas, just 11 percent of these are located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and the north-eastern states
369,351 government beds are in urban areas and a mere 143,069 beds in the rural areas.
Rural “doctors to population” ratio is lower by 6 times as compared to urban areas.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

In India, not just compared to the developed nations, even as compared BRIC countries, there is a huge infrastructural deficiencies as follows:

Indicators	Year	India	US	UK	Brazil	China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	12	31	39	24	30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	6	27	21	17	14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

0.6 doctors per 1000 population as against the global average of 1.23 suggests an evident manpower gap in the very first stage of a treatment process.
Number of beds available per 1000 people in India is only 1.2, which is less than half of the global average of 2.6.

Coming to Medical Colleges, the scenario is equally dismal, as follows:

Year	Number of Medical Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	314	29,263
	No of dental Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	289	2783

(Source: Medical Council of India & Dental Council of India)

Thus, India needs to open around 600 medical colleges (100 seats per college) and 1500 nursing colleges (60 seats per college) in order to meet the global average of doctors and nurses.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

It has been reported that a deficit of 64 lakh (6.4 million) allied healthcare professionals India with highest gaps in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, is a stumbling block in providing basic and quality healthcare to Indian population, as follows:

Healthcare Professionals	Shortage
Anesthetists and technicians	850,000
Dental staff	2.04 Million
Ophthalmologists and optometrists	127, 000
Rehabilitation specialists	1.8 Million
Medical laboratory technicians	61,000
Radiographers	19,000
Audiology and speech language specialists	7,500
Medical staff	230,000

(Source: Times Of India, December 20, 2012)

Is the Government ‘missing the woods for the trees’?

In a scenario like this, it is rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory licenses by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions of CL in the Patents Act of many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date for the obvious reasons.

The details are as follows:

Country	Medicine	CL granted in:
Israel	Hepatitis B Vaccine	October 1995
Italy	Imipenem (antibiotic)	June 2005
Italy	Sumatriptan Succinate (migraine)	February 2006
Canada	Oseltamivir (influenza)	July 2006
Brazil	Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS)	May 2007
Thailand	Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer)	January 2008
India	Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer)	March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

However, I hasten to add that despite all these, the provision of CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has immense relevance, if invoked in the right kind of circumstances.

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical:

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

In India, the Government is already mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the NPPP 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

An evolving global trend:

To address such pricing issues, global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunavir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early this year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly and making the likes of the current Government initiative on CL irrelevant.

Conclusion:

It is generally accepted that the provisions for CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has utmost relevance in terms of public health interest for all concerned.

However, keeping in view of recent policy announcement in the NPPP 2012, as approved by the Union Cabinet, on price negotiation for patented products, the reported Government move of invoking these provisions for three anti-cancer drugs is rather intriguing.

Moreover, even for the cancer patients, there seems to be a greater urgency to attend to basic healthcare infrastructural and delivery issues, besides providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) as recommended by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) constituted for this purpose by the Government.

Far encompassing critical decisions like grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Thus, recent news reports on the possibility of further grant of three more CLs could make the pharmaceutical business environment for the innovator companies in India more uncertain.

Demonstrable predictability for an innovation friendly environment is critical for the economic growth of India, which the Government should not lose sight of. Just upping the ante for more CL of anti-cancer drugs will not necessarily help improving access to cancer treatments in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The traditional ‘Business Models’ of R&D focused Global Pharmaceutical majors are undergoing a metamorphosis

Posted on August 2, 2010 by Tapan Ray

Mounting pressure on the P&L account, as the products go off patent:

Patented new products are the prime growth driver of the research based pharmaceutical companies of the world. Since last few years, because of various reasons, the number of launch of such products has been greatly reduced. To add fuel to the fire, 2010-12 will witness patent expiries of many blockbuster drugs, depleting the growth potential of the most of the research based pharmaceutical companies.

The existing model of growth engine needs a relook:

The blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relies on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve the business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low in the developed markets of the world. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaves off due to patent expiry by the year 2016. IMS reports that in 2010 more than U.S. $ 30 billion will be adversely impacted because of patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent the year after i.e. 2011. It will not be out of context to mention, that last year around U.S. $ 27 billion worth of patented drugs had gone off-patent.

Decline in R&D productivity is not related to investments:

The decline in R&D productivity has not been due to lack of investments. It has been reported that between 1993-2004, R&D expenditure by the pharmaceutical industry rose from U.S.$ 16 billion to around U.S.$ 40 billion. However, during the same period the number of applications for New Chemical Entities (NCEs) filed annually to the U.S. FDA grew by just 7%.

Total global expenditure for pharmaceutical R&D was reported to have reached U.S. $ 70 billion in 2007 and is expected to be around U.S. 90 billion in year 2010. 75% of this expenditure was incurred by the U.S alone. It is interesting to note that only 22 NMEs received marketing approval by the US FDA during this period against 53 in 1996, when R&D expenditure was almost less than half of what was incurred in 2007 towards R&D.

Be that as it may, the pressure on the P&L (Profit and Loss) accounts of these companies is indeed mounting.

The silver linings:

However, there seem to be following two silver linings in the present scenario, as reported by IMS:

1. Number of Phase I and Phase II drugs in the pipeline is increasing.

2. R&D applications for clinical trials in the U.S. rose by 11.6% to a record high of 662 last year.

Significant growth of generic pharmaceuticals is expected in near future, far surpassing the patented products growth:

Patent expiry of so many blockbusters during this period will fuel the growth of generic pharmaceutical business, especially in the large developed markets of the world. The market exclusivity for 180 days being given to the first applicant with a paragraph 4 certification in the U.S. is, indeed, a very strong incentive, especially for the generic companies of India.

Healthcare reform of March/April 2010 in the USA is expected to give a further boost to this trend.

Pressure on traditional Marketing strategies:
The marketing expenditure for pharmaceutical of the global pharmaceutical companies as reported by Scrip is U.S. $ 57.5 billion. However, an industry association reported that research based pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. spent $ 29.4 billion on R&D and $ 27.7 billion on promotional activities.

New Product Differentiation could be a big issue:

Products in R&D pipeline could face problems of ‘differentiation’ in terms of value offering to the patients, once they are launched. This issue is expected to surface especially with products in the oncology disease area. IMS Health reports that about 55 oncology projects are now in Phase III and 8 in the pre-registration stage. Thus about 50 new oncology products are expected to hit the market by end 2010. Many experts anticipate that there may not be significant brand differentiation between the brands of the ‘same basket’, leading to cut-throat competition and further pressure on expenditure towards marketing of brands.

The changing business strategy of global pharmaceutical companies during this trying time:

In this trying time, the global pharmaceutical companies are resorting to an interesting strategy, combing both old and the new ones. I shall touch upon the following seven strategies:

1. Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A):
Mega M&A strategies are still being actively followed by some large Pharmaceutical companies mainly to enrich R&D pipeline and achieve both revenue and cost synergies.
However, some of these large global companies have started realizing that ‘powerhouses’ created through past mega mergers and acquisitions have now become too large to manage effectively for various reasons. Mismatch between two different organization cultures also throws a great challenge to obtain desired output, many a times. Moreover, the merged R&D set up could become too large to manage, impacting the R&D productivity very adversely.

2. Extension of the Product Life Cycle and Effective Product Life Cycle Management:
Many global pharmaceutical companies are now engaged in ‘product life cycle management’ of their existing products by extending the ‘product life cycle’, effectively. In that process they are trying to maximize the brand value of these products in the international markets. For example, AstraZeneca has developed once daily treatment with their anti-psychotic drug Seroquel XR. This extended-release formulation of the same drug will help patients avoid 5 to 7-day titration required with the immediate-release version.
Towards similar initiative, Pfizer has also recently set up a dedicated “Established Product Business Unit” within worldwide pharmaceutical operations, to hasten business growth in the international markets.

3. OTC Switch:
Prescription to ‘Over the Counter’ (OTC) switch is another business strategy that many innovator companies are now imbibing, at a much larger scale.

This strategy is helping many global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the Europe and the U.S to expand the indication of the drugs and thereby widening the patients base.

Recent prescription to OTC switches will include products like, Losec (AstraZeneca), Xenical (Roche), Zocor (Merck), etc.

4. Emerging of Preventive Therapy, like Vaccines:
Many large global companies, like GSK, Sanofi Aventis and Merck are getting attracted by the emerging opportunities in the fast developing vaccines market. This trend has been triggered primarily by heightened awareness and greater focus on preventive medicines almost all over the world. It is estimated that in 2011, the vaccines market will grow from U.S.$ 13 billion to U.S.$ 30 billion registering a growth of 18% each year during this period. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimates vaccine market to be U.S. $ 42 billion by year 2015 based on data of 245 pure vaccines and 11 combination vaccines currently under clinical development. It is interesting to note that 90 of these are therapeutic vaccines for cancer.

5. Entry into highly contentious market of Biosimilar drugs:
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) has estimated that it is possible to save US$ 10 billion – 108 billion over a period of 10 years with biosimilars in the top 12 categories of biological drugs. Some of these biological are already off patent and for others the patents will expire shortly.
Only a few biosimilar drugs have reached the global markets as on date because of their regulatory restrictions in most of the developed markets of the world. Even those biosimilar drugs, which have since been launched in Europe like, human growth hormone (HGH) Somatropin and Epoetin alfa for anemia, are yet to make a mark in the market place.

IMS Health reports that Omnitrope (somatropin) of Sandoz, the first biosimilar drug launched in the developed world, has registered less than 1% of the U.S. $ 831 million HGH market in Europe. Moreover, the launch of 3 more biosimilar versions of epoetin alfa in 2007, made almost negligible impact in the market. Such a low acceptance of biosimilars in the western world, so far, could well be due to lingering safety concern of the medical profession with such types of drugs.

Currently, Japan and USA are working on formal guidelines for biosimilar drugs, whereas Health Canada has already issued draft regulatory guidelines for their approval in Canada.

In April 2010, Reliance Life Science has already announced its intent to enter into the Biosimilar market of the EU in not too distant future.

6. Entry into Generic Markets:

Some large global pharmaceutical companies have already made a firm commitment to the generics market. Novartis paved the way for other innovator companies to follow this uncharted frontier, as a global business strategy. Last year the generic business of Novartis (under Sandoz) recorded 19% of their overall net sales, with turnover from generics registering U.S$ 7.2 billion growing at 20%.

Keen business interest of Sanofi Aventis to acquire Zentiva, the generic pharmaceutical company of Czechoslovakia; it’s very recent acquisition of the generic pharmaceutical company Laboratorios Kendrick of Mexico and Shantha Biotech in India and acquisition of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India by Daiichi Sankyo, will vindicate this point.

Pfizer has also maintained its generics presence with Greenstone in the U.S. and is using the company to launch generic versions of its own off patent products such as Diflucan (fluconazole) and Neurontin (gabapentin).

7. Collaboration with the Indian Companies:

Another emerging trend is the collaboration of MNCs with the Indian pharmaceutical companies to market generics in the global market, like, Pfizer with Aurobindo and Claris, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Astra Zeneca with Torrent. I guess that similar trend will continue, in future, as well.

Conclusion:
Another ‘new pharmaceutical sales and marketing model’ is gradually emerging in the global markets. This model emphasizes partnership by bundling medicines with services. The key success factor, in this model, will depend on which company will offer better value with an integrated mix of medicines with services. PwC indicates that in this ‘new pharmaceutical marketing model’, besides required medicines, the expertise of a company to effectively deliver some key services like, patient monitoring and disease management could well be the cutting edge for future success.

By Tapan Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: BRIC

Higher The Healthcare Spend, Better The Healthcare Performance: A Myth?

RHDS: A Simmering Promise in Despondency

Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony

Pharma FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

The traditional ‘Business Models’ of R&D focused Global Pharmaceutical majors are undergoing a metamorphosis