Tag Archives: CCI

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ In Post Halcyon Days

Posted on by
Reply

Although a radical transformation in the field of medicine and path breaking advances of medical sciences are in progress, the healthcare system as whole, including the pharma industry, as voiced by many, is fast losing its human touch and values. This is mainly because a large number of patients feel that they are being financially exploited in the entire medical treatment chain, as their ailments become primary means of making money…more money by many others .

A new and interesting book, authored by a practicing cardiologist, titled “Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician”, which has just been released in August 2014, also unfolds with self-example a dysfunctional healthcare system and stark realities of practicing medicine even in the ‘Mecca’ of medicine – the United states.

The author eloquently highlights the malaise and cronyism affecting a sizeable number within the medical profession, being hand in gloves with a large constituents of the pharma industry. Medical practice seems to have now become just as any other ‘make-money’ endeavor; not quite different from what the pharma business has metamorphosed into, over a period of time.

A heartless game played by shrewd minds:

In a situation like this, a heartless game is being played by shrewd business savvy minds, at the cost of patients, making healthcare frightfully expensive to many.

As the above new book narrates, many pharmaceutical companies are coming to the fore to exploit the situation for commercial gain. In the book the author confesses, to make extra cash, he too accepts speaking fees from a pharmaceutical company that makes a cardiac drug he prescribes. He candidly admits enjoying the paid speeches on that specific pharma company’s drugs to influence other doctors, usually arranged at exotic places over fancy dinners. The author does not fail in his part to admit that the drug he touts on behalf of the pharma company turns out to be no better than other cheaper alternatives.

In this beautifully written memoir, the author Dr. Sundeep Jauhar tries to bring to light many complex problems of the healthcare system and alleged involvement of global pharma companies to drive the medical treatment costs up at a galloping pace. All these are being driven by various malpractices in pursuit of making quick bucks.

There are some compelling health policy, public spending on health and infrastructure related issues too, specifically for India, which are not the subject of my today’s discussion.

In this article, I shall neither dwell on the above book any further, but briefly deliberate on how all these, much too often repeated instances, are giving rise to mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders, involving both the pharma industry and the medical profession at large and yet, quite intriguingly, they seem to remain unbothered.

The Halcyon days and after:

When we take a glimpse into the recent history of pharma and healthcare industry, it would be quite possible to convince ourselves that the overall situation, focus and mindset of the drug industry honchos and members of the medical profession were quite different, even a few decades ago. Those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

At that time, pharmaceutical industry used to be one of the most admired industries of the world and people used to place the doctors almost in the pedestal of God.

Unlike today, when the drugs meant for the treatment of even widely prevalent dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer, Hepatitis C and HIV are not spared from maximum stretch pricing, the grand vision of the Global Chief Executives, in general, used to extend much beyond of just making profits. So were the doctors christened by the Hippocratic Oath. Yes, I repeat, those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

Just to cite an example, in 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co was quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his following vision for the company:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Having articulated this vision with so much of passion and clarity, Merck did not just walk the talk, in tandem, he steered an up swing in the company’s valuation over 50 times, proving beyond an iota of doubt that it is possible to give shape to his vision, if there is a will.

Today, in post ‘Halcyon Days’, for many of those who follow the history and development of the knowledge driven pharma and healthcare industry, this grand vision is no more than a sweet memory. Though the bedrock of pharma industry is innovation, is it inclusive? Is it benefitting the majority of the global population? No one believes now that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Thus, it was no surprise to many, when in 2012 while vocalizing its anguish on specific pharma mega malpractices ‘The Guardian’ came out with a lashing headline that reads as follows:

‘Pharma Overtakes Arms Industry To Top The League Of Misbehavior.’

Ignoring the reality:

Many people believe that all these are happening, as the global pharma industry refuses to come out of its nearly absurd arrogance created by spectacular business successes, over a very long period of time, with a large number of blockbuster drugs and the massive wealth thus created.

It appears, the pharma industry, by and large, cannot fathom just yet that its business model of 1950 to perhaps 1990, has lost much of relevance at the turn of the new millennium with changing aspirations and values of people, governments and the civil society at large.

Key reasons of distrust:

If we make a list from the global and local reports, the following are some of the key examples:

  • Media reports on pharmaceutical companies directly paying to doctors for writing prescriptions of high priced drugs to patients.
  • A growing belief that the pharma industry spends disproportionately more on sales & marketing than on R&D, which eventually increases the drug prices.
  • Unabated reports in the media of various pharma malpractices from across the world, including hefty fines amounting to billions of dollars, paid by many global pharma players.
  • A widespread belief that for commercial gain, the industry often hides negative clinical trial results, which go against patients’ health interest.

A recent survey:

According to a recent ‘Healthcheck Survey’ of the drug business by ‘Eye for Pharma’:

  • 42 percent of the respondents indicated that image of pharma is not getting any better among average people.
  • More than one-third said they are not sure or remained neutral on the subject.
  • 19 percent within the group are optimistic about improving image of pharma.

Though, it was reported that almost half of the respondents believe the industry knows what to do to gain standing and only 24 percent think pharma is clueless about how to regain its reputation, the commentators on the survey results are skeptical that companies are willing to do what it takes. This is predominantly because the pharma players do not know what would be the immediate financial impact, if the corrective measures were taken.

2014 developments in India:

In August 2014, a premier television news channel of India – NDTV exposed some blatant violations of medical guidelines involving both the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies in the country. The crew of NDTV carried out a sting operation (video), pretending to be medical representatives of a Delhi based new pharma company. The video clipping showed three doctors resorting to malpractices for which the pharma companies pay them heavily, though illegally.

This particular sting operation by NDTV could arrest the attention of the new Union Minister of Health Dr. Harsh Vardhan, whose reaction on tweeter was:

“One more sting operation on doctors exposing greed and readiness to shed professional ethics. I again appeal to brother doctors – show spine!”

Based on this public expose, the Medical Council of India (MCI), which is supposed to serve as the watchdog for doctors and overall medical practices, was compelled to conduct an enquiry on professional misconduct against those three doctors through its Ethics Committee. MCI has the power to cancel licenses of the erring medical practitioners.

Soon thereafter, one of the three Delhi doctors, who were caught on camera taking bribes in exchange of prescribing drugs, was reportedly arrested and the other two doctors were summoned by MCI for further investigation.

Just before this incident an article published in the well-reputed British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014 highlighted, “Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India”. The author David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s healthcare machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

I deliberated a part of this issue in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s Healthcare Machinery”.

Interestingly, a couple of months earlier to this BMJ report, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued notices for various illegal practices in the pharma industry. These notices were served, among others, to pharma industry associations, chemists associations, including individual chemists & druggists, stockists, wholesalers and even to some local and global pharma majors.

In February 2014, the CCI reportedly issued a warning of severe penalties and prosecution to various bodies in the pharmaceutical industry indulging in anti-competitive practices even after giving undertakings of stopping the illegal practices, for which they were summoned for deposition before the commission earlier.

The CCI has now called upon the public through a public notice to approach it for curbing the malpractices that amount to anti-competitive in nature, adversely impacting interests of the consumer.

I reckon, all these actions are fine, but the bottom-line is, pharma and healthcare malpractices still continue unabated at the cost of patients, despite all these. Unable to garner adequate resources to pay for the high cost of treatment, which is fuelled by virtually out of control systemic malfunctioning, the families of a large number of patients are reportedly embracing abject poverty each year.

Pharma and healthcare continue to remain unbothered:

It is also not surprising that despite global uproar and all these socio-commercial issues, including pressure on drug prices, pharma and healthcare continue to march on the growth path, without any dent in their business performance particularly on this count.

Just to give an example, Moody Investor Services have highlighted just last week that India’s pharmaceutical market is set to experience continuing double-digit growth, faster than most other markets of the industry.

Lack of significant financial impact on the overall business performance on account of the alleged misconducts, barring USFDA imports bans, further reduces the possibility of a sense urgency for a speedy image makeover of the industry by doing the right things, in an organized manner.

The reason behind this inertia is also understandable, as expenditure on healthcare is not discretionary for the patients. To save lives of the near and dear ones, almost everybody, irrespective of financial status, try to garner resources to the maximum possible, whatever it costs.

Urgent remedial measures necessary:

Effective remedial measures to allay public distrust in all the above areas, in tandem with working out well-networked and inclusive innovation models, I reckon, would prove to be more meaningful today. This would facilitate not just in increasing the market access, but also for cost-effective innovation of new products leveraging the complex science of evolving biology. Let me reiterate, all these should be woven around the center piece of patients’ interest, without an exception.

I hasten to add here that some green shoots in this area have already started becoming visible, as some global industry constituents, though small in number, are articulating their new vision and the uncharted path that they intend to follow. Keeping a tab on the speed of spread of these green shoots would be important.

It is really a matter of conjecture now, whether the visible green shoots, as seen today would perish or not over a period of time. Nonetheless, that possibility is always there, if the concerned companies decide afresh that the efforts required for a long haul are not sustainable due to intense short-term performance pressure. Hence, it is not worth the financial risk taking.

In that scenario, they would continue with their existing business model of achieving the financial goals by selling the high priced medicines to the privileged few of the rich countries and to affluent people living in the other parts of the world, depriving millions of patients who desperately need those drugs, but are unable to afford.

Conclusion: 

Alleged malpractices in pharma and healthcare business operations, might not have hit any of the constituents really hard in financial terms just yet. However, the humongous ‘Trust Deficit’ of stakeholders, including the government, is gradually compelling them to face tougher resistance in operating the key business levers. Such resistance is increasingly coming in drug pricing, clinical trial requirements and related disclosure, marketing practices and even in the arena of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

On the part of the government, it is important to realize that self-regulations of various business and marketing practices have miserably failed in India for the pharmaceutical industry, just as it has failed in many other parts of the world, self-serving hypes often created by the global pharma associations in this regard notwithstanding. Besides the China saga and other reported scandals, billions of dollars of fines levied to the global pharma players, since last so many years, for a large number of malpractices would vindicate this point. It is worth noting that even these hefty fines are pittance, as compared to mind-boggling profits that these companies make on patented drugs with the adopted means. Hence, many of them would possibly feel that this risk is worth taking.  Similarly, lackadaisical implementation of MCI guidelines for the medical profession brings shame to the country, as evidenced by the article in the BMJ.

As self-regulation by the industry has proved to be nothing more than an utopia, it is about time for the new government to come out with strict, yet transparent and fair regulation, ensuring its effective implementation, to kill all these malpractices, once and for all, writing an apt epitaph to draw the final curtain to this chronicle.

That said, conscious efforts towards a mindset-changing approach for inclusive progress and growth by majority of pharma players and a sizeable number within the medical profession, would surely help reducing the ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders.

This much desirable transformation, if materializes, would enable both the pharma and healthcare industry to retrieve, at least, a part of the past glory. The constituents of the industry undoubtedly deserve it, just for the very nature of business they are engaged in.

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.

 

Is Sun Pharma Sailing In The Same Boat As Ranbaxy?

Posted on by
Reply

A ‘Warning Letter’ of May 7, 2014 from the USFDA to Sun Pharmaceuticals – the no.1 pharma major by market capitalization in India has nailed its Karkhadi, Vadodara, Gujarat based plant in India for similar data deletions as found at Ranbaxy.

Such data manipulation reportedly got Ranbaxy into so much trouble that it last year paid U$ 500 million and agreed to plead guilty to 7 felony charges.

The concerned Gujarat based plant of Sun pharma manufacturers the antibiotic cephalosporin.

This development came to the fore just weeks after Sun Pharmaceutical announced a US$ 3.2 billion deal to buy the much troubled, yet the largest generic drug company of India – Ranbaxy.

My earlier apprehensions on this deal:

At that time in my blog post of April 14, 2014, I expressed my apprehensions on this deal on four key areas, with as many words as follows:

1. Sun Pharma too is under USFDA radar:

As we know that along with Ranbaxy, Wockhardt and some others, Sun Pharma also had come under the USFDA radar for non-compliance of the Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs).

Under the prevailing circumstances, I apprehended, it would indeed be a major challenge for Sun Pharma to place its own house in order first and simultaneously address the similar issues to get USFDA ‘import bans’ lifted from four manufacturing plants of Ranbaxy in India that export formulations and API to the United States.

This could be quite a task indeed for Sun Pharma.

 2. Pending Supreme Court case on Ranbaxy:

Prompted by a series of ‘Import Bans’ from US-FDA on product quality grounds, the Supreme Court of India on March 15, 2014 reportedly issued notices to both the Central Government and Ranbaxy against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking not just cancellation of the manufacturing licenses of the company, but also a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the allegation of supplying adulterated drugs in the country.

Ranbaxy/ Sun pharma would, therefore, require convincing the top court of the country that it manufactures and sells quality medicines for the consumption of patients in India.

 3. CCI scrutiny of the deal:

Out of the Top 10 Therapy Areas, the merged company would hold the highest ranking in 4 segments namely, Cardiac, Neuro/CNS, Pain management and Gynec and no. 2 ranking in two other segments namely, Vitamins and Gastrointestinal.

Noting the above scenario and possibly many others, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), after intense scrutiny, would require taking a call whether this acquisition would adversely affect market competition in any of those areas. If so, CCI would suggest appropriate measures to be completed by the two concerned companies before the deal could take effect.

This would also be a task cut out for the CCI in this area.

 4. SEBI queries:

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has already sought information from Sun Pharmaceutical on stock price movement and the deal structure.

According to reports, it is due to “Ranbaxy shares showing good movement on three occasions: first in December, then in January and subsequently in March 2014, just before the deal was announced.” This has already attracted SEBI’s attention and has prompted it to go into the details.

The matter is now subjudice.

The current scenario:

Out of my four identified areas of challenges, Sun Pharma has already started feeling the heat in the following two areas:

1. Quality issues with FDA:

The issue is extremely important, as to turn around Ranbaxy, this has to be addressed to the complete satisfaction of the USFDA. Otherwise, the game is a non-starter.

2. SEBI queries on stock price movement and the deal structure:

In this area, just today the Supreme Court reportedly refused to stay the Andhra Pradesh High Court order that stalled the US$ 4 billion Sun Pharma merger with Ranbaxy. Daiichi Sankyo and Ranbaxy had approached the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the stay of the status quo order by the High Court, which on April 25, 2014 directed the BSE and NSE not to approve the merger while admitting a petition by retail investors alleging insider trading in the US$ 4 billion deal.

The vacation bench comprising of Justices B S Chouhan and A K Sikri also directed the High Court to decide on Sun Pharma’s application seeking vacation of the status quo order within two days and posted the matter for further hearing on May 29. The judges observed that the Andhra High Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the merger process.

The outcome of this case would indeed be interesting and crucial for Sun Pharma.

Conclusion:

Even if one keeps aside the three issues out of above four as the legal ones, the very first challenge related to USFDA on drug quality, would continue to remain as the ‘make or break’ area, for this deal to be commercially successful for Sun Pharma.

When USFDA reportedly nailed Sun Pharma’s Karkhadi , Vadodara, Gujarat based plant for similar data deletions as found at Ranbaxy, it may give a feeling that the acquirer Sun Pharma possibly is also sailing in the same boat as the acquiree Ranbaxy.

If this apprehension makes any sense, the moot question that comes up:

“Can one blind man show the right direction to another blind man sailing in the same boat in the midst of a storm?”

Let us wait for the eternal time to tell us the answer.

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.

 

Discretionary ‘Non-Compete Clause’ in Pharma FDI: An Intriguing Decision

Posted on by
Reply

As I had commented before, the MNC investors, while acquiring controlling stake in the Indian pharmaceutical companies, henceforth, would not be generally allowed to include any ‘non-compete clause’ in their agreement with the Indian promoters. However, this clause may be allowed only in special circumstances with the discretionary power of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

Looking back:

While looking back, the decision to have a relook at pharma Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), was possibly spurred by the following key apprehensions of the ‘Third World Network (TWN)’, following a series of takeovers of important Indian Pharma and Vaccine companies by the MNCs:

1. Takeover of large integrated Indian pharma players would ultimately leave behind mostly the smaller domestic companies operating in the lower end of the pharmaceutical value chain. This may compel India to compromise on need-based R&D and become completely dependent on MNCs for meeting the country’s drug requirements to respond effectively to various urgent needs, over a period of time.

2. Acquisitions of well-integrated domestic companies with technological capabilities by the MNCs could either fully eliminate or restrict the use of TRIPS flexibilities in the country, such as, Compulsory Licensing (CL) and patent challenges. For instance, immediately after its takeover by Daiichi Sankyo, Ranbaxy withdrew all the patent challenges against Pfizer’s blockbuster cholesterol reducing drug Lipitor.

3. Takeovers are easy ways to make effective use of a well-oiled marketing and distribution network established by large domestic companies to substitute low-cost medicines with higher-priced ones, including the patented drugs.

4. MNCs allegedly want to restrict the large Indian companies from entering into the regulated markets with their low-priced generic products of high quality standards, resorting to patent challenges and taking prime initiatives in Para IV filing in the United States. All these are believed to be posing an increasing threat to them over a period of time.

5. These acquisitions could ultimately result in high medicine prices. As quoted by TWN, according to the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’, Abbott increased the prices of medicines produced by Piramal Healthcare immediately after its takeover. The examples given are as follows:

The price of Haemaccel was Rs 99.02 in May 2009; by May 2011 it had gone up to Rs 215 – 117 percent increase in just two years. In another instance, the epilepsy drug Gardenal registered a price hike of 121 percent during the same period.

The new ‘Press Note’ :

Thereafter, much water has flown under the bridge and finally the ‘Press Note’ of DIPP on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 formalized the deliberations of the inter-ministerial group held in November 2013 that existing policy of 100 percent FDI in the brownfield pharmaceutical sector through FIPB approval route will continue, along with the rider of jettisoning the ‘non-compete clause’. Only change in the above ‘Press Note’ is that, the said clause may be allowed only in special circumstances with the discretionary power of the FIPB. 

However, 100 per cent FDI will continue to be allowed through automatic route in the Greenfield pharma projects.

An intriguing decision:

The DIPP ‘Press Note’ appears to be intriguing without understandable explanations and quite inconsistent with the reform measures already announced by the government thus far in many other areas.

More so, as I wrote before, no tangible assessment of impact of all M&As, so far taken place in India, has yet been done in a systematic manner.

The ‘non-compete clause’ being a standard feature, especially in brownfield Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A), justifiably restricts the promoters of the acquired companies from getting into the same business for a predetermined period of time.

Absence of this clause is expected to impact the valuation of the target companies significantly. Hence, some large Indian promoters had openly expressed their displeasure against such arbitrary measures and that too in quite specific terms.

More importantly, the absence of the ‘non-compete clause’ does not, in any way, effectively address those apprehensions, as mentioned above.

Conclusion:

Without any tangible evidence, it is a matter of conjecture now, whether the above apprehensions have any merits or not, in any case.

Be that as it may, the clumsy way this issue has been handled by the DIPP, especially since last couple of years, adds today even greater confusion to overall pharma FDI brownfield policy in India.

The issues related competition during any M&A process, as per statute, fall within the purview of the competition watch-dog of the country – the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which is expected to ensure that desired competition does in no way get compromised during M&As, including brand acquisitions, for the sole interest of consumers.

Despite statutory requirement to pass through CCI scrutiny in all mergers and takeover processes in India, the provision for discretionary decision to review the ‘non-compete cause’ by the FIPB, on case-by-case basis, without putting in place a set of fair and transparent guidelines for the same, appears indeed intriguing.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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.

Credible role of CCI and NPPA should allay fear of possible ill effects of FDI in Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

On August 3, 2011, ‘The Hindu Business Line’ reported, “Domestic drug-makers worried by side-effects of MNC buyouts.” It opined, “Acquisitions in the pharma industry came in for sharp focus, after several domestic drug-makers sold their operations partially or entirely to overseas companies – raising concerns of, among other things, increase in medicine prices.”

However, on August 4, 2011 the same business daily retorted, “MNC drug-makers allay fears of rise in prices.” It asserted, “Multinational drug-makers have stressed that they are committed to achieving the country’s healthcare goals”.

March 18, 2011 issue of  ‘Export Import News’ wrote, “FDI in pharma sector comes down during current financial year as debate on ‘Take-Overs’ rages on”.

The Union Health Minister Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad is reportedly arguing in favor of putting a cap on the FDI limit for pharmaceuticals in India. This is based on an apprehension that such FDI would have an overall adverse impact on the health care scenario of the country, especially, on pricing and availability of medicines to the common man.

It has also been reported that the Commerce Ministry is in favor of reviewing the situation after taking into consideration of the report to be submitted to them by an international consulting firm. This seems to have been prompted by the request of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) based on the recent takeovers of Indian companies by the Multi National Pharmaceutical Corporations. It appears that the recommendations of the Ministry of commerce, prepared in consultation with the DoP, will then be forwarded to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister for a final direction on the much hyped and talked about issue.

Views of the Planning Commission of India:

Meanwhile, most of the daily business papers of India reported that on July 12, 2011, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia commented, “I don’t think there is any move anywhere to prevent the expansion of existing 100% foreign owned pharmaceutical companies or to prevent green field investment by foreign companies.”

A reasonable comment:

This comment of Mr. Ahluwalia seems quite reasonable, considering the fact that full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has already been notified.

CCI to address all possible adverse impact on competition due to M&A:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) will now carefully scrutinize the possibilities of the market being less competitive due to Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of companies across the industry in the country. This concern becomes even greater, especially, in the horizontal mergers and acquisitions between the comparable competitors in the same products or geographic markets, as we have been witnessing also in the pharmaceutical sector of India, over a period of time.

However, the country is yet to notice any quantifiable ill effects of such horizontal or vertical M&A. Neither is there any major case pending with the CCI in this regard for the pharmaceutical sector.

Competition related scrutiny is nothing new in the developed markets:

Competition related scrutiny during M&A is nothing new in the developed markets of the world and is already being followed in the USA, the countries within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere.

Key concerns with M&A in pharmaceuticals:

Many believe that M&A even in the oligopolistic nature of pharmaceutical market in any country, if not abused will not do any harm to competition.  Possibly for this reason, it will be rather difficult to cite many examples, the world over, where companies have been stopped from merging by the regulators because of anti-competitive reasons.

Another school of thought, however, believes that large M&A could ultimately lead to oligopolistic nature of the pharmaceutical industry with adverse impact on competition. Thus M&A regulations are very important for this sector.

Moreover, we need to remember that competition no longer depends only on the number of players in any given field. To explain this point many people cite the example of two large global players in the field of brown liquid beverages, Coke and Pepsi, where despite being limited competition, consumers derive immense value added economic benefits due to cut throat competition between these two large players.

It goes without saying, CCI must ensure that in any M&A process, even within the pharmaceutical industry of India, such rivalry does not give way to an absolute monopoly, directly or indirectly.

M&A activity in India:

In India, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry started gaining momentum way back in 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan. 2008 witnessed one of the biggest mergers in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India with US $4.6 billion.

Last year, in May 2010, Chicago based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with US$3.72 billion. This was soon followed by the acquisition of Paras Pharma by Reckit Benkiser.

The ground realities:

In India, if we look at the ground reality, we find that the market competition is extremely fierce with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market, IPM) having not less than 50 to 80 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism.

In an environment like this, the apprehension of threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing will be rather imaginary. More so, when the medicine prices in India are the cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

CCI and NPPA will play a critical role:

One of the key concerns of the stakeholders in India is that M&A will allow the companies to come together to fix prices and resort to other anti competitive measures. However, in the pharmaceutical industry of the country this seems to be highly unlikely because of effective presence of the strong price regulator, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), as mentioned above.

Thus even after almost three years of acquisition, the product prices of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010. Similarly post acquisition of Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA and Shantha Biotech by Sanofi of France, average product price increases of these two Indian subsidiaries were reported to be just around 2% and 0%, respectively.

However, even if there is any remote possibility of M&A having adverse effect on competition, it will now be taken care of effectively by the CCI, as it happens in many countries of the world,  Israel being a recent example involving an Indian company.

‘Competition Commission’ does intervene:

In the process of the acquisition of Taro Pharma of Israel by Sun Pharma of India in 2008, being concerned with the possibility of price increases due to less competitive environment in three generic carbamazepine formulations, the Competition Commission in Israel intervened, as happened in many other countries.  As a result, Sun Pharma was directed by the regulator to divest its rights to develop, manufacture and market of all these three formulations to Torrent Pharma or another Commission approved buyer.

There are many such examples, across the world, of Competition Commission playing a key role to negate any possible ill effect of M&A.

Will the new Competition Law delay the M&A process?

Some apprehensions have been expressed that the new competition law could delay the process of a Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) . However, it is worth noting, in case the CCI will require raising any objection after the voluntary notification has been served, they will have to do so within 90 working days, otherwise the M&A process will deem to be solemnized.

Conclusion:

I reckon, in the M&A process, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world.

Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI. In addition, the apprehension for any unreasonable price increases post M&A will be addressed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Thus, there are enough checks and balances already being in place to avoid any possible adverse impact due to M&A activities in India.In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why the FDI issue related to M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both in the national and international media.

Be that as it may, it goes without saying that as we move on, the role of CCI in all M&A activities within the Pharmaceutical Industry of India will be keenly watched by all concerned, mainly to ensure that the vibrant competitive environment is kept alive within this sector.

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.

A time to keep our nose to the Grindstone – Competition Act will take care of M&As, come June 2011

Posted on by
Reply

Full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has now been notified.

In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why is the FDI issue on M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both national and international media. Instead, should we not now keep our nose to the grindstone and take strategic measures to accelerate the inclusive growth of this life-line industry of the nation?

Stipulations for M&As under the Competition Act:

Section 6(1) of the Act prohibits any person or enterprise from entering into a combination which has an “appreciable adverse effect” on competition in India. It also stipulates that any enterprise which intends to enter into such M&A, shall give notice to the CCI furnishing details of the proposed M&A within thirty days of:

(i)  Approval of the merger by the Board of Directors of the concerned enterprise

or

(ii) Execution of any agreement relating to acquisitions referred to in clause 5(a) & (b) of the Act. S.6(2A) provides a period of 210 days to the CCI to complete the investigation relating to such combinations (if the CCI is unable to come to any conclusion within this period then the combination is deemed to be approved)

S.5 of the Act lays down the transactions which will qualify as combinations for the purposes of the Act. The following is the threshold limit for Mergers and Acquisitions:
• Transactions among Indian companies with combined assets of Rs. 1000 Crores or Rs 3000 Crores in turnover of the merged entity
• Cross-border transactions involving both Indian and foreign companies with combined assets of US $500 million or US $1.5 billion in turnover

• Transactions that have a territorial nexus with India, where the acquirer has US $125 million in assets or US $375 million in turnover in India.

Once any transaction reaches the threshold limit as specified in S.5, the enterprise has to take recourse to the procedure as specified in the Competition Act.

A time to keep our nose to the Grindstone:

Last year, though the growth of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry with a turnover of US$ 752 billion significantly slowed down to just 6.7% due to various contributing factors, the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry continued to maintain a robust of growth of 19% with a turnover of US$ 10.1 billion (IMS October, 2010).

R&D will fuel future growth:

However, on a longer term perspective, the domestic industry growth will be significantly driven by the newer products, which will be the outcome of painstaking innovative research and development initiatives. Keeping this point in mind, the fact that today India accounts less than one per cent of over US$130 billion of the worldwide spending on research and development for pharmaceuticals, despite its known strength in process chemistry and abundant talent pool, has started attracting attention of the government.

Government taking appropriate measures:

It is encouraging to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India through its ‘Vision 2020’ initiatives is planning to create a new echo-system in the country to promote new drug discovery platforms. This is expected to catapult the country as one of the top five global pharmaceutical hubs, by 2020 attracting additional investments of around US$ 20 billion to the GDP of the country.

Primary role of the industry:

The Primary role of the Research based Pharmaceutical Industry in India, like in many other countries of the world, is to make significant contribution to the healthcare objectives of the nation by meeting the unmet needs of the ailing patients, with innovative medicines. This role can be fulfilled by developing newer medicines through painstaking, time-consuming, risky and expensive basic research initiatives. The research based Pharmaceutical Industry in India is committed to its prime function of discovering and developing new medicines not only for the patients in India but all over the world.

Encouraging innovation will be critical:

Despite immense progress made over the past decades in developing new medicines for numerous acute and chronic illnesses, innovation still remains critically important in the continuous and ever complex battle between disease and good health. Ongoing efforts in Research & Development (R&D) would require a robust national policy environment that would encourage, protect and reward innovation. Improving healthcare environment in partnership with the Government remains a priority for the Research based Pharmaceutical Companies in India, both global and local.

Continuous improvement in ‘Access to Medicines’ is critical:

Therefore, improving access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular should be on the top priority agenda of the policy makers in our country. High incidence of mortality and morbidity burden in a country like ours can only be addressed by improving Access to healthcare through a concerted partnership oriented strategy.

Some concerns still linger:

However, in the new paradigm, which has been designed to foster innovation in the country, there are still some loose knots to be tightened up to achieve the set objectives for the inclusive growth of the nation, in the longer term perspective.

These measures, in turn, will help improving the competitiveness of India vis-à-vis countries like China to attract appreciable investments towards R&D related to pharmaceutical and bio-pharmaceutical products. The Government has already initiated measures to expand the capacity of Indian judiciary and setting- up of fast-track specialized courts that can more effectively enforce Pharmaceutical patents with requisite technical expertise.

Industry should set examples in ‘Good Corporate Governance’ and ‘Global Good Manufacturing Practices’:

Another area of focus should be on corporate good governance. This encompasses adherence to high ethical standards in clinical trials, regulatory and legal compliance, working to prevent corrupt practices, high ethical standard in promotion of medicines and addressing all other issues that support good healthcare policies of the Government. In addition, Pharmaceutical Industry should take active measures to involve all concerned to fight the growing menace of counterfeit and spurious medicines, which significantly affect the lives of the ailing patients, all over the country.

All stakeholders should work in tandem:

It is obvious that the Pharmaceutical Industry alone will have a limited role to address key healthcare issues of our nation, especially when around 400 million Below the Poverty Line (BPL) population will not be able to afford any expenses towards healthcare, at all. All stakeholders like the government, corporate and the civil society in general, must work together according to their respective abilities, obligations and enlightened societal interests to effectively address such pressing issues.

Let us move ahead from ‘Price Control’ to ‘Price Monitoring’:

Despite Medicine Prices in India being one of the lowest in the world, mainly because of stiff competition within the industry and watchful eye of an effective price regulator, 100% of the Pharmaceutical market in the country is currently being price regulated by the Government even with the growth restrictive and ‘draconian’ ‘Third Schedule’ of the DPCO 95.

To enable the Industry to be globally competitive in all aspects of its operations, the government should move ahead from ‘Price Control’ to effective ‘Price monitoring’ mechanism and scrap the growth restrictive measures like, ‘third schedule’ of the current DPCO.

Transaction costs of medicines are too high:

Current transaction costs (all taxes) on medicines in India including trade margins is as high as over 50% of the ex-factory cost of a product.

This cost has been further increased in 2011-12 Union Budget proposal. The government should reduce exorbitantly high transaction costs to make medicines even more economical to the common man.

Conclusion:

I am confident, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world. Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI.

So far as the ‘Financial Reform’ process is concerned, India has always been a slow starter, but it never walked backwards. This tradition, I reckon, will continue in the vibrant democracy of the country, in future too.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Limiting FDI in Pharma is a protectionist cry: Does not benefit the common man.

Posted on by
Reply

“Protectionism is harmful” very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister of India, just the other day. This was in context of “recent US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.
While almost at the same time, both Indian and the foreign media reports indicate that being concerned by the recent acquisitions of the home grown relatively large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the Department of Industrial Policy and promotion (DIPP) of the Government of India are mulling a proposal to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), as applicable to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Even the Health Minister of India has been expressing this concern since ‘Abbott – Piramal deal’ was inked last year. He expressed the same apprehension, as he read out from his written speech, in an industry function in Mumbai held on January 7, 2011.

Thus the moot question is, will limiting FDI in pharmaceuticals be not considered by the world as a protective measure, just as ‘hiking visa fees and clamping down outsourcing’ from India by other countries?
Is it a mere speculation?
I would reckon so, as at this stage India cannot afford to take any retrograde anti-reformist measure in its endeavor to further accelerate the economic progress of the nation. The Finance Minister of India has also expressed so publicly, in the same context, quite recently.
Still the speculation is quite rife that a new cap of 49% FDI for pharmaceuticals would be able to keep the multinational companies (MNCs) away from having controlling stakes in the Indian companies, which will not jeopardize access to quality medicines at an affordable price to a vast majority of the population.
The key apprehensions:
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following key apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies by the MNCs:
1. Such takeovers could lead to an ‘oligopolistic market’ where a few companies will decide the prices of essential medicines, adversely impacting the ‘Public Health Interest (PHI)’.
2. If large Indian companies having the wherewithal to replicate any patented molecule are taken over by the MNCs, the ‘oligopolistic’ situation thus created and being strengthened by the exclusivity of products through product patent rights, will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of PHI by granting CLs.
3. In such a situation MNCs could well decide to sell only the high priced patented and branded generic drugs rather than the cheaper essential drugs, pushing up the drug prices and causing inconvenience to patients.
Addressing the key apprehensions:
Let me now try to address these apprehensions impartially and with as much data as possible.
1. Can Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) be ever oligopolistic? Dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.
IPM has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (source: IMS 2010). Even after, all the recent acquisition, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% (source: AIOCD/AWACS , November 2010). Even the Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter group though different and not the individual companies) contribute just around 40% of the IPM.
Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘oligopolistic market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.
2. The idea of creating a legal barrier in terms of limiting the FDIs to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of you, as mentioned in the ‘discussion paper’ of DIPP, sounds bizarre.
3. The market competition is also extremely fierce in India with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the IPM) having not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism. In an environment like this, the very thought of any threat to ‘public health interest’ due irresponsible pricing, may be taken as an insult to the government’s own price regulators, who have contributed in making the medicine prices in India cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Hard facts tell us a different story:
The apprehension that acquisition of Indian drug companies by MNCs will hurt the consumer interest is not based on hard facts. MNCs constitute 19% of the total share of the Indian pharmaceutical market in value terms. Of the 455 companies listed in IMS ORG, 38 are foreign owned (only 8.4%). The fragmented nature of the industry ensures high level of competition that has led to the lowest prices of essential medicines in India.

Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.
Access to world class science and technology:
Even the acquisition of Shantha Biotechnique by Sanofi-aventis has enabled the domestic bio-tech company to get world class R&D support and international exposure in partnership with the one of the world’s largest vaccines development company – Sanofi-Pasteur. It is worth noting that none of the prices of locally produced vaccines by Shantha Biotechnique has gone up after this acquisition.
Data also shows that the number of products under price control is now much higher for MNCs in general than the domestic drug companies.
Other positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:
All these acquisitions were absolutely voluntary in every way and brought in for the country large amount of foreign investments as can be seen in the Piramal Healthcare buyout amounting to US $3.72 billion and earlier the Ranbaxy buyout of US $4.2 billion. Such acquisitions also help in shifting investment and R&D focus of the MNCs into India, which offers good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, through partnering with MNCs, local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, resources and good manufacturing practices. A number of local companies have already entered into alliances with MNCs to leverage these opportunities.
Thus limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical industry at this stage, when the government in fact is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investments will indeed be a retrograde step for the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

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