Tag Archives: centric

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on by
Reply

Is criticizing pharma now just a fad of its stakeholders? Fathoming the right answer to this seemingly simple question may not be too easy, either, for some. The task could even be more onerous, especially when the global ‘researched based’ pharma and biotech companies, well chorused by their trade associations, are exerting serious efforts to garner the much required trust of all stakeholders on their ‘patient centric’ focus in the process of transacting business.

This often repeated pledge, as it were, on ‘patient centric’ approach is indeed praiseworthy. There’s no two opinions about it, either. The new found interest of several ‘research-based’ pharma and biologic players to develop less expensive biosimilar drugs, to possibly improve patient access to otherwise expensive biologic medicines, post patent expiry, could well be a reiteration of the same and well publicized vow, of course if not proven otherwise.

A recent example:

In the context of ‘patient-centric’ approach with biosimilar product development by the world’s largest innovative biologic drug makers, let me quote the following recent example.

On September 23, 2016, by a Press Release, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US-FDA) announced regulatory approval of Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) as a biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab) for multiple inflammatory diseases. This is the fourth FDA-approved biosimilar, after the new biosimilar pathway became effective in the US. Amjevita has been developed by Amgen Inc. – one of the global pioneers in the development of innovative biologic drugs.

According to US-FDA, a biosimilar is a biological product that is approved based on a showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity and potency (i.e., safety and effectiveness) from the reference product, in addition to meeting other criteria specified by law.

Although, Amjevita is biosimilar to Humira,  it has not been approved as an interchangeable product with Humira. This issue is considered as a major regulatory roadblock in the US for substitution of original biologic brands with their biosimilar equivalents, which can, therefore, be prescribed mostly to the new patients. It’s worth noting here that Humira – the blockbuster arthritis drug of AbbVie Inc. clocked a sale of US$ 14 billion in 2015, and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, even long after patent expiry. I shall touch upon that point below, briefly.

It is estimated that the savings of putting just new patients on much less expensive biosimilar drugs, sans substitution of the expensive original brand, will be billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this will help reduce the cost of treatment with biologic medications, improving their access to many others.

A key barrier:

Interestingly, the barriers to following the biosimilar path are being mostly created none other than the innovative drug companies themselves, even post patent expiry, presumably to extend market exclusivity and monopoly pricing.

Arising out of one such key barrier, in the form of patent litigation, Amgen’s Amjevita, in all probability, may not be available to deserving patients for years. This could involve a protracted process of skillfully navigating through the labyrinth of legalities.

On August 05, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that AbbVie Inc. has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against rival Amgen Inc., seeking to block sales of a lower-priced biosimilar of AbbVie’s top-selling, now generally considered as an off-patent drug – Humira.

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

While all the ‘research-based’ drug companies claim to be ‘patient-centric’ in their business approaches, be it with the development of biosimilars or in other areas, somewhere this narrative gets paradoxical.

On September 02, 2016, Reuters reported that global ‘research-based’ companies are now ‘waging courtroom patent battles against each other over biosimilars, as the line blurs between companies known for their innovative medicines, and those that produce cheaper biotech knockoffs.’

Some of the recent high-profile examples were reported as follows:

  • Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.
  • Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.
  • Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.
  • In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.
  • Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

It is equally noteworthy, while Amgen is keen to launch its own biosimilars, the company’s aggressive legal strategy delayed Novartis’s efforts to introduce the first US biosimilar, Zarxio, before the copy of Amgen’s US $1 billion drug Neupogen finally went on sale last year.

Further, Amgen has also filed a legal suit against a biosimilar version of its Enbrel (etanercept) developed by Novartis (Sandoz), which has already received regulatory approval from the US-FDA on August 30, 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases.

Taking these into consideration, isn’t, therefore, about time to ponder afresh, whether the innovative drug makers’ general mindset of maintaining drug exclusivity with a very high price, on techno-legal grounds, even after enjoying price monopoly over a long period of the specified time, be termed as ‘patient-centric’?

Indian scenario:

Indian players have already started developing biosimilar drugs in the country. This market offers a lucrative future opportunity considering that original biologic brands with a global turnover of around US$ 70 billion will expire by 2020.

The first biosimilar was approved and marketed in India for a hepatitis B vaccine in 2000 (GaBI Online). By now, around 30 such products have reportedly received the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)’s approval for marketing in India. Even after the new biosimilar guidelines were framed and implemented locally, since 2012, there has not been any worthwhile legal suits filed by the global innovative biologic manufacturers, against the Indian companies or such products developed and approved in India, till 2014.

Since then, this scenario has changed with Roche suing Biocon and its partner Mylan on their biosimilar versions of Roche’s Herceptin (Trastuzumab) for breast cancer, and also making the DCGI a party to this suit. This litigation is broadly on the following grounds:

  • Non-adherence to the Indian biosimilar guidelines
  • Misrepresentation of drugs as biosimilar and passing off 

Be that as it may, its key impact is on affordable biosimilar drugs that can save more lives of breast cancer patients in India. If it is so, do such litigations demonstrate a patient-centric perspective for so important a drug, which is not even protected by a product patent in India, any longer?

Are biosimilars the only examples?

Lest I am not seen as highlighting only the instances of blocking market entry of biosimilar drugs, as sole examples of ‘patient-centric focus’, or lack of it, of many global innovative drug manufacturers, I would now expand it, just a bit. This is only to fathom the bottom-line – whether it is a ‘patients-centric’ focus, or solely a ‘profit-centric’ outlook.

‘Patients-centric’ or ‘Profit-centric’?

To get a sense on this vexing issue, it would be worthwhile for us to find out by ourselves the most appropriate reason behind each of the following. Of course it’s just an illustration. This reason could be either a ‘patient centric’ focus, or simply a ‘profit centric’ outlook. …And then let’s try to make out which way the overall balance tilts, on the ground:

  • Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications
  • Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.
  • Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too
  • Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players
  • Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

Let me sign off here by raising the following relevant questions in this area, for all of us to think and address, as we deem appropriate:

Is the narrative of ‘patient centric’ approach of the ‘research-based’ global drug companies’ now getting clearer with the widely reported credible examples, as above?

Is there still a paradox between their two different strategic business approaches – one entry into off-patent drug development, such as biosimilars, and the other in blocking or delaying entry of such drugs, whenever possible, even after enjoying a specified period of product pricing monopoly?

Does it then mean, what a large section of pharma industry constituents is now publicly demonstrating, at least in the above areas, more than negates their protracted sound bites on ‘patient centric’ focus?

Despite these facts, would pharma related criticism in this space be termed as just a fad of the stakeholders?

If not, what should be the way forward from here to ensure that remedial measures are taken in so important an area of ‘patient-centric’ outlook, soon enough?

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. 

Patient Services: No Longer An Optional Competitive Driver

Posted on by
Reply

The emerging global trend of patients’ demand for greater engagement in their treatment decision making process, could well be a game changer in the prescription demand generation process for pharma brands, even in India, and in not too distant future. This would assume a critical importance not just from the patients’ perspective, but also for the pharma companies and other health care players, for commercial success.

The fast penetration of Internet services is increasingly becoming a great enabler for the patients to get to know, learn and obtain more and more information about their fitness, overall health, various illnesses, disease symptoms, available diagnostic tests, including progress in various clinical trials, besides the drugs and their prices – and all these just with several clicks.

Thus, equipped with relevant information from various dependable and user-friendly sources from the cyberspace, patients have started asking probing questions about the risks and benefits of various types of treatment decisions and diagnostics tests, when recommended by the doctors. At times, especially in the Western world, such interactions even lead to changes, additions or deletions in the choice of therapy, including drugs, devices and diagnostics tests.

Even in a developing country, such as India, many of such types of patients would no longer want to play just a passive role in their disease treatment or health and fitness improvement processes. Although, they would continue to want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment, but only after having meaningful interactions with them.

A 2016 Report: 

An April 2016 report of Accenture titled, “The Patient is IN: Pharma’s Growing Opportunity in Patient Services,” finds that the patients in the top global pharma markets want and expect consistent services coming from the pharma companies.

These patients are increasingly seeking more services from the pharma players before they are treated for a disease, regardless of the types of illnesses they have. However, it’s more important to note that patients’ responses during this survey have clearly indicated that while they highly value the services they use, a vast majority of them do not know about the services, which, as the pharma companies claim, are already available for them.

The Accenture study covered 203 executives at pharmaceutical companies, 100 in the United States and 103 in Europe (8 countries) from October to November 2015, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lung, brain, cancer, immune system, bones, and hormones/metabolism. Annual revenues of the surveyed companies ranged from nearly US$ 1 billion to more than US$ 25 billion.

Some important findings:

Following are some key findings of this report:

1. Patient services are delivering value with a significant increase in focus, and investment expected over the next two years, with 85 percent of companies are raising their investment in patient-centric capabilities over the next 18 months. However, the companies have only become slightly more patient-centric over the past two years. 9 of the following top 10 services are attracting above average business impact, which is an increase over hopping 73 percent that currently offer such patient services:

  • Disease education
  • Patient segmentation and insight
  • Patient experience management
  • Medication delivery/support
  • Patient risk assessment
  • Wellness information and health management
  • Nurse/ physician/patient access portal
  • Medication/ treatment reconciliation
  • Patient outreach, reminders, and scheduling
  • Adherence program management

2. Digital platforms play a dominant role in making patients aware of the services offered. Thus, companies are going big with investments in digital engagement technologies and supporting analytics, with 95 percent of companies planning to invest in patient engagement technologies over the next 18 months.

3. Much of this investment (but not all) is aligned to what patients value. 50 percent of the following top 10 fastest growing services are perceived by the patients delivering significant value:

  • Benefit coverage and access support
  • Health coach/counselor
  • Adherence program management
  • Co-payment assistance programs
  • Remote monitoring
  • Affordability and reimbursement support
  • Nursing support services
  • Reward/ incentive programs
  • Medication delivery/support
  • Patient outreach, reminders, and scheduling

Out of these, ‘medication delivery and support’, ‘remote patient monitoring’ and ‘adherence program management’ were highly valued by 85, 79 and 77 percentages of patients, respectively.

To give an example, pharma companies in the United States use digital as the primary channel for direct communications for patients. They use social media (51 percent) and web pages (49 percent) to market patient services. The use of TV is around 53 percent.

The challenge:

Let me re-emphasize here, as on date, just 19 percent of the surveyed patients are familiar with already available services meant for them. This had happened, despite respective pharma companies’ basic reliance and dependence on health care professionals for dissemination of their respective well-targeted services.

Thus, lack of awareness among patients about the services provided, throws a major challenge to pharma players to accurately ascertain, finding out effective ways, and then continuously measure and evaluate the impact of those services on outcomes, to further hone the process. Such a mechanism needs to be put in place before channeling further major investments in this important space.

Key takeaways:

Following are the key takeaways from this study:

  • Patient services will become a competitive driver and are no longer optional for pharmaceutical companies.
  • Investment should be led by what patients value, but measuring business value is critical to sustainability.
  • Clear organizational and operating strategy must be in place to ensure companies are structured for success.
  • Effective communication to patients the economic value of services, is central to healthcare professional interactions.

Patient-services strategy:

Accenture’s North American Managing Director of patient-services epitomized the findings of the report during its release on April 2016 by saying, “In this changing competitive environment, the question will no longer be if life sciences companies should offer these services, but rather which ones, and how they should be implemented.”

Thus, development of a robust patient-services strategy by the pharma players, that syncs well with the patients’ needs on the ground, will be absolutely necessary for the pharma players, as we step into the future. More importantly, there should be an effective alignment of the strategy with different health care professionals, through effective communication of various types and kinds, to ensure that the brand value offerings, well supported by carefully tailored patients’ services, generate a synergistic outcome for the target group.

Conclusion:

Patient services are increasingly assuming importance of a cutting-edge competitive driver of success in the pharma business. Accordingly, various types of such services have already started attracting greater investments, especially in the Western part of the globe, and are soon expected to become a key competitive driver of success in the healthcare market of India too.

However, while crafting an effective patient-services strategy, one-size-fit-all type of approach won’t work. This is primarily because, not just the service requirements would vary within patients or patient groups, the method of the preferred service delivery mechanism would also vary. For example, some patients may prefer to engage with their doctors for this purpose, some others’ preference could well be Internet based interactive digital platforms, or through a smart app available in a smartphone.

Thus, to succeed in this area for business excellence, pharma marketers must find out the most effective ways to offer these services to each types or groups of patients.

Moreover, the patient services strategy should be an ongoing exercise, as the target groups’ needs of the types of services, and preferred delivery platforms for the same would also keep changing over time.

In India too, quite slowly though, but steadily, the process of arriving at treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis. Taking a fast mover advantage in the country, in a big way and now, would help reaping a rich harvest, in the near future.

Are Indian pharma players too taking note of this shifting paradigm for sustainable business excellence?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

 

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.       

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject. 

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification: 

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data: 

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study: 

  • The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”
  • The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged. 
  • Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.
  • Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.
  • In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.
  • The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children. 
  • The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.
  • One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.
High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in  JAMA Oncology, throwing  a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014. 

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:            

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”              

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows: 

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.” 

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades. 

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog. 

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

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.

 

Wide Gap Between Health Care Needs, And Delivery: Is The Bridge Still Too Far?

Posted on by
Reply

“Health inequities which abound in India must be corrected through investments in a robust primary health care system,” said Professor K Srinath Reddy, chairman, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), not too long ago.

The equity gap between health care needs and delivery for the general population of India continues to widen.

As the next Union Budget of India is coming nearer, the question in this regard that comes at the top of mind is:

Would adequate resources be allocated by the Union Finance Minister to bridge this gap effectively now or the elusive bridge continue to remain too Far?

The growing challenges: 

Up until now, despite making some progress in improving access to health care, India continues to face the growing challenges of:

  • Gross inequalities in this area by socioeconomic status, geography and gender. 
  • High out-of-pocket health expenditure pushes its ever increasing financial burden overwhelming on the private households, that accounts for over three-quarters of health spending in India.
  • Exorbitant out-of-pocket health spending is also responsible for mercilessly driving into poverty more than half of Indian households, or around 39 million Indians, each year.

The paper titled, “Health care and equity in India”, published by ‘The Lancet’ on February 05, 2011, well deliberated on this issue. 

The paper identifies 3 key challenges to equity in health care:

  • In service delivery
  • In financing
  • In financial risk protection

In the article titled, “My Expectations From The Union Budget (2016-17)”, written in this Blog on December 07, 2015, I also suggested that adequate resource deployment be made by the Government now in power, in all these three areas, while presenting the forthcoming Union Budget on February 28, 2016.

The root cause of inequity in healthcare:

I reckon, there are, at least, the following three key reasons that can be attributed to this failure, on the part of various Governments in power, till today:

  • Inability, primarily on the part of the central government, to effectively integrate healthcare with socioeconomic, social hygiene, education, nutrition and sanitation related issues of the nation. 
  • Health being a state subject, not much of coordinated and robust planning has so far been taken place in this area, between the Central and the State Governments, to effectively address the pressing health care related growing inequity across the country, in general.
  • Budgetary allocation and other fiscal measures towards health care, both by the central and most of the state governments, are grossly inadequate. 

As I said before, in another article published by this blog titled, “With Highest Billionaire Wealth Concentration, India Tops Malnutrition Chart in South Asia” on January 26, 2015, it is a well accepted fact that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important health care issues.

Otherwise, only a much smaller population of the country having adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power, will continue to have the necessary resources to address their health care needs, appropriately.

UNICEF highlights stark inequalities in India:

According to UNICEF, every year, 1 million children below the age of five years die, due to malnutrition related causes in India. This number is worrisome as it is far higher than the emergency threshold, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the severity of malnutrition.

Highlighting stark inequality in India, the report says, “The net worth of a household that is among the top 10 per cent can support its consumption for more than 23 years, while the net worth of a household in the bottom 10 percent can support its consumption for less than three months.”

Are so called “patient centric approaches” real?

Patients are also bearing a different kind of brunt altogether, from several other corners, on their health related issues.

Today, most of the important stakeholders of the health care industry, in general, seem to be using various facades of ‘patient centric approaches’, just for petty commercial gains, or for gaining some key strategic commercial advantages.

Such entities could well be pharmaceutical industry, doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, politicians or any other stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that most of them, at various different times, either pontificate about following ‘patient centric approaches’ or use the patients cleverly just to achieve their respective commercial or political goals, solely driven by vested interests. While on the ground, growing inequity in health care keeps marching north.

A recent paper of NITI Ayog:

In a discussion paper of July 18, 2015 titled, “Health System in India: Bridging the Gap Between Current Performance and Potential”, The National Institution for Transforming India Aayog (NITI Aayog), the policy think tank of the new Indian Government, has also accepted the following 3 critical realities, currently prevailing in the health care environment of India: 

  • India’s progress in health outcomes has been slower in comparison to other countries with comparable incomes and at similar stages of development. 
  • Impressive gains in per capita income should match with an increase in life expectancy or health status. 
  • Out of pocket expenditure in India is high (70 percent of total health expenditure). This is catastrophic for the poor and pushes an estimated 37 million into poverty every year. 

The NITI Ayog paper also emphasized, although health is a subject allotted to the State List, under the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the Central Government is jointly responsible for items in the Concurrent List. 

Conclusion:

Currently, India is the global numero uno in the GDP growth rate. Thus, there cannot probably be any better time for the nation to leapfrog in the health care space, with a quantum increase in public financial commitments, to radically revamp the fragile public health system in the country. 

I repeat, incremental progress in the public health care system is just not enough for the country, extensive application of cutting edge Information Technology (IT) effectively, dovetailing with the creation of modern brick and mortar public health care infrastructure, top class human resource namely, doctors, nurses and related skill development process, on an ongoing basis.                                                                             

The Government should also ensure that the domestic health care industry comes forward to shoulder higher responsibility to enable the country in offering greater equity in health care, in tandem with the Union Ministry of Health and the State Governments.

This path, in my view, would help building a more equitable health system with a strong foundation of public health for more than 1.2 billion Indians. In that process the fast widening gap in equity, between health care needs and availability, could be bridged much sooner, and in a sustainable way.

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.

A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

In his State of the Union address, just before the recent visit to India in January 2015, President Barack Obama articulated the need to develop “Precision Medicine” in his country – a bold, giant and perhaps unprecedented State initiative to remarkably improve effectiveness of disease treatment.

To set the ball rolling, in his budget proposal for the year 2016, President Obama earmarked an amount of US$ 215 million for this purpose. This includes an allocation of US$130 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a national research database of about a million American volunteers by studying their genetics together with other relevant factors, such as the environments they live in and the microbes that live in their bodies.

‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is similar to path breaking 13-year and US$3 billion Human Genome Project, that has formed the bedrock of modern genomics, President Obama said. He also expressed hope that the private healthcare sector too, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for this new initiative of the Government for the interest of patients.

Why is this approach so relevant in today’s healthcare?

In an article published in the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ) in October 2012, Richard Smith - an editor of BMJ until 2004 and a Director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative wrote:

“Doctors know that many of the patients they treat with drugs will not benefit. Many patients know that too.”

Dr. Smith also emphasized, for centuries medicine classified diseases by what could be seen, felt, and smelt. Thereafter, medical scientists in this area started defining diseases anatomically, physiologically, and biochemically. Even today, this is by and large the paradigm where most medicines fall.

Smith underscored, because of imprecise diagnosis the treatment also becomes haphazard. There is big variation in how individuals respond to drugs and yet that variation is not usually recorded. The regulators approve drugs based on their average performance even today.

The White House release also reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” This “one-size-fits-all-approach,” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others.

This calls for broadening the scope of disease treatment – from the conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented’ approach, to relatively more unconventional and better targeted with greater value – ‘Patient-Centric’ ones, wherever needed.

Two current trends:

To address this key deficiency in the effective treatment of several dreaded diseases for many patients, following two are the current trends, as stated by William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., who led Roche’s Oncology Discovery & Translational Area research unit since May 2014:

  • We now know that on a molecular level every cancer is different – not only between different tumors, but even between different areas within a single tumor! This means that we need to match the right drug to the patient who we know will respond best to the drug, at the right time during the course of treatment.
  • Patients will have their tumors profiled not only for genetic drivers, but also for predictive immunotherapy markers at different time points in their course of treatment.

Personalized and Precision Medicine:

The above trends in the endeavor of making treatments more patient specific – thus more effective, have thrown open scientific discourse and intense research on ‘Personalized’ and ‘Precision’ medicines.

As Pfizer has described in its website:

Personalized Medicine is a unique approach to medical practice in which the individual aspects of a patient are directly considered to guide treatment planning, including his or her genetic make-up, key biomarkers, prior treatment history, environmental factors and behavioral preferences. This approach can be used to optimize pharmaceutical treatments and overall care.

Whereas, Precision Medicine is an approach to discovering and developing medicines and vaccines that deliver superior outcomes for patients, by integrating clinical and molecular information to understand the biological basis of disease. Precision medicine is the biopharmaceutical research and development paradigm that will help enable more patient-centered clinical practice, including treatment decision-making based on genetic information – an emerging standard now often described as “personalized medicine”.

As President Obama said while announcing the proposal on January 30, 2015, ‘Precision Medicine’ promises delivery of the right treatment at the right time, every time, to the right person.

He also said that the new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes…and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

‘Precision Medicines’ Dominate Oncology segment: 

In the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2014 Congress, pharma majors reported their latest advances on precision medicines in the cancer care. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Merck & Co. were among the companies presented updates of their most promising cancer drugs closer to this area.

According to a large pharma lobby group in the United States – The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA):

“Recent advances in diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis are delivering on the promise of targeted treatments, and between 12 and 50 percent of all compounds currently being researched by the industry are potential personalized medicines. These advances hold great promise in improving patient outcomes and controlling costs by targeting the right medicines to the right patients.”

‘DCAT Connect’ Report of September 2014 also indicates significant increase in ‘Precision Medicines’ in the pipelines of the leading global pharma companies, which is a key change over the past decade.

In 2013, targeted therapies increased their share of the global oncology market, accounting for 46 percent of total sales, up from 11 percent a decade ago. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the global oncology drug market reached US$ 91 billion in 2013 with CAGR of 5.4 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Taking note of this trend, it appears that in the near future ‘Precision Medicines’ would possibly be the most promising class in the treatment of cancer, particularly in breast cancer, lung cancer and certain types of leukemia. This is mainly because medical scientists are already quite acquainted with the molecular signatures of different types of cancer related tumors.

Medical scientists and researchers are also working on ‘Precision Medicines’ to more effectively address many other diseases, such as, diabetes, cardiovascular and ailments related to several types of infections.

Increasing potential:

Realization of the potential of ‘Precision Medicines’ to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has just only begun to be tapped.

In recent times, scientists and researchers have accelerated efforts to understand more about biomarkers for this purpose. A study conducted by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa) indicates that more than 20 percent of clinical trials carried out since 2005 focused not just on agents, but also on biomarkers. Before 1990, only one in twenty clinical trials addressed biomarkers.

According to another report, last year, 20 percent of all new drug approvals in the United States were for “Precision Medicine” treatments. This vindicates, yet again, the immense potential to turn genetic discoveries into innovative disease treatments for patients.

A bold state sponsored research initiative:

State funded, ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is a bold new step of the American Government to revolutionize improvement in healthcare and treating disease. It is expected to pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.

As the White House release reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” As a result of this, “one-size-fits-all-approach” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of ‘Precision Medicine’, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

In this process, ‘Precision Medicine’ gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient’s health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective.

Opposite view:

In an op-ed titled, ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down, published recently in The New York Times, the author argued with his differing viewpoints.

I am quoting below three of those arguments:

  • “For most common diseases, hundreds of genetic risk variants with small effects have been identified, and it is hard to develop a clear picture of who is really at risk for what. This was actually one of the major and unexpected findings of the Human Genome Project. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was thought that a few genetic variants would be found to account for a lot of disease risk. But for widespread diseases like diabetes, heart disease and most cancers, no clear genetic story has emerged for a vast majority of cases.”
  • “Another unexpected finding of the Human Genome Project was the problem of ‘missing heritability.’ While the statistics suggest that there is a genetic explanation for common conditions and diseases running in families or populations, it turns out that the information on genetic variants doesn’t explain that increased risk.”
  • “The idea behind the “war on cancer” was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

I am sure, you will analyze the above points with the facts that you have at your disposal on this subject to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Current Applications:

Though these are still early days, initial benefits of ‘Precision Medicines’ have been reported in many areas, such as:

  • Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.
  • Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.
  • Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.
  • Cystic fibrosis: In America, patients with a rare form of cystic fibrosis now can choose a drug designed specifically to target the genetic defect causing their illness. Specialized medical centers, such as “individualized medicine centers” at the Mayo Clinic, are also available to the patients for effective treatment.

Ethical issues:

While following this pursuit of excellence of the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly raised flags of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK is an organization that investigates how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Precision Medicine’ primarily in the area of genetic testing need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Conclusion:

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional and value added individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition.

Advances in ‘Precision Medicine’ have already led to powerful new discoveries and several new treatments that are tailored to specific characteristics of individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.  This is leading to a transformation in the way the world can treat diseases such as cancer.

Patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanomas and leukemia, for instance, should be provided with facilities in specialist hospitals to undergo molecular testing as a part of patient care, enabling physicians to select treatments that improve chances of survival and reduce exposure to adverse effects.

Although, the potential for precision medicine to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has only just begun to be tapped, some skeptics do say that tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive.

Be that as it may, in the balance of probability the benefits of prudent use of ‘Precision Medicine’ far outweigh the concerns expressed. This evolving new paradigm would help saving not just significant expenses, but also precious time that is usually spent on ‘trial-and-error treatments’, by enabling clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

Though lot many grounds would still need to be covered in this area, the State sponsored ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative of America to revolutionize disease treatment, in my view, is indeed a laudable one, every way.

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.

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Posted on by
Reply

“Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life. There are so many legal and ethical issues involved with clinical trials and the government has not done anything so far.”

This is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed while responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the subject in January 2013.

While Indian regulators with the active intervention of the Supreme Court are trying to grapple with, besides others, the basic ‘human rights’ aspect of the Clinical Trial (CT), many countries in different parts of the world are moving much ahead at a brisker pace. They have started thinking and putting in place more patient centric newer drug approval systems and also, in tandem, hastening the process of bringing new drugs to the market.

Current general scenario in CT:

Currently, after pre-clinical studies and before applying for regulatory approval, a new drug has to be tested on volunteers in randomized studies to prove its efficacy and safety on patients. Relatively short duration of new drug trials can hardly establish long-term safety and efficacy, which are now arrived at through extrapolation of data collected during CT period.

It is worth noting, the overall situation changes dramatically after launch of these products, as their usage expands from a relatively smaller number of CT volunteers to millions of real-world patients.

In a situation like this, unrealistic expectation of patients’ safety in perpetuity based primarily on extrapolation of very limited CT data is being increasingly questioned today.

That is why, on going post-marketing surveillance, which is also known as a Phase IV CT, is considered as a much more effective process to gauge relative superiority of the drug against the existing ones in terms of both efficacy and safety on a longer term.

That said, today one reads and hears umpteen number of accusations for almost lack of any meaningful response on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, in general, towards revelations of post-marketing surveillance data. This could, in turn, expose the patients to various types of risks, including wasteful healthcare expenditure.

The ‘Magic Moment’ in the present regulatory process:

A recent paper highlights a single “Magic Moment” between pre and post-licensing processes in the current drug-approval model in many countries. In this system, the use of a drug is tightly controlled in a narrowly defined pre-licensing population. Thus, CTs are also conducted on such pre-defined and relatively homogeneous volunteers, who are generally free from complicating conditions.

However, after ‘The Magic Moment’ of marketing approval, a large number of heterogeneous patient population, with many of them on multiple therapy, also use these new products in uncontrolled settings. Situations as these had led to post-marketing major drug withdrawals like, Vioxx and Avandia due to patients’ safety.

These grave concerns have led to a strategic shift in the drug regulatory approval scenario throwing open new ideas in the drug approval process.

Adaptive Licensing:

To find the right answer to this vexing issue the drug regulators in many countries are  reportedly seriously contemplating to imbibe a process that will continuously help analyzing information through ongoing post-marketing surveillance data. Continuous medical data analysis like this will enable the regulators to modify their earlier decisions on marketing approval and also medical reimbursements related to pricing reasons.

This new process is called ‘Adaptive Licensing (AL)’, which is expected to benefit the overall healthcare system, by not allowing medical reimbursement of treatments with those drugs, which will provide negligible benefit over existing low cost therapies.

Difference between current mechanism and AL:

According to a ‘Health Canada’ paper titled, “The Path to Adaptive Drug Regulation”, the difference between the two is as follows:

Current system:

As explained above, post-licensing i.e. after ‘The Magic Moment’ of regulatory approval, treatment population grows rapidly and treatment experiences do not contribute to evidence generation.

Adaptive Licensing:

After initial license, treated patients grow more slowly due to regulatory restrictions. Patient experience is captured to contribute to real-world information. The marketing license is also modified accordingly from time to time.

Most desirable for many drugs:

Experts in this field opine that AL will help bringing in alignment of all required processes so important for a new drug seen from patients’ perspective like, R&D, regulatory approval and market access with the active involvement of all stakeholders like, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug regulator, payors/insurance companies and also the researchers.

In the AL system, a transparent drug development process will provide enough data on risk-benefit profile of the concerned drug to satisfy the drug regulator for its quick marketing authorization on pre-determined types of patients.

Such approval will follow real-life monitoring of efficacy and safety for modification of the drug license accordingly, wherever and whenever required.

Thus, AL is expected to strike a right balance balance between timely access to new drugs for the patients and the need to evaluate real time evolving information on safety and efficacy leading to a well-informed patient centric decisions by the drug regulators.

A continuous regulatory evaluation and decision-making process:

AL intends to evaluate a drug through its entire life span.  It has been reported that during this long period, clinical and other data will “Continue to be generated on the product through various modalities, including active surveillance and additional studies after initial and full licensing. The artificial dichotomy of pre vs. post licensing stages (‘The Magic Moment’) will be replaced by graded, more tightly managed, but more timely and potentially more cost-effective market entry and market stability.”

Not necessary for all drugs in the near term:

It is worth noting that AL system may not perhaps be required for all pharmaceutical or biologic products and will not totally replace the current system of drug licensing process, at least in the near term.

AL process may immediately be followed only for those products with a favorable risk-benefit drug profile as demonstrated in the initial data and there is a robust reason for early market entry of this drug to meet unmet needs, simultaneously with ongoing studies.

The ‘Magic Moment’ freezes in India…in perpetuity:

As per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, after obtaining drug marketing approval from the regulators, concerned pharmaceutical companies are required to follow the pharmacovigilance system in the country to own the responsibility and liability of the drugs as enunciated in the Schedule Y of the Act. Unfortunately, this is hardly being followed in India, ignoring patients’ safety blatantly.

With the plea that most products launched in India are already being marketed in many developed markets of the world, the concerned companies prefer to depend on clinical experiences in those markets. This attitude totally bypasses the regulatory requirement to follow a robust pharmacovigilance system in India. Indian drug regulators also do not seem to be much concerned about this important patients’ safety related requirements, very surprisingly not even for biosimilar drugs.

However, the current ground realities are quite different. As we witness today, there does not seem to be much difference in time between international and India launch of innovative products. Thus, the argument of gaining medium to long-term experience on safety and efficacy from international data related to these drugs, does not seem to hold any water at all.

On the contrary, some drugs withdrawn from the international markets on safety grounds are still available in India, despite ire and severe indictment even from the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In a situation like this, AL process of Marketing approval for selected newer and innovative drugs may be considered by the Indian Drug Regulators, just not to be more patient centric, but also to help evaluating  pricing decisions of innovative drugs failing to demonstrate significantly better treatment outcomes as compared to the existing ones.

A recent example of AL:

One of the latest drugs, which reportedly will undergo such regulatory scrutiny of USFDA is Tacfidera (dimethyl fumarate) used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, approved in April 2013 and costing US$ 54,900 per patient per year.  Interestingly, Tacfidera, before the drug can find itself on a formulary, will need to demonstrate its effectiveness in the real world.

The report indicates, “the first six months after a drug launch are always about educating payers about its benefits, and while most large payers are likely to make a decision to reimburse the drug in the next twelve months, data collection will continue and changes in policies might be made at a later date.”

Thus, in the years ahead, whether a new drug will become a blockbuster or not will very largely be decided by the ongoing real world data. If the promise of a drug diminishes at any point of time through clinical data, it will certainly going to have consequential financial and other adverse impacts.

Another interesting recent development:

Under new pharmacovigilance legislation in Europe, the European Medicines Agency has reportedly announced the list of over 100 drugs that soon will bear the “black triangle” logo. This initiative is directed to encourage both the doctors and patients to report side effects to enable close monitoring of drug safety.

Criteria to include drugs under additional monitoring are:

  • Medicines authorized after January 1, 2011 that contain a new active substance.
  • Biologics for which there is limited post-marketing experience.
  • Medicines with a conditional approval or approved under exceptional circumstances.
  • Medicines for which the marketing-authorization holder is required to carry out a post-authorization safety study (PASS).
  • Other medicines can also be placed under additional monitoring, based on a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

Conclusion:

Global regulatory experts do believe that in the concept of AL, there are still some loose knots to be tightened expeditiously to make it a fully implementable common drug marketing authorization process.  Appropriate pilot projects need to be undertaken in this area to establish beyond any doubt that AL will be decisively more preferable to the current regulatory process.

As and when AL will become the preferred drug-licensing pathway across the world, it is expected to offer greater real benefits of new drug development to the patients for their optimal use at an affordable price.

That said, some other experts do opine as follows:

“No matter how fast the authorization process operates, the merits of innovation will not be felt until they reach patients. And the barrier between authorization and patient access remains, in most of Europe, the issue of reimbursement.”

While all these are fast developing in the global CT scenario, in the jangle of Clinical Trials‘ in India, ‘Adaptive Licensing’ has still remained a critical missing ingredient even to encourage a wider debate.

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.

Are common patients in India just as the pawns of the game of chess or the victims of circumstances or both, in the socio-economic milieu of the country?

Posted on by
Reply
“Public healthcare in India has the power to deliver improved health outcomes, as demonstrated by a growing number of national and international examples. However, supportive policies need to be put in place in order to change traditional determinants of health,”said Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at the third foundation day function of the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), not so long ago.The healthcare industry of India has indeed this power, which can catapult the industry to a growth orbit to generate an impressive revenue of around US$.150 billion by 2017 as estimated by India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) in November 2009. This growth will be driven primarily by the private investments in country.Be that as it may, the current healthcare standard and infrastructure in India, as we all know, is far from satisfactory. Though we have some healthcare centers of excellence spread sporadically across various cities and towns of India, public healthcare facilities are grossly inadequate to satisfy the current healthcare demand of the common man of India.

Healthcare spends in India:

Although total health spending of the nation is around 6 percent of its GDP being one of the highest within the developing countries of the world, public expenditure towards healthcare is mere 0.9 percent of the GDP and constitutes just a quarter of the total healthcare cost of the nation. According to a World Bank study, around 75 percent of the per capita spending are out of pocket expenditure of individual households, state and the union governments contribute around 15.2 percent and 5.2 percent respectively, health insurance and employers contribute just 3.3 percent and foreign donors and state municipalities contributing the balance of 1.3 percent.

Out of this meager allocated expenditure only 58.7% goes for the primary care.

Four essentials in Primary Healthcare:

When it comes to Primary Healthcare, following are the well accepted essentials that the government should effectively address:

1. Healthcare coverage to all, through adequate supply of affordable medicines and medical services

2. Patient centric primary healthcare infrastructure and networks

3. Participative management of healthcare delivery models including all stakeholders with a change from ‘supply driven’ to ‘demand driven’ healthcare program and policies

4. Health of the citizens should come in the forefront while formulating all policies for all sectors including industry, environment, education, deployment of labor, just to cite a few examples.

It is unfortunate that most of these essentials have not seen the light of the day, as yet.

The key reason for failure:

Inability on the part of the central government to effectively integrate healthcare with socio-economic, social hygiene, education, nutrition and sanitation related issues is one of the key factors for failure in this critical area.

Moreover in the healthcare planning process, health being a state subject, not much of coordinated planning has so far taken place between the central and the state governments to address the pressing healthcare related issues.

In addition, budgetary allocation and other fiscal measures, as stated earlier, towards healthcare both by the central and the state governments are grossly in adequate.

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) – a good beginning:

To address this critical issue, the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was conceived and announced by the government of India. NRHM aims at providing valuable healthcare services to rural households of the 18 States of the country namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarkhand and Uttar Pradesh, to start with.

The key objectives of this novel scheme are as follows:

• Decrease the infant and maternal mortality rate
• Provide access to public health services for every citizen
• Prevent and control communicable and non-communicable diseases
• Control population as well as ensure gender and demographic balance
• Encourage a healthy lifestyle and alternative systems of medicine through AYUSH

As announced by the government NRHM envisages achieving its objective by strengthening “Panchayati Raj Institutions” and promoting access to improved healthcare through the “Accredited Female Health Activist” (ASHA). It also plans on strengthening existing Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers and District Health Missions, in addition to making maximum use of Non-Governmental Organizations.

NRHM is expected to improve access to healthcare by 20 to 25 percent in the next three years:

To many the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has made a significant difference to the rural health care system in India. It now appears that many more state governments are envisaging to come out with innovative ideas to attract and retain public healthcare professionals in rural areas.

On January 11, 2010, the Health Minister of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, while inaugurating the FDA headquarters of the Western Zone located in Mumbai, clearly articulated that the NRHM initiative will help improving access to affordable healthcare and modern medicines by around 20 to 25 percent during the next three years. This means that during this period access to modern medicines will increase from the current 35 percent to 60 percent of the population.

If this good intention of the minister gets translated into reality, India will make tremendous progress in the space of healthcare, confirming the remarks made by Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as quoted above.

Is NRHM scheme good enough to address all the healthcare needs of the country?

NRHM is indeed a very good and noble initiative taken by the government to address the basic healthcare needs of the rural population, especially the marginalized section of the society. However, this is obviously not expected to work as a magic wand to resolve all the healthcare related issues of the country.

Are patients the pawns of the game of chess or the victims of circumstances or both of the socio-economic systems?

Currently, some important stakeholders of the healthcare industry seem to be using the patients or taking their names, mainly for petty commercials gains or strategic commercial advantages. They could be doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, pharmaceutical industry, activists, politicians or any other stakeholders. It is unfortunate that they all, sometime or the other, want to use the patients to achieve their respective commercial or political goals or to achieve competitive gains of various types or just for vested interests..

‘The Patient centric approach’ has now become the buzz word for all – do we ‘walk the talk’?

There does not seem to be much inclusiveness in the entire scheme of things in the private healthcare system, excepting some odd but fascinating examples like Dr. Devi Shetty, Sankara Nethralaya etc. As a result, excepting the creamy layers, patients from all other strata of society are finding it difficult to bear the treatment cost of expensive private healthcare facilities.

I personally know a working lady with a name Kajol (name changed) whose husband is suffering from blood cancer. One will feel very sad to watch how is she fast losing all her life’s savings for the treatment of her husband, pushing herself, having no alternative means, towards an extremely difficult situation day by day. There are millions of such Kajols in our society, who are denied of effective public healthcare alternatives to save lives of their loved ones.

If all stakeholders are so “patient centric” in attaining their respective objectives, why will over 650 million people of India not have access to modern medicines, even today? Is it ALL for poor healthcare infrastructure and healthcare delivery system in the country? If so, why do we have millions of Kajol’s in our country?

Consumer awareness and pressure on healthcare services and medicines in India will increase – a change for the better:

With the winds of economic change, rising general income levels especially of the middle income population, faster awareness and penetration of health insurance among the common citizens, over a period of time Indian consumers in general and the patients, in particular, like in the developed countries of the world, will start taking more and more informed decisions by themselves about their healthcare needs and related expenditure through their healthcare providers.

As the private healthcare providers will emerge in India, much more in number, like the developed world, they will concentrate not only on their financial and operational efficiencies exerting immense pressure on other stakeholders to squeeze out the best deal at the minimal cost, but also to remain competitive will start charting many uncharted frontiers and explore ways of enhancing the ‘feel good factors’ of the patients through various innovative ways… God willing.

Conclusion:

All stakeholders of the healthcare industry need to think of inclusive growth, not just the commercial growth, which could further widen the socio-economic divide in the country, creating numbers of serious social issues. As we know, this divide has already started widening at a brisk pace, especially in the healthcare sector of the country

It is hightime for the civil society, as well, to ponder and actively participate to make sure that the inclusive growth of the healthcare sector in India takes place, where like primary education, primary healthcare should be the ‘fundamental right’ for ALL citizens of the country.

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.