Tag Archives: Change

MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Close on the heels of a reasonably successful patent challenge by the German pharma Multinational Corporation (MNC) Fresenius Kabi for the breast cancer drug Tykerb of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in India, another MNC Mylan, with its headquarter in the United states, has explicitly expressed its plan to challenge frivolous and weak patents of MNCs, in conformance to the Indian Patents Act, to provide less expensive generic drugs to patients.

This is indeed another interesting development, which could possibly culminate into robust, cleverly crafted and fiercely competitive business strategies of many other MNCs, revolving around patent challenges in India, for business excellence in the country.

Mylan develops new products in India:

Mylan is now reportedly working with the local Indian player Biocon to develop a strong new product pipeline, which would include a portfolio of biosimilar drugs. The advanced breast cancer drug Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche is just one of many in the list. Mylan has also expressed its intent to market ‘Herceptin’ at a price, which will be affordable to many more cancer patients of India.

It is worth mentioning that some other domestic Indian companies like, Reliance Life Sciences and BDR Pharma are reportedly working on generic Trastuzumab (Herceptin), besides some South Korean bio-pharma players.

Mylan has also inked an agreement with Biocon to develop and market an insulin drug derived from the global major Sanofi’s expensive patented product Lantus.

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

Though Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India, it reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent patent scrutiny. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

To extend the patent right for Herceptin, in early September 2013, Roche reportedly announced that the European Commission has approved a new formulation of its breast cancer drug Herceptin, which allows the medicine to be administered more quickly.

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

For global innovator pharma majors, India still remains a tough market to crack, despite strong overseas political pressures of various types, intense collective and individual lobbying efforts and deployment of expensive global ‘Public Relations’ firms working in full steam.

Their strong success factors of the yesteryears in this area, which worked so well across the world, are getting mostly negated by the ‘evolving patient friendly IP laws’ of the emerging economies.

Considering the vast business potential of the pharmaceutical market of 1.2 billion people in India, it is now envisaged by many, more like-minded MNCs will gradually jump into this fray with similar intent of patent challenges in conformance with the Indian Patents Act 2005.

If this scenario assumes a cascading effect on a broader canvas, ultimate beneficiary will be the ailing patients, having much greater access to more affordable newer drugs for many dreaded diseases, like cancer.

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

To provide less-expensive generic drugs to patients, other countries also have started following India to leash astronomical prices for new drugs, especially for life threatening and intensely debilitating ailments. China has reportedly strengthened its compulsory licensing provisions already for dealing with costly drugs, paving the way to force entry of generic drugs in the Chinese market well before patent expiry.

In 2012, Indian Patent Office, in a path breaking decision granted Compulsory License (CL) to a local company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture the patented kidney-cancer drug, Nexavar of Bayer reportedly at a cost of Rs. 8,800 (around US$ 176) for a month’s therapy of 120 capsule against Bayer’s price of Rs. 280,000 (around US$ 5,600) for the same.

This is the first-ever case of CL granted in India thus far to make life saving drugs affordable to patients.

On September 3, 2012, the Indonesian government took the unprecedented step of overriding the patents on seven HIV and hepatitis treatments, citing urgent need to improve patient access. These drugs were reportedly beyond the reach of most of the patients in Indonesia.

Thailand has also used this provision more than once, and countries like, Brazil has reportedly threatened quite often for invoking CL during price negotiations of such drugs with global pharma majors.

Winds of Change in South Africa:

Now South Africa has also exhibited its firm intent to have a tight leash on the grant of pharmaceutical patents of all types.

A recent report indicates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the Government of South Africa is calling for comments on its proposed ‘National Policy on Intellectual Property’ by October 4, 2013, which if implemented, would significantly curb patent evergreening and expand production of generics.

The same report mentions that at present, South Africa does not examine patent applications. Instead, the system allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain multiple patents on the same drug, even for inventions, which do not fall under the country’s definition of innovation. This allows the pharma players to extend their respective patent lives, blocking competition and charging exorbitant prices.

The report also points out, while in 2008, South Africa granted 2,442 pharmaceutical patents, Brazil approved only 278 in the 5 years between 2003 and 2008.

Patents revoked in India:

Since November 2010 following 8 MNC patents have been revoked in India after respective patent challenges:

  • Combigan and Ganfort of Allergan (for specified eye conditions)
  • Tykerb of GSK (for breast cancer)
  • Sutent of Pfizer (for liver and kidney cancer)
  • Pegasys of Roche (for hepatitis C)
  • Iressa of AstraZeneca (Anti-cancer)
  • Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension of Merck & Co (Anti-asthma)
  • Dulera of Novartis (Anti-asthma)

China and Brazil revoked patents: 

In August 2013, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc.

Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

Top 10 ‘jaw-dropping’ most expensive medicines of the world:

No. Name Disease Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm 13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome 657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria 409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome 375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma 360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema 350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe 300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome 250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease 200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease 200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is, protests against such ‘immoral and obscene pricing’ have started mounting, which are expected to have a snow-balling effect in the years ahead.

Mounting global protests:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

Competition within MNCs is expected to be even more fierce in the coming years as the developed markets continue to slow down, as follows, due to various reasons:

No. Country

USD Bn.

% Share

Val. Gr.
Global Pharma Market

961

100

5
USA

329

38

-1
Japan

112

13

0
China

82

10

24
Germany

42

5

-6
France

37

4

-8
Brazil

29

3

6
Italy

27

3

-8
13. India

14

1

11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

This compelling scenario is prompting a change in the dynamics of competition within  MNCs in the emerging pharmaceutical markets. The intents of Fresenius Kabi and Mylan, as enunciated above, I reckon, are just very early signals of this challenge of change.

All these would probably help turning the tide in favor of a seemingly win-win solution to bring down the prices of patented medicines at an affordable level, improving their access to vast majority of patients in the world.

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded:

“This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Therefore, this process is expected to gain momentum in the years ahead as more MNCs join the fray of patent challenges, though driven primarily by business interests, but nevertheless, would benefit the patients, in the long run.

Further, as indicated in my previous columns, a study indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today. If challenged, some experts envisage, these patents may not be able to stand the scrutiny of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

In that sense, if the pharma MNCs with deep pockets, challenge these patents, there stands a good chance of making generic equivalents of those products at affordable prices for the Indian patients.

However, considering different degree and elements of market entry barriers, it appears, most of the patent challenges in India by the MNCs would probably be for biologics, as compared to small molecule chemicals.

Flow of newer drugs in the Indian market is now irreversible:

Taking stock of the emerging scenario, it appears, India will continue to see newer drugs coming into the market at a lower price in the years ahead, come what may. This flow seems to be unstoppable due to the following reasons:

  • Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.
  • More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.
  • If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.
  • If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

Hence, considering all these points, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the Indian Patents Act and are not launched with responsible pricing, the possibility of their generic entry at much lower prices is almost inevitable.

Conclusion: 

Legal battle is expensive, even in India, and patent challenges are perhaps more expensive. All those new products, which are not patentable in India or may otherwise be challenged against other statutes of the Patents Act, will carry risks of getting caught in protracted litigations or generic competition.

MNCs with deep pockets coming forward with such intent, though may be based purely on their business interest in India, would ultimately offer spin-off benefits of affordable pricing, especially, to the patients suffering from life threatening and fast debilitating illnesses like, cancer.

That said, do all these developments unravel yet another way to improve access to newer medicines in India, signaling a boon for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

The ‘Climate Change’ and its impact on ‘Public health’: is there anything in it that we can do ourselves?

Posted on by
Reply
The Lancet in its December 5, 12 and 19, 2009 issues published the following interesting studies:A. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy
B. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport
C. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation
D. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture
E. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants
F. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makersThe findings of these studies clearly indicate that climate change is intimately linked to the global public health.

The key highlights:

1. In rural households (particularly in a developing country like India), if low carbon emission cooking stoves are used, the incidence of acute respiratory tract infections, chronic respiratory illnesses and even cardiac disorders can be brought down significantly.

2. For city transportation, increased usage of more fuel efficient or even hybrid vehicle will not be just enough to effectively reduce the greenhouse effect and improve public health. To achieve this some fundamental change in our life style and urban pedestrian infrastructure will be necessary rather than building more and more flyovers. Encouragement of ‘foot- and pedal-powered mobility’ could prove to be more useful for specific public health benefits, which could come in terms of reductions of cardiovascular disease by around 20%, in addition to reduced incidence of depression, dementia and diabetes.

3. The civil society would require putting more efforts to burn less of fossil fuels and increase in production of cleaner energy through solar and wind power to substantially improve the quality of air that we breathe.

4. In areas of agriculture and food production, initiatives like lesser usage of fossil fuel, innovative usage of manure, reduced livestock production and intensive programs of carbon capture could significantly lower the impact of climate change on public health.

“A 30% fall in the adult consumption of saturated fat from animal sources would reduce heart disease in the population by around 15% in the UK and by 16% in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. If the study had used additional health outcomes such as obesity and diet-related cancers, the health gains might have been even more substantial”, the Lancet highlighted.

The studies further indicated, “Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibilities of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.”

India perspective:

‘Climatico national first assessment report’ of March 8, 2009 makes important observations on the general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries like, UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

Key findings of the report are as follows:

1. “A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appears unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs. It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed”.

2. “The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery”.

It has been reported that the above observations have prompted the Government of India to seek global cooperation both in terms of funding and technology to facilitate the capacity building exercise in these areas to effectively address all issues arising out of ‘climate change’.

Conclusion:

It has now been well accepted by the policy makers in India that there is a dire need to effectively address the critical public health issues related to global ‘climate change’. Based on the findings, as published in ‘The Lancet’, the Government of India should take appropriate collaborative measures to neutralize the adverse impact of ‘climate change’ on ‘public health’, sooner the better.

At the same time, let me hasten to add that there are many other measures, as stated earlier, which we all can take ourselves as a civil society in general and a responsible citizen in particular, to prevent this impending crisis.

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.

Amendment of ‘Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics’ Regulations for the Doctors by the MCI could dramatically change the Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices in India, hereafter.

Posted on by
Reply
As reported in the media, the notification of the Medical Council of India (MCI) dated December 10, 2009 amending the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ has been welcomed by the medical profession.
Areas of stricter regulations:

The notification specifies stricter regulations for doctors in the following areas, in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’:

1. Gifts
2. Travel facilities
3. Hospitality
4. Cash or Monetary grants
5. Medical Research
6. Maintaining Professional Autonomy
7. Affiliation
8. Endorsement

These guidelines have come into force with effect from December 14, 2009.

Possible implications:

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession and a medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It also appears that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials could possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

The new MCI regulations is much stricter:

Since the new amended regulations of the MCI are much stricter than the existing codes of marketing practices of the pharmaceutical industry associations, there could be an emerging disconnect between these two practices till such time a clearer picture emerges after due deliberations by all concerned, in this matter.

It is also interesting to note, how would the pre December 14, 2009 commitments for the post December 14, 2009 period, of both the medical profession and the industry related to such regulated practices, be handled by the MCI, in future.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the new ball game of pharmaceutical marketing strategies and practices will no longer be driven by more of a ‘deep pocket’ syndrome and less of ‘cerebral power’, by all concerned.

If this happens, I shall not be surprised to witness a dramatic change in the prescription share of various companies in the next 3 to 5 years thereby impacting the ranking of these companies in the Indian pharmaceutical industry league table.

Thus, the name of the game in the pharmaceutical marketing space, in not too distant future, will be “generation and effective implementation of innovative ideas”.

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.

The top 10 environment polluters of the world should now transform themselves into the top 10 saviours of the world from the disaster of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

After World War the second, various types of atmospheric pollution started drawing increasing public attention in the western world, both in the USA and Europe.

In Europe, the incidence of London’s ‘Great Smog’ in 1952 initiated the process of bringing in ‘The Clean Air Act’ in 1956. This Act is believed to be one of the first legislations on environment in the world. Similarly in the USA in 1969 ‘The National Environment Policy Act’ was passed by the US Congress.

As we know, globally environmental pollution takes place mainly through carbon emission related to various developmental activities like construction, manufacturing, mining, motor vehicles, aircrafts; combustion equipment etc. All such emissions are gradually assuming alarming proportions.

Though CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis of plant life, its raised level through the above developmental activities, very often adversely impacts the protective ozone layer of the earth triggering the process of climate change.

Sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 has also been shown to critically affect the sea water by increasing its acidity level, which in turn could endanger the marine ecosystem.

The key question:

Therefore, the moot question now is how to balance various developmental activities related to social and economic progress of nations with the preservation of global natural ecosystems.

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

As per recent reports the top 10 environment polluters of the world are as follows:

1. China: Emits maximum CO2 of 6,018 million tonne. However, in terms of per capita emission, with 4.5 tonne China ranks 44 in the world, Australia being at the top of the list with 20.58 tonne followed by USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia. China has now pledged to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 per cent by 2020.

It is important to note that against the suggestion of Denmark, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have refused to set a target of reduction of the global carbon emission by half, by 2050. BASIC countries emphasized that the developed nations should first work out an implementable model for emission cut before setting up any target.

2. United States: Emits 5,903 million tonnes of CO2 with a plan to cut the emission by 17 per cent from 2005 level by 2020. Per capita emission of CO2 of the USA, which ranks no.2 in the world, is 19.78 tonne.

3. Russia: Emits 1,704 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to cut emission by 25 percent, by 2020, if others also do the same.

4. India: Emits 1,293 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 1.16 tonne and agreed to cut emission by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 level by 2020.

5. Japan: Emits 1,247 million tonne of carbon. It is important to note that last year in Japan CO2 emission came down by 6.2 per cent and the country agreed to reduce its CO2 emission by 2020 from its 1990 level by 25 per cent, if similar steps are taken by other developed nations of the world.

6. Germany: Emits 858 million tonne of carbon dioxide.

7. Canada: Emits 614 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 18.81 tonne. The country agreed to reduce its emissions by 2020 from 2006 level by 20 per cent.

8. U.K: Emits 586 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with a declining emission level. As compared to 1990 level, EU has agreed to a 20 percent cut in emission by 2020.

9. South Korea: Emits 514 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to reduce its emissions 4 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

10. Iran: Emits 471 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The country is worst hit by environmental pollution with marine ecology of the Caspian Sea is in great danger.

Conclusion:

Besides recent Copenhagen Accord more practical and effective steps must be taken by the global community, especially by these top 10 environmental polluters, to ensure quick and more substantial reduction in CO2 emission to arrest the climate change. This is obviously not expected to happen, as said earlier, at the cost of development and economic progress of any nation. The issue of climate change can primarily be addressed with initiation of various energy efficient measures to produce clean energy with increased sense of urgency.

Greater use of existing technologies like solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars together with integrated robust projects to preserve natural ecosystems could save the humanity from the disastrous consequences of global climate change.

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.

Recent global meet on climate change in Copenhagen: what were achieved and what were not.

Posted on by
Reply

Long before the commencement of Copenhagen climate change meet, many from all over the world started talking passionately about the “dangerous climate change”, which as we know deals with the issue of increase of global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (2C) from the preindustrial level.

This issue was discussed at length in Copenhagen and an accord was ultimately announced on December 18, 2009 followed by a plenary session on December 19, 2009.

What does it say?

The Accord is a 12-paragraph document of statement of intents and non-binding pledges to address the “dangerous climate change” issues.

Towards this direction the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Copenhagen recommended even to the developed countries of the world to reduce carbon emission from their respective 1990 level by not less than 25% by 2020, from when the global carbon emission is expected to start declining.

USA and China were the key partners of IPCC with a strong supporting role played by Brazil, South Africa and India to have an accord that suits the emerging large developing economies of the world. The accord though recommends to the developed countries, barring the US, to ensure their carbon emission cuts, but not under the Kyoto Protocol. Most influential 26 countries of the world agreed with this accord and other 192 countries, though appeared to be unhappy in the plenary session, accepted the same with their ‘silence’, which perhaps means indirect consent.

The key points of the accord:

The main points of the Copenhagen Accord are as follows:

• Cooperation by all in containing emissions within 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

• To reduce carbon emission, the developing nations will report in every two years on their non-binding voluntary actions. This report will be subject to international consultations and analysis.

• US $ 10 billion each year will be financed by the developed countries for a three-year program to pay for the projects taken up by the poorer nations to develop clean energy and effectively address drought and other climate-change impacts.

• A goal of mobilizing US $ 100 billion per year by 2020 was also set for achieving the same objectives.

Is this accord a triumph of USA or China or the BASIC countries?

This accord is seen by some as a triumph of the USA to influence the ultimate outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit. US President Barack Obama, in fact, brought back the negotiation from the brink of collapse, at the last minute, through hectic negotiation with the heads of states of Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC countries).

What will the success of the summit depend upon?

The success of this accord will depend on whether the USA will be able to live up to its promises to reduce carbon emissions in their own country and help other countries to address the same by raising billions of dollars.

BASIC countries, especially China, emerged stronger:

The process of this accord also witnessed China coming stronger leveraging their clout in a multilateral forum of the African continent, which is very rich in various valuable natural resources. However, many other less powerful nations, as said earlier, felt left out in this deal brokered mainly by the US initiative and interest.

Thus even after reaching the accord, at the plenary session on the last Saturday, a large number of speakers from the developing nations sharply criticized the deal alleging it as a pact meant only for the rich and BASIC countries.

Lack of a clear roadmap:

Be that as it may, without a clear road map for research and development of low-carbon technologies and no binding collective carbon emission target, achieving 2C by 2020 still remains a pipe dream.

Conclusion:

After the Copenhagen Accord, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), the four large emerging economies of the world, were immensely successful to display their joint muscle power to the world as a whole, clearly emerging as a major combined force to reckon with, especially by the developed nations of the world lead by the USA.

However, many will strongly feel that interests of smaller and poorer nations of the world were sacrificed in this first global agreement of the century on climate change at Copenhagen.

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.

IPR, Climate Change and addressing the issue of transfer of Carbon abatement technology in the developing world.

Posted on by
Reply
To address all pervasive global challenge of climate change, access to efficient and cost effective carbon abatement technology to reduce the greenhouse effect has become a very important issue, especially for an emerging economy like, India. This issue perhaps will gain even more importance after the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
Various schools of thoughts:
Many experts argue that patents on various efficient carbon abatement technology developed by the western countries are making it increasingly difficult for the emerging economies of the world to address this issue, in a cost effective manner.

Another group of experts argue with equal zest that all patented technologies do not cost very high for efficient carbon abatement. Out of various types of such patented technologies, which are available globally to reduce the greenhouse effect, some may cost high, but many of them are also available at quite a low cost.

The third group says that many other efficient technologies are available to reduce carbon emission, which are not covered by any Intellectual Property Right (IPR), at all. Developing or emerging economies should consider these technologies to address this global issue, effectively.

An encouraging trend:

An encouraging trend is now emerging where the developing countries are also applying for patent on such technology with an increasing number. A recent report by the COPENHAGEN ECONOMICS highlights that during last four years, while the number of global patent on the carbon abatement technology increased by 120 per cent over the corresponding period of previous four years, the number of such patents from the developing or emerging economies increased by around 550 per cent. This is indeed a very interesting trend.

Difference in the number of patented technologies within the developing countries:

The same report also indicates that there is a striking difference in the number of patent protected carbon abatement technologies even within the developing and emerging economies. As per this report, around 99 percent of all patent protected technologies are from a small group of emerging economies, whereas just a meagre 0.6 percent of these patented technologies are from a large number of lower-income developing economies. This anomaly is believed to be mainly due to commercial reasons, as the owners of these patents are from the developed economies of the world.

A comparison between India and China:

The report highlights that 40 percent of the carbon abatement technology patents in China are locally owned against around just 14 percent in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, such studies perhaps will go in favour of the argument that patent protected carbon abatement technologies should not be considered as a barrier to technology transfer for reducing carbon emission by the low-income developing countries of the world. Also the IPR by itself perhaps will not be an impediment in the transfer of carbon abatement technology from the developed economies.

Many believe that rather than technological reasons, economic reasons are coming in the way in reducing carbon emission in the low income developing countries. The factors like, lack of adequate expertise to develop carbon abatement technologies locally, small market size to warrant a local manufacturing facility, low purchasing power etc. all put together play a significant role in appropriately addressing the greenhouse effect by these countries.

The local government of the respective developing countries should take all these factors into consideration and come out with appropriate and robust policy measures, which also should include lucrative fiscal incentives for using cheaper and efficient carbon abatement technology, to contain the greenhouse effect, efficiently and effectively.

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.

The Indian and Global Pharmaceutical Industry – A brief perspective to meet the challenge of change

Posted on by
Reply
A. INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE:
January 1, 2005 ushered in a paradigm shift in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry with the new product patent regime. Future of the industry, thereafter, will never be the same again as what we have been witnessing since 1970.

Gradually India, which was synonymous to cheaper copycat generic versions of products patented in most of the developed and emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, is expected to transit through a relatively ‘lull period’ for a shorter duration, before it starts helping to establish India as a force to reckon with, in the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) space of the world. We have seen some glimpses of the era to come by through initial basic research initiatives of companies like, Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Piramal Life Science and Glenmark. All such companies are gradually transforming their R&D focus from reverse-engineering to developing new chemical/molecular entity (NCE/NME) or novel drug delivery systems (NDDS).

Opportunities during the paradigm shift:

The low cost base, large English speaking technical talent pool and development of world class R&D facilities of the country will play the role of catalysts in this fast changing process and throw open many new vistas of opportunities for the industry to cash on.

At the same time, generic companies will play even more important global role than ever before. Many of them will no longer remain a local branded generic or generic player, they will open their wings to fly down to the important global destinations. Some others will collaborate with multi-national pharmaceutical companies (MNCs) in their contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) initiatives. For others, the domestic pharmaceutical market will still remain big and lucrative enough to grow their business.

However, those companies, which will not be able to effectively combat the ‘challenge of rapid changes’ will either perish or be gobbled-up by the big fishes in the consolidation process of the local and global pharmaceutical industry.

Some perspectives:

Though the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry caters to around 70% of the requirements of pharmaceuticals of the nation, is highly fragmented. The industry manufactures 8% of the global production being the fourth largest producer of pharmaceuticals in terms of volume and employs over half a million people, mostly by around 300 large to medium sized companies in their local and global operations. Although around 6000 companies are engaged in manufacturing, many of them are third party manufacturers. Small manufacturers, who do not conform to ‘Schedule M’ requirements of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act will face or have already started facing trying times.

In terms of value, at present, India with around U.S 7.8 billion turnover, shares just around 2% of the global market with 14th in ranking. McKinsey forecasts that by 2015 India will record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion and will improve its rank in the global pharma league table to 10th.

Key markets of the domestic Indian companies:

Although India still remains one of the major markets of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies, many of them have already established their business in the US, Europe, Latin America, Russian Federation, Africa, Middle East, South East Asia and even in Japan and Australia.

Contribution of India business of different Indian pharmaceutical companies to their global business varies based on their respective business strategies, from 63% of Zydus Cadila to around 16% of DRL, in 2007-08.

US market followed by Europe, is the main revenue earner for most of the large Indian companies. For example Ranbaxy generated around 27% and 20% of their global turnover from the US and Europe, respectively in 2008.

However, for some other companies like Wockhardt, Europe is a more important market than USA. Wockhardt generated around 54% of their global turnover from Europe, in 2007.

Global market entry strategy:

Different Indian companies adopted different market entry and expansion strategies in their globalization process. However, these have been mostly driven mergers and acquisitions.

Is the Indian pharmaceutical industry facing a dire need for an image makeover?

Despite significant contribution of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to provide relatively cheaper generic medicines to address a wide array of ailments of a vast majority of the population, the image of the industry to its stakeholders or even to public at large, is far from satisfactory.

There are some key perceptual reasons for the same. Some of these are as follows:

1. Pharmaceutical industry is making exorbitant profits at the cost of the basic healthcare needs of the common man.

This perception gets further strengthened when, for example, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) demands crores of rupees from many pharmaceutical companies for overcharging to the patients and notices are served even attaching their properties to recover these dues.

2. The quality of all medicines is not reliable.

This gets vindicated when, for example, the government for its ‘Jan Aushadhi’ program refuses to buy from certain groups of licensed pharmaceutical manufacturers, predominantly on product quality parameters.

3. Some questions, do the pharmaceutical manufacturers in India manufacture medicines following the highest quality norms?

To answer to this question some people argue; if so, why will Indian manufacturers need stringent manufacturing quality certification of the drug regulators of the developed markets to export medicines in the those countries? Why the manufacturing quality certification given to these exporters by the Indian drug regulator is not accepted in those countries?

Moreover, when medicines are imported into India, we accept the quality norms of the drug regulators of the developed countries.

4. Some sections of the media highlight the alleged malpractices by the Indian pharmaceutical companies to promote their mediciness to the medical profession. Such alleged high expenditure towards product promotion is considered by many as avoidable wasteful expenses, the benefit of which can easily be passed on to the patients.

Indian pharmaceutical industry is yet to develop a uniform code of marketing practices, which will be applicable to all the pharmaceutical companies across the board and implement the same effectively, to address such allegations.

Multinational Companies – friends or foes?

To partly salvage the situation, at the same time, one notices open attempts are being made to project the multinational drug companies as demons, the exploiters with a suspicious agenda of thwarting the growth of the domestic companies. In such a scenario, it is indeed perplexing, when one sees the names of the Indian companies at the top of the NPPA lists who allegedly overcharged maximum amount of money to the common man.

What the industry should do jointly:

Under such sad circumstances, the entire industry should come together, take a hard look on itself first and extend its helping hands in public private partnership (PPP) initiatives for the benefit of the civil society.

Such PPP may not necessarily be charitable. It could focus on developing a robust healthcare financing model with industry expertise, for implementation with the government involvement for all strata of society. Or, for example, the industry should come out with a plan, which the US Pharmaceutical trade association – PhRMA has recently proposed to the Obama administration voluntarily on their ‘Medicare’ program, for the senior citizens of America.

For image makeover the name of the game is actual ‘demonstration’ of the good intent and NOT ‘pontification’ of what others should do, highlighting the identified loopholes in the government machineries.

B. GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE:

In the midst of the global financial meltdown, beginning 2009, no one is still able to fathom what impact, if at all, will it leave on to the global pharmaceutical industry.

In the most populous country of the world – China, in April 2009, the government unfolded the blueprints of new healthcare reform measures, covering the entire nation.

Similarly, in the oldest democracy and the richest country of the world – United States of America, President Barak Obama administration expressed their resolve to address important healthcare related issues, as an integral part of the economic reform of the country.

In other developed markets of the world like Europe and Japan intense cost containment pressure is in turn creating significant pricing pressure on pharmaceuticals, triggering the demand of greater use of cheaper generic formulations.

Financial meltdown though eroded the market capitalization of most of the companies; the growth of the global pharmaceutical industry remained unabated till 2008, albeit at a slower pace though. Many markets of the world witnessed a faster generic switch, fuelling higher volume growth of the generic segment of the industry.

Some perspectives:

In 2008 the global pharmaceutical market size was of U.S$ 780 billion, which is expected to grow to U.S$ 937 billion in 2012 registering a 5 year CAGR of around 5.5%. Sales worth U.S$ 253 billion came from just 100 blockbuster drugs, contributing around one third of the global pharmaceutical market.

USA with a retail revenue turnover of U.S$ 206 is the largest market of the world, though currently showing a sharp decline in its growth rate. The growth rate of the US is expected to drop further along with the patent expiry of other blockbuster drugs.

Just three countries of Europe, U.K, France and Germany contributed to 50% of pharmaceutical sales of entire Europe.

Doctors’ are no longer the sole decision maker to prescribe a medicinal product:

Just like in the US, one witnesses a change in the role of the medical professionals as a key decision maker to prescribe medicines for the patients in Europe, as well. More and more, payors like health insurance companies, NHS are assuming that role.

A shift from small molecule pharmaceuticals to large molecule biotech products:

As small molecule pharmaceuticals are coming under intense pricing pressure, the focus of new drug launches is shifting towards more expensive large molecule biotech drugs with much higher margins of profit increasing the treatment cost further.

The brighter side:

Growing middle class population with higher disposable income together with increase spending of the government towards healthcare, in most of these countries, are making the pharmaceutical industry grow at a much faster pace in the emerging markets like, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Mexico and Korea. However, the revenue and profit earned by the global companies from the developed markets are still far more than the emerging markets of the world.

Access to healthcare still remains a global issue:

Despite so much of progress of the global pharmaceutical industry, access to healthcare still remains an issue, besides others, even in some of the developed markets of the world. The waiting period of a patient just to get an appointment of the doctor is increasing fast. Even in the US about 47 million of US citizens still are not covered by insurance, besides many more of them who remain underinsured.

Global pharmaceutical industry is still considered a part of the problem:

Despite meeting the unmet needs of the patients through intensive research and development initiatives and various global access programs for the needy and the downtrodden, the civil society all over the world, including in the developed countries, still believes that the pharmaceutical industry is a part of the global healthcare problems, though relatively more in the developing and the least developed economies of the world. These perceptions are mainly due to high costs of patented drugs, high research expenditure for low value added drugs and seemingly unethical marketing practices of the industry across the board with varying degree.

Conclusion:

The pharmaceutical industry, the ultimate savior in the battle against disease, is now passing through a critical phase both locally and globally and both in terms of its image and capacity to deliver newer medicines ensuring their affordable access, the reason of which may vary from country to country.

Be that as it may, the industry has been making significant contribution to the humanity to meet the ever increasing unmet needs of the patients. However, expectations of the stakeholders are also growing and justifiably so. There is no time for the industry, in general, to ponder much now or rest on the past laurels. It is about time to walk the never ending extra mile, for the global patients’ sake.

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.

Changing pharmaceutical marketing environment demands a change in mindset for a new strategic direction.

Posted on by
Reply
Will the Tsunami of change hit India too?
In the matured markets of the global pharmaceutical industry, individual doctors are no longer the prime target customers. Healthcare providers, patient advocacy groups, pharmacy benefit managers, clinical assessment authorities etc have already emerged as key decision makers for use of various branded or generic medicines and other kind of healthcare facilities/ support for the patients.In India even today individual doctors are the prime target customers for the pharmaceutical companies as, by and large, they are the key decision makers for usage of medicines and other healthcare facilities for the patients.

However, a distinct change, albeit slowly though, is now noticeable within healthcare financing system in India. Slow but gradual emergence of healthcare providers with medical insurance and other related products, patient advocacy groups, standard treatment guidelines etc, are expected to bring in a radical change the way current pharmaceutical marketing strategy is formulated, which continue to revolve round the doctors, mainly. The small ripples of change, blessed by adequate dose of the Government’s financial policy reform measures, may soon get converted into a Tsunami of change, destroying the current pharmaceutical business strategy directions of majority of the companies. Rapid increase in the number of healthcare providers and other related stakeholders with attractive schemes for various strata of the civil society, will herald the emergence of very powerful groups of negotiators for products’ price and other healthcare related services. These groups will be capable to very strongly and significantly influence doctors’ products and other treatment choices.

Marketing will be a ‘composite value delivery system’:

In addition, during the coming years of post product patent regime in the country, pipelines of the domestic Indian companies for new ‘copycat’ versions of patented products are expected to completely dry up, making the price competition in the market place even more ‘cut throat’. In such type of environment Indian pharmaceutical companies will be under tremendous pressure to provide additional composite value, not just the physical products, as differential offerings to the patients, doctors, healthcare providers and other stakeholders, in and around the related disease areas. Ability to deliver such composite differential value along with the product will enable a company to acquire the competitive cutting edge.

Required leadership and managerial skill sets will be quite different:

In the new environment required skill sets of both the leaders and the managers of the Indian pharmaceutical companies will be quite different from what it is today. This will not happen overnight though, but surely gradually.

Skill requirements:

Leaders and managers with only individual functional expertise like, R&D, manufacturing, marketing, regulatory, finance etc will no longer be successful in the new paradigm. To handle new types and groups of customers, the leaders and managers will need to ensure:

• Multi-functional expertise by rotating right people across the key functional areas

• Knowledge of ‘Pharmaco-economics’ and/or ‘health technology assessment’ (HTA)

• Ability to interpret patients’ clinical benefits against cost incurred by the payors to achieve the targeted clinical outcome, especially in the areas of new products

• Insight about the thought pattern of the healthcare providers and other customers or influencers groups

• Speed in decision making and more importantly ability to take ‘first time right’ on the spot decision, which can make or mar a commercial deal.

Managing the phase of transition:

During the ensuing phase of transition in India, pharmaceutical companies should:

• Clearly identify, acquire and hone the new skill sets, which would drive the changing scenario

• Get strategically engaged with the existing public/private healthcare providers and health insurance companies like, Mediclaim, ICICI Lombard, large corporate hospital chains, retail chain chemists and others, proactively

• Drive the change, instead of waiting for the change to take place

• Ensure that appropriate balance is maintained in both types of marketing strategies, in innovative ways.

Conclusion:

Indian pharmaceutical industry has been trapped in a difficult to explain ‘strategic inertia’, as it were, since long. It is high time now to come out of it and face the change upfront boldly and squarely to translate this challenge into a possible growth opportunity. Global pharmaceutical companies are now gaining expertise in the new ball game in the developed markets of the world. If majority of the Indian pharmaceutical companies, who are not yet used to handling such change, are caught unaware of this possible future trend, the tsunami of change could spell a commercial disaster to them. However, I strongly hope that this new and yet another challenge of change will be met with a clear and well thought out strategic initiatives to give a further boost to the growth engine of the industry.

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.