Tag Archives: China

Healthcare reform for the needy and poor in the richest and the most populous countries of the world. What about the largest democracy of our planet?

Posted on by
Reply
Healthcare reform to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare services for all, is considered as an integral part of the economic progress of any country. During recent global financial meltdown, this need became visible all over the world, even more.In my last article, I wrote how the most populous country of the earth – China, unfolded the blueprints of a new healthcare reform process in April, 2009, taking an important step towards this direction.Around the same time, in the richest country of the world, after taking over as the new President of the United States of America, President Barak Obama also reiterated his election campaign pledge for a comprehensive healthcare reform process in the USA.

These measures, in both the countries, intend to ensure access to affordable, high quality health care coverage and services to every citizen of the respective nations. In America, the reform process also intends to bridge the healthcare coverage gap in their Medicare prescription drugs program for the senior citizens.

The pharmaceutical industry response to healthcare reform in the USA:

Responding to this major policy initiative of the government, very responsibly David Brennan, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca and the Chairman of Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced recently:

“PhRMA is committed to working with the Administration and Congress to help enact comprehensive health care reform this year. We share a common goal: every American should have access to affordable, high-quality health care coverage and services. As part of that reform, one thing that we have agreed to do is support legislation that will help seniors affected by the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.”

For this purpose Brennan publicly announced the following:

1. America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies have agreed to provide a 50 percent discount to most beneficiaries on brand-name medicines covered by a patient’s Part D plan of Medicare, when purchased in the coverage gap.

2. The entire negotiated price of the Part D covered medicine purchased in the coverage gap would count toward the beneficiary’s out-of-pocket costs, thus lowering their total out-of-pocket spending.

American Pharmaceutical Industry pledges U.S$ 80 billion towards healthcare reform of the nation:

With the above announced commitment, it has been reported that the US Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies have offered to spend U.S$ 80 billion to help the senior citizens of America to be able to afford medicines through a proposed overhaul of the healthcare system of the country.

This is a voluntary pledge by the American pharmaceutical industry to reduce what it charges the federal government over the next 10 years.

What is the Medicare plan of America?

According to the explanation of the program given by Medicare, it is a prescription drug benefit program. Under this program, senior citizens purchase medicines from the pharmacies. The first U.S$ 295 will have to be paid by them. Thereafter, the plan covers 75 percent of the purchases of medicines till the total reaches U.S$ 2,700. Then after paying all costs towards medicines ‘out of pocket’ till it reaches U.S $ 4,350, patients make a small co-payment for each drug until the end of the year.

American citizens’ support on the new healthcare reform of President Barak Obama:

A leading American daily reports that American citizens overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the country’s healthcare system and are strongly behind a government run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes, so that every individual could have health insurance. Unlike in India, Americans feel that the government could do a better job of holding down healthcare costs than the private sector.

Current American healthcare: High quality – high cost

85 percent of respondents in this survey said the country’s healthcare system should be completely overhauled and rebuilt. The survey also highlighted that American citizens are far more unsatisfied with the cost of healthcare rather than its quality.

President Obama has been repeatedly emphasizing the need to reduce costs of healthcare and believes that the health care legislation is absolutely vital to American economic recovery. 86 percent of those polled in the survey opined that the rising costs of healthcare pose a serious economic threat.

An interesting recent study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services:

A recent study conducted by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that as a part of the new healthcare reform initiative in the US, if the health centers are expanded from the current 19 million to 20 million patients, the country can save U.S$ 212 billion from 2010 to 2019 against a cost of U.S$ 38.8 billion that the government would have incurred to build the centers. This is happening because of lower overall medical expenses for these patients.

Last year the health centers already generated health system savings of U.S$ 24 billion.

What then is happening in the largest democracy of the planet – our own India, towards such healthcare reform?

India in its 1983 National Healthcare Policy committed ‘healthcare to all by the year 2000′. However, the fact is, in 2009, only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to affordable modern medicines. So many commendable policy announcements have been made by the government thereafter. Due to poor governance, nothing seems to work effectively in our country.

Conclusion:

People with access to the corridors of power appear to believe that when the country will clock the magic number of GDP growth of 9 percent, India will have adequate resources to invest in healthcare. Till then frugal healthcare initiatives will continue at the abysmal level of speed of execution, denying access to affordable modern medicines to 65 percent of population of the country.

If and when the healthcare reform plans will be unfolded in India, hopefully like in the USA, all stakeholders will come forward with their own slice of contribution to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all the citizens of our nation.

When the world believes that healthcare reform measures to cover the entire population of the country to provide access to affordable, high quality healthcare services is fundamental to economic progress of a country, the government of India seems to nurture a diametrically opposite view in this regard. The policy makers appear to sincerely believe that 9 percent economic growth is essentiall to provide access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

Are we engaged in the well known “Catch 22” debate at the cost of health to all?

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.

China has recently unfolded the blueprints of its new healthcare reform measures, when will India do so?

Posted on by
Reply
Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:

China in 1997 took its first reform measure to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product, as it were. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China…but…:

The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicate that out of pocketl spending on healthcare services had doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.

A series of healthcare reforms was effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address this situation.

The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens. This is the pivotal core principle of the new wave healthcare reform process in China where more government funding and supervision will now play a critical role.

The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given for the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:

Chinese government will monitor the effective management and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.

It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.

Drug price regulation and supervision:

The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in its eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Healthcare scenario in India:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s, overall spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend was about 1.5 times of that of the government.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8% on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

Unlike, recent focus on the specific key areas of healthcare in China, in India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the centre and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Health insurance in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just above 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organised health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address both domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country.

Conclusion:

It is an irony that on one side of the spectrum we see a healthcare revolution affecting over 33 percent population of the world. However, just on the other side of it where around 2.4 billion people (about 37 percent of the world population) reside in two most populous countries of the world – India and china, get incredibly lesser public healthcare support and are per forced to go for, more frequently, ‘pay from pocket’ pocket type expensive private healthcare options, which many cannot afford or just have no access to.

In both the countries, expensive ‘pay from pocket’ healthcare service facilities are increasing at a greater pace, whereas public healthcare services are not only inadequately funded, but are not properly managed either. Implementation level of various excellent though much hyped government sponsored healthcare schemes is indeed very poor.

Moreover, despite various similarities, there is a sharp difference between India and China at least in one area of the healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of publicly funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not the same in India, because of various reasons.

Over a period of time, along with significant growth in the respective economies of both the countries, with China being slightly ahead of India for many reasons, life expectancy in both India and China has also increased significantly, which consequently has lead to increase in the elderly population of these countries. The disease pattern also has undergone a shift in both the countries, mainly because of this reason, from infectious to non-infectious chronic illnesses like, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis etc. further increasing the overall burden of disease.

High economic growth in both the countries has also lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.

A recently published report indicates that increasing healthcare expenditure burden is hitting the poor population of both the countries very hard. The report further says that considering ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL) at U.S$ 1.08 per day, out of pocket healthcare expenditure has increased the poverty rate from 31.1 percent to 34.8 percent in India and from 13.7 percent to 16.7 percent in China.

To effectively address this serious situation, the Chinese Government has announced its blueprint for a new healthcare reform measures for the coming decade. How will the Government of India respond to this situation? It will indeed be interesting to watch.

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.

Why is China surpassing India almost in all the verticals of Pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply
To make India a major hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the country has all the required ingredients. India has indeed the potential to be a contender for global supremacy, in these fast growing sectors. However, despite all these, China is racing ahead to effectively avail these global opportunities and in that process fast distancing itself from India, widening the competitive performance gap between the two countries.Why is it happening? In this article, I would like to focus on some of these areas to assess the progress made so far, in a comparative yardstick, by these two countries and the key factors responsible for such growing disparity.China is ahead of India in country ranking both in value and growth terms:

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth largest market by 2010 and the third largest by 2020. The Chinese pharmaceuticals market is expected to grow by around 15% per annum at least in the next five years.

China is also ahead of India in healthcare coverage of its population:

In China, out of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million are covered by insurance, another 250 million are partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. Against these statistics of China, in India total number of population who have some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to better response to healthcare infrastructure and regulatory challenges by China.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government in globalization process:

A very high level of commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of pharmaceutical R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.

Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India (GoI)recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just by good intent of investments of couple of million U.S$ through public Private Partnership (PPP), as announced by the DoP recently through the media . A strong commitment of the GoI to hasten regulatory reform processes with visble action, will be the deciding success factor. IPR regime in the pharmaceutical industry has been put in place, but in half measure. While product patent is in place, regulatory data protection (RDP) both against disclosure and unfair commercial use is yet to see the light of the day.

Regulatory data protection and better infrastructural facilities make China a better destination for Clinical Trials:

In China, the local law provides for 6 years regulatory data protection (RDP). Drug Registration Regulation (DRR) September 2007 of China is based on common technical data standards and allows only use of published data during protection period. In preclinical testing and animal experimentation, China is far ahead of India, because of regulatory constraints in our country. The report from ‘Biospectrum, Asia edition, Resource Guide 2009’, the number of Clinical trials being conducted in China was 961 against 834 in India. As a result, towards clinical trials China is attracting more foreign direct investments (FDI) than India.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index’ (CAI) for clinical trials for pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision regarding offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India.

China is ahead of India in pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing also China seems to ahead of India. Based on WIPO PCT applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas.

China will replace India as country with largest pharmaceutical exports, by 2010:

Both India and China used to be the preferred pharmaceutical outsourcing destinations across the globe. Though pharmaceuticals exports of India are currently ahead of China, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by 2010, establishing itself as the largest country in the world for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports, China already overtook India in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. In 2010, China is expected to widen this gap further with API exports of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

Brain drain from India to China:

Korn/Ferry International has reported recently that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signalling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Where India is regarded as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature venue for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. Probably, because of this reason companies like, Ranbaxy, Aurigene, Advinus, Piramals and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

As I said earlier and as reported by Korn/Ferry that China’s infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to accelerate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country.

Government of India seems to have fallen short of this commitment and is embracing more protectionists policies, which have been proved counterproductive almost all over the world to bring forth rapid progress to the nation and make the industries globally competitive.

Just a wishful thinking sans prudent regulatory policy reforms processes will helplessly make us see the gap between the Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical industry, fast widening.

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.

Unlike China, IPR issues in India are being hijacked by the issue of ‘Access to Affordable Modern Medicines’.

Posted on by
Reply

‘Incremental innovation’, related to the pharmaceutical industry, has become a point of raging debate in India. Over a period of time ‘not really a breakthrough’ but ‘incremental inventive steps’ to discover New Chemical Entities (NCE), which would offer significant benefits to the patients, are being considered as of critical importance by the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry, the world over. Such types of innovations are being termed as ‘incremental innovation’ , with underlying implied meaning of ‘frivolous’ nature of the innovation, to some section of people.

Most innovations in the pharmaceutical industry have always been ‘incremental’ in nature:

We have been observing such ‘incremental innovation’ from ‘Penicillin era‘ with different derivatives of penicillins, right through to ‘Quinolone era’ with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin etc to ‘H2 receptor antagonists’ with cimetidine, ranitidine, roxatidine to ‘proton pump inhibitors’ with omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole etc.

We see such important ‘incremental innovation’ with many successful drugs across various disease areas. How many different varieties of ‘statins’, ‘betablockers’, ‘ace inhitors’ etc we have been prescribed by the medical profession over so many years with amazing results? This trend continues to offer better and better treatment options to the patients through the medical profession, across the world.

Unfortunately ‘incremental innovation’ has become a contentious issue in India. Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act 2005 has become a key barrier to continue with this process of innovation, in search of better and better medicines. ‘Breakthrough innovations’, which are very important though, are not as frequent in the pharmaceuticals industry, just as in many other industries, including Information technology (IT). ‘Incremental innovations’ are, therefore, the bedrock to improve the types of medications to treat various disease conditions.

A quick comparison with China:

As reported by the Department of Commerce of the U.S Government, domestic consumption of medicines both in India and China is around 70% of the domestic productions of the respective countries. These medicines are available at a very reasonable price to the local populations.

Fuelled by strong domestic demand, coupled with exports to other countries, the pharmaceutical industry in both India and China are showing impressive growth, China being ahead of India in both pace of growth, as well as in terms of market size.

Why some key IPR issues, like ‘incremental innovation’, are facing stiff opposition in India when it is not so in China?

Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) is now in place in both the countries. However, criteria of ‘patentability’, as mentioned above, still remain a contentious issue in India. The issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ is being unnecessarily dragged into the discussion of IPR related issues, where resolution of each of these two issues warrants totally different types of approaches.

The issue of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of medicines must be addressed with all earnestness by all concerned, but surely, I repeat, with a different kind and sets of measures. Mixing IPR issues with the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ sends a wrong message, which would mean that IPR is the cause of this problem in India or in other words, IPR has aggravated this problem since January 1, 2005, the day the new Patents Act came into force in India. This definitely is not the reality in our country.

As I have been saying repeatedly, why then from 1972 to 2005, when pharmaceutical products patents were not being granted, the access to affordable modern medicines were denied to 650 million population of India? The solution to this problem, in my view, lies in effectively addressing the issue of healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and healthcare financing (health insurance for all strata of society) with an integrated approach and in tandem through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

Is this issue cropping up because of intense pressure and public opinion created by over 20,000 small to medium scale producers of generic drugs, who have grown within the industry in a much protected environment created by the Government of India and had thrived in business by introducing copycat versions of innovators drugs for over three decades, during the old paradigm?

Large Indian companies are by and large in favour of IPR:

The large Indian Pharmaceutical Companies like Piramal Healthcare support the new IPR regime, envisaging the benefits that it will bring to the country in general and the domestic pharmaceutical industry in particular, in medium to longer term. These benefits will not only come from the fruits of their R&D initiatives, but also through various emerging opportunities of business collaboration in areas of their respective strengths, with the Multi National Corporations (MNCs) across the globe.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry, which had registered a double digit CAGR growth rate over the past decade, is poised to record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion by 2015, as reported by Mckinsey & Co. Even at that time patented products are expected to contribute just about 10% of the total market and balance 90% of the market will continue to be dominated by low cost branded generic drugs.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has potential to emerge as an international force to reckon with. But will it..?

Within knowledge based industries, after meteoric success of the Information Technology (IT), Indian pharmaceutical industry armed with its fast growing biotech sector, has all the potential to be a major global force to reckon with. It just needs to foster the culture of innovation. One will feel happy to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India has started taking, at least, some initiatives towards this direction.

The key issues of ‘patentability‘ together with lack of a strong regulatory framework for effective patent enforcement and data protection are becoming barriers to development of international collaboration in the space of pharmaceutical research and development in India.

Why is China different?

From the beginning of 90’s China initiated its reform processes in the IPR area, which may not be perfect though, as yet. However, since 1998 with stricter regulations on pharmaceutical manufacturing and introducing Drug Management Law, China to a great extent regulated entry of ‘fringe players’ in the pharmaceutical business. It enacted TRIPS compliant patent laws in 2002, extending pharmaceutical product patent for 20 years and regulatory data protection (RDP) for 6 years.

Currently China is focusing more on biotech drugs and has wheezed past India in terms of success in this important sector of the healthcare industry, though they have still miles to go to catch up with the developed world in this space. With the creation of innovative environment within the country, China is fast getting international recognition and collaboration, in genomic and stem cell research and technology.

In the pharmaceutical sector also China has brought in significant regulatory reforms since 2001. Because of its stronger IPR regime than India and other important regulatory reform measures that the country has been undertaking, China is racing past India to become one of the largest markets of the global pharmaceutical industry. In this process, China is attracting far more foreign direct investments (FDI) than India, almost in all verticals of the pharmaceutical industry, from R&D, clinical trials to contract research and manufacturing.

Where India scores over China:

Quality of co-operation and relationship between global pharmaceutical companies and the domestic Chinese pharmaceutical industry is believed to be not as good as what is prevailing in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. There are many reasons for such difference, language being the key reason. In China, English is still not a very popular language, in sharp contrast to India. This limits effective human interaction with the foreigners in China. In the area of, especially, pharmaceutical chemistry, Indian scientists are considered to have a clear edge over their Chinese counterparts.

Chinese policy makers are gradually trying to shed off their protectionist’s attitude in the globalization process.

Steps taken by China to encourage innovation are far more encouraging than what is being done in India. Global pharmaceutical companies are finding China more attractive than India to expand their business. As the saying goes, ‘proof of pudding is in its eating’, predominantly because of this reason, FDI for the pharmaceutical sector is coming more in China than in India.

Instead of creating drivers, is India creating barriers to innovation?

It is indeed unfortunate that the Indian law differentiates innovation based on its types and denies grant of patent for ‘incremental innovation’, which is the bedrock of progress for the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason section 3d of Indian Patent Acts 2005 does not consider the ‘salts, esters, polymorphs and other derivatives of known substances unless it can be shown that they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’, patentable.

Strong propaganda campaign unleashed by the vested interests alleging rampant violation of section 3d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is another case in point. Interestingly the aggrieved parties decided to fight this issue through media, avoiding the legal route for redressal of their grievances. They on record cited a hilarious reason for the same that no lawyer in India is coming forward to fight their cases, at the behest of the MNCs.

The way forward:

To encourage innovation within a TRIPS compliant IPR regime, as one sees in China,
stereotyping innovations as ‘breakthrough’ or ‘incremental’ will dampen the spirit of innovative culture within the country. Inventive steps in an innovative process of a pharmaceutical product are directed to satisfy some important needs of the patients. As I said before, most innovations, which are an integral part of the progress of this industry, have been ‘incremental’ in nature. Thus ignoring ‘incremental innovation’ in India could be counterproductive, in more than one way.

Investments required towards R&D that a ‘breakthrough type’ innovation would warrant are very high. Indian pharmaceutical industry will have a serious limitation in that direction. The path of ‘incremental innovation’ ably backed by a strong IPR enforcement process, would, I reckon, be the best way forward for the Indian players to compete effectively with global innovator companies, leave aside their Chinese counterparts.

Any innovation, which has gone through inventive steps, even if it is ‘incremental’ in nature, should not be considered ‘frivolous’. It demeans the very process of innovation.

Raising various public sensitive and emotive issues on product patents and combining it with issues of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of modern medicines, some powerful lobby of vested interests may seriously retard the progress of India. The Government of India should recognize that it will very adversely affect the country in its pursuit of excellence in the field of research and development, in medium to longer term.

Such emotive misconceptions are compelling the policy makers to divert their attention from the root cause, which I have enumerated above, of the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to the vast majority of Indian population.

In my earlier article, I suggested a public private partnership (PPP) model to address these critical healthcare issues. Examples of such PPP are already there in India in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Astute policy makers of the Government of India, I am sure, will soon realize that encouraging, rewarding and protecting patents through a robust TRIPS compliant IPR framework would enable India to place itself ahead of China, as the choicest destination for the global pharmaceutical 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.