Tag Archives: Committee

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year Total no of deaths CT related deaths Compensation                  paid to patients:
2012 (up to August) 272 12 NA
2011 438 16 16
2010 668 22 22
2009 737 NA NA
2008 288 NA NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon the concerned nine pharma MNCs on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and give a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs by June 20, 2011, or else all CTs of these nine MNCs, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva 
and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

CTs, as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.



ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country. 

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb.  If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too. 

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

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

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

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

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

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

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

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

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

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

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries: 

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

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

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

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

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

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

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

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

  • Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.
  • In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.
  • Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.
  • In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.
  • Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.
  • With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

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

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

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

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

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Slugfest in Pharma Land: Isn’t ‘The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?’

Posted on by
Reply

Close on the heels of detention of a British Citizen, an American citizen too has  been reportedly detained, for the first time, by the Chinese Government in connection with unfolding mega corruption scandal in the country’s pharma industry involving even ‘third party’.

A slugfest over this corruption scandal too has already begun. Media reports highlight, vested interests, as usual, retaliate by saying that China’s attention to the alleged corruption by MNCs is to benefit the local Chinese companies.

As per reports, big global pharma innovator companies like, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and UCB are currently being questioned by the Chinese authorities related to this scam.

Critical role of ‘Third Party’ in pharma bribery and corruption: 

Although in the above Chinese scam, a third party, in form of a travel agency, has been accused to have played a critical role in the GSK case, it will be hard to believe that this is a solitary example.

Internal ‘Compliance Systems’ of global pharma companies, in most cases, are believed to be robust enough and will generally be found squeaky clean by any audit. Unfortunately, as it appears from various international reports, corruption still enters through cracks between seemingly robust ‘compliance firewalls’ for business gain.

Invariably in response, expensive and high decibel Public Relations (PR) machineries are put to overdrive. These extremely capable PR agents, with their  all guns blazing, keep trying to establish that such incidents, though quite frequent and are taking place across the world unabatedly, are nothing but  ‘small aberrations’ in pursuit of pharma ‘innovation’ for newer drugs just to benefit the patients.

As one understands from the GSK case, the ‘third party’ travel agent reportedly attempted to keep all transactions at arm’s length to avoid detection of any unholy nexus by the Chinese regulators. 

However, in the real world, it could possibly be any crafty and well-identified ‘third party’, intimately associated with the pharmaceutical business process. These ‘third parties’ are crafty enough to exploit the loopholes in the seemingly robust compliance systems of the concerned companies to help facilitating their financial performance. 

An interesting commonality in all such often repeated scams is the lack of top management accountability of the companies involved. This would probably surprise even the recent public sector scam tainted concerned ministers and top bureaucrats of India.

Much to everybody’s dismay, such incidents reportedly continue to take place in various parts of the world and in all probability in India too.

Other countries initiated probes:

Unlike the high-octane development in China, in many developed countries probes against such corruption have already been initiated at a different scale and level. For example, in Canada a conservative MP reportedly testified on October 17, 2012 to the ‘Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology’ as an expert witness regarding post-approval drug monitoring and the corrupt practices of pharmaceutical companies.

Global Corruption Barometer 2013:

When a person talks about corruption, it usually gets restricted to corrupt practices in the Public Sector. Any such issue involving Business, Healthcare, Education and even Judiciary, Media and NGOs are considered at best as misdemeanor, if not minor aberrations.

In this context it is worth mentioning that ‘Transparency International’ has released Global Corruption Barometer 2013 recently.  This ‘2013 Barometer’ is the world’s largest public opinion survey on corruption. It surveyed 114,000 people in 107 countries.

The reported global findings of this survey, which indicate a general lack of confidence in the institutions tasked to fight corruption, is as follows:

  • More than one in two people thinks corruption in their country has worsened in the last two years.
  • 54 per cent of people surveyed believe their governments’ efforts to fight corruption are ineffective.
  • 27 percent of respondents have paid a bribe when accessing public services and institutions in the last 12 months, revealing no improvement from previous surveys.
  • In 51 countries around the world, political parties are seen as the most corrupt institutions.
  • In 36 countries, people view the police most corrupt, in 20 countries they view the judiciary as most corrupt.
  • 54 percent of respondents think that the government in their country is run by special interests.

Situation alarming in India:

However, in India, the situation is much worse. Besides political parties, police and legislature, institutions like, Health Systems, Business, Judiciary, NGOs and even Media smack of high level of corruption, as follows:

No: Institutions Bribe Quotient %
1. Political Parties 86
2. Police 75
3. Legislature 65
4. Education 61
5. Health Systems 56
6. Business 50
7. Judiciary 45
8. Religious Bodies 44
9. Media 41
10. NGO 30
11. Military 20

Moreover, as per the report, approximately one out of four people paid a bribe globally in 2012, while in India, the bribe-paying rate was twice, with a little over one out of two people paying a bribe. Based on this indicator alone India occupies 94th rank out of 107 countries.

Coming back to healthcare in India, manifestations of high level corruptions in this critical area taken together with the same, as reported for its close connects like, as follows, are indeed alarming:

  • Business houses (include pharma companies)
  • Education (produces doctors, nurses etc.) 
  • Judiciary (also resolves various pharma disputes) 
  • Media (help creating unbiased public opinion) 
  • NGOs (takes care of Patients’ interest) 

The prevailing situation is highly disturbing, as any meaningful reform measures in the healthcare space of India could be effectively blunted, if not negated, by influencing related corrupt institutions.

It is important to note that bribery in the Indian healthcare sector was as rampant as Education and Judiciary in 2012, as follows:

No. Sector Bribe Paid in 2012 %
1. Police 62
2. Registry & Permits 61
3. Land 50
4. Utilities 48
5. Education 48
6. Tax Revenue 41
7. Judiciary 36
8. Health 34

Source: Global Corruption Barometer 2013

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire:

All these numbers vindicate the well-known dictum ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ for the healthcare sector, in general, and the pharmaceutical sector, in particular, of India.

Bribery and corruption appear to have emerged as the key compliance related issues in the pharma sector. A report indicates that this is mainly due to manipulable environment in the pharma industry, just like in many other sectors as mentioned above.

Such manipulations could range from influencing drug procurement prices in return for kickbacks, giving expensive freebies to the medical practitioners in return of specific drug prescriptions, and even making regional regulatory bodies to provide favorable reports overlooking blatant malpractices.

High level of tolerance:

KPMG Fraud Survey Report 2012 also highlights, though bribery and corruption continues to be an issue, pharma industry shows reluctance to discuss it openly. Moreover, close to 70 per cent of respondents surveyed said, they faced no significant threats from such issues.

The report also indicated, around 72 per cent of respondents expressed that their respective companies have in place a robust mechanism to address bribery and corruption. However, only few respondents expressed inclination to explain such in-house mechanisms. This vindicates the point of high levels of institutional tolerance to bribery and corruption in the pharmaceutical sector of India, just like in many other countries.

“Collusive nexus”:

Even a Parliamentary Standing Committee in its findings reportedly indicted India’s top drug regulatory agency for violating laws and collusion with pharmaceutical companies to approve medicines without clinical trials with the following remark:

“There is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.”

A Research Scientist fumes:

Following is a reported comment of a research scientist on corruption and bribery in the pharmaceutical industry of India:

“It would not make me happy, to put it mildly, to think of a drug that I’d had a part in discovered being flogged via sleazy vacation offers and sets of cookware dumped on a doctor’s office floor.”

Where pharma and political slugfests unite:

This short video clip captures one of too many pharma slugfests given a very high level and fiery political dimension in the global pharma land.

Conclusion:

As we have seen in the ‘Global Corruption Barometer 2013’, the respondents regarded almost all key institutions and industrial sectors in India as being corrupt or extremely corrupt.

As per the above report, corruption seems to have engulfed the private sector too, and alarmingly has not spared even the ‘healthcare system’ at large , as it quite prominently shows up in the ‘Corruption Barometer 2013’. 

As deliberated above, some ‘third parties’ of any type, working within the pharmaceutical value chain, could well be the fountain heads of many types of corruptions, as reported in China. They should be put under careful vigil of the regulators, placed under magnifying glasses of scrutiny and the rogues must quickly be brought to justice wherever and whenever there are violations. A report stating, Chinese administration has decided to punish 39 hospital employees for taking illegal kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies as a part of country’s widening investigation against pharma corruption, would justify this point.

That said, the task in hand is much tougher. On the one hand an Indian Parliamentary Panel observes that both regulators and the pharma companies are hand in glove to fuel corruption, instead of dousing the fire.

On the other hand, the global pharma industry has been accusing the Indian government of ‘protectionism’, ‘lack of transparency/predictability in its policy measures’ and ‘draconian IP laws’.

In the midst of all these cacophony, haven’t the stakeholders and the public at large, with exposure to contextual information, started pondering:

Gosh! in the slugfest on the pharma land, isn’t ‘The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?’

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.

 

Small Steps, yet Giant Leaps: In Pursuit of Affordable Medicines for All

Posted on by
Reply

Since last few years, some small yet very significant steps are being taken, mostly by the respective Governments, in and outside India, to provide affordable healthcare in general and affordable medicines in particular, for all.

It is well recognized that drug prices play as critical a role as a robust healthcare infrastructure and quality of its delivery system to provide affordable healthcare to the general population of any country. Thus, it is not a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. All these issues must be addressed simultaneously and with equally great care.

A WHO report:

A World Health Organization (WHO) titled, “Improving access to medicines through equitable financing and affordable prices” highlights as follows:

“In many countries medicines account for over half of total health expenditures and are often unavailable and unaffordable to consumers who need them. Up to 90% of the population in developing countries still buys medicines through out-of-pocket payments, and are often exposed to the risk of catastrophic expenditure.”

Definition of ‘Access to Medicines’:

How then one will define ‘access to medicines’?

United Nations Development Group, in a paper titled ‘Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, New York, 2003) defined  ‘Access to Medicines’ as follows:

‘Having medicines continuously available and affordable at public or private health facilities or medicine outlets that are within one hour’s walk from the homes of the population.’

Healthcare ‘affordability’ is critical:

Despite healthcare infrastructure in India being inadequate with a slow pace of development, affordability of healthcare, including medicines, still remains critical. 

This is mainly because, even if a quality healthcare infrastructure together with an efficient delivery system is put in place without ensuring their affordability, patients’ access to quality healthcare products and services will not improve, especially in India, where private healthcare dominates.

Diversionary measures should not cause distraction:

Although, maximum possible resources must be garnered to address the critical issue of expanding quality healthcare infrastructure and delivery system sooner, the focus of the government, as stated above, must not get diverted from making healthcare products and services affordable to patients, at any cost.

This should continue despite diversionary measures from some quarter to deflect the focus of all concerned from affordability of healthcare to lack of adequate healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanisms in India.

This, in no way, is an ‘either/or’ situation. India needs to resolve both the issues in a holistic way, sooner.

Small Steps:

In an earnest endeavor to provide affordable medicines to all, the following small and simple, yet significant steps have been taken in and outside India:

  1. Strong encouragement for generic drugs prescriptions
  2. Regulatory directive for prescriptions in generic names
  3. In case that does not work – Government initiative on Patient Empowerment

In this article, I shall try to capture all these three small steps.

1. Strong encouragement for generic drugs prescriptions:

A. Generic drugs improve access and reduce healthcare cost:

A Special Report From the ‘US-FDA Consumer Magazine’ and the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Fourth Edition / January 2006 states that generic drugs offer significant savings to the consumers.

Quoting a 2002 study by the Schneider Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., it reiterated that if Medicare increased the rate of generic usage to that of similar high-performing private sector health plans, its 40 million beneficiaries could see potential savings of US$14 billion.

Another US-FDA report titled, ‘Greater Access to Generic Drugs’ also reinforced the argument that rising costs of prescription drugs remain a major challenge for consumers, especially older Americans. To address this issue effectively generics can play a critical role by providing less expensive medications.

B. ‘Obamacare’ followed this direction resulting decline in spend on high priced Patented Drugs:

Recently The New York Times quoting IMS Health reported that nationwide turnover of patented drugs in the U.S actually dropped in 2012. This decline though was just by 1 percent to US$ 325 billion, is indeed very significant and happened due to increasing prescription trend for low cost generics across America since past several years.

It is interesting to note this trend in America where the cost of medicines account for just about 15 percent (against over 70 percent in India) of the nation’s health care expenditures.

IMS Health reported that in 2012, 84 percent of all prescriptions were dispensed as generics and estimated use of generics may reach even as high as 86 to 87 percent in the U.S.

However, many experts believe that this trend is a result of many blockbusters like Lipitor going off patent during this period and no major breakthrough medicines coming with perceptible added value in these large therapy areas.

That said, lesser number of small molecule blockbuster drugs is set to lose patent protection over the next several years and the complexity in manufacturing and getting marketing approvals of large molecule biosimilar drugs in the U.S could arrest this trend.

Biosimilar drugs though are available in European Union, are expected to be available in the America not before at least two more years.

Despite a sharp increase in prescriptions for generic drugs, some of the patented medicines came with ‘jaw-dropping’ price tags: four drugs approved in 2012 carry a yearly cost of more than US$ 200,000 per patient, though the cost of development of some of these drugs do not exceed US$ 250 million, as reported by Forbes.

2. Regulatory directive for prescriptions in generic names:

A. Different situation in India:

Although increasing trend of generic prescriptions is bringing down the overall cost of healthcare in general and for medicines in particular elsewhere in the world, the situation is quite different in India.

In India over 99 percent of over US$ 13 billion domestic pharmaceutical market constitutes predominantly of branded generics and some generic medicines without brand names.

B. Allegation of branded generic prescriptions linked with marketing malpractices:

As Reuters reported, quoting public health experts and some Indian doctors, that due to an unholy nexus between some pharmaceutical companies and a large section of the medical profession, drugs are not only dangerously overprescribed, but mostly expensive branded generics are prescribed to patients, instead of cheaper equivalents. The reports said that this situation can be ‘devastating for patients — physically and financially — in a country where health care is mostly private, out of pocket, unsubsidized and 400 million people live on less than US$ 1.25 a day’.

It is now a matter of raging debate that many branded generic prescriptions are closely linked with marketing malpractices.

Not just the media and for that matter even a Parliamentary Standing Committee in one of its reports highlighted, bribing doctors by many pharma players in various forms and garbs to prescribe their respective brand of generic drugs has now reached an alarming proportion in India, jeopardizing patients’ interest seriously, more than ever before and  observed that speedy remedial measures are of utmost importance.

C. MCI initiative on prescription in generic names: 

To address this major issue the Medical Council of India (MCI) in its circular dated January 21, 2013 addressed to the Dean/Principals of all the Medical Colleges, 
Director of all the hospitals and the
 Presidents of all the State Medical Councils directed as follows:

“The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 inter-alia prescribes as under regarding use of generic names of drugs vide clause 1.5.

1.5 – Use of Generic names of drugs: Every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generic names and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs.”

All the Registered Medical Practitioners under the IMC Act are directed to comply with the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations without fail.

You are requested to give wide publicity of the above regulation to ensure that all the doctors practicing medicine under your jurisdiction comply with the regulation.”

MCI also urged the Medical profession to implement the above provision for prescriptions in generic names both in its letter and spirit.

As the situation has not changed much just yet, it is up to the MCI now to enforce this regulation exactly the way as it has intended to. Otherwise the value of this circular will not even be worth the paper on which it was printed by this august regulatory body.

D. Parliamentary Standing Committee recommends it:

As mentioned above, prior to this circular, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) for Health and Family Welfare in its recommendation to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, also recommended prescription of medicines by their generic names.

E. Why is the bogey of ‘product quality’ so active only for generic prescriptions and not for branded generics?

It is indeed difficult to fathom why is the product quality issue, which could make drugs unsafe for the patients, being raised so much for generic medicines without a brand name and not for branded generics?

The following questions should well be raised for greater clarity on the quality issue with generic medicines without a brand name, for all concerned:

  • Are all generic medicines of dubious quality and branded generics are of good quality?
  • If quality parameters can be doubted for both branded generics and generics without a brand name, in many cases, why then raise this issue only in context of prescribing generic medicines ?
  • If quality issues are not much with the larger companies and are restricted to only smaller companies, why then some branded generic drugs of smaller companies are being prescribed so much by the doctors?
  • Currently many large companies market the same drugs both as generics without a brand name and also as branded generics, why then the branded generic versions are prescribed more than their generic equivalents, though manufactured by the same large companies having the same quality profile?
  • Why are the generic medicines of good quality available at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets (though small in number) cost a fraction of their branded generic equivalents and not being prescribed by most of the doctors?
  • Why do the doctors not show much interest in prescribing generic medicines as of date and defend the branded generics on the same ‘quality’ platform?
  • Why not those who argue that phonetically similar or wrong reading of generic names at the chemist outlets may cause health safety hazard to the patients, also realize that many already existing phonetically similar brand names in totally different therapy areas may cause similar hazards too?
  • How does a doctor while prescribing a branded generic or generic medicine pre-judge which ones are of good quality and which others are not?

These questions, though may be uncomfortable to many, nevertheless merit clear, unambiguous, straight and specific answers.

3. In case MCI directive does not work – Government initiative on ‘Patient Empowerment’:

A. Laudable Government initiative:

Recognizing this issue in tandem, on December 7, 2012 the Department of Pharmaceuticals together with the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority announced as follows:

“There are number of drugs available in the market with same medicament composition with wide variation in their prices.  The prescription of doctors also varies from low price to high priced drugs for the same ailment. Government of India intends to launch an SMS based patient awareness scheme, which would enable the patients to know the cheaper alternatives medicines available”.

The timeline for implementation of this initiative was announced as six month from the date of awarding the contract.

It was reported that in this mobile phone based program, consumers by sending a text message of any branded generic drug prescribed by the doctors would get an SMS reply with a list of brands of the same molecule along with their prices to exercise their choice of purchase.

As usually happens with most government decisions, the gestation period of this laudable ‘patient empowerment’ initiative perhaps will get over not before end 2013.

B. One interesting private initiative:

One interesting private websites that I have recently come across offering information on branded generic drugs is www.mydawaai.com (I have quoted this website just to cite an example and not to recommend or promote it in any form or manner). There may be other such websites, as well, in the cyberspace.

However, in this website, if anyone types the brand name of the drug that one is looking for, the following details will be available:

  1. The generic version of branded medicine.
  2. The company manufacturing the brand.
  3. Its estimated cost in India
  4. Alternative brand names with same generic salt.
  5. The cost effectiveness for different brand for the same salt.

Such information, if available easily from the Government or any highly credible source, will indeed help patients having access to affordable low cost medicines to lessen their out of pocket financial burden, at least for medicines.

Conclusion:

In India, even if branded generic prescriptions continue despite MCI directive, to empower patients making an informed choice to buy low priced formulations of the same prescribed molecule, the above ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiative will play a very critical role.

Thus, I reckon, to improve access to affordable medicines in India, like many other countries elsewhere in the world, the above small steps that are being taken by the MCI, the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority and other private players are indeed laudable and must be encouraged.

Kudos will pour in, from India and abroad, if such small and simple steps get ultimately translated into a giant leap in the healthcare space of the country…for patients’ sake.

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.

To Curb Pharma Marketing Malpractices in India Who Bells the Cat?

Posted on by
Reply

Bribing doctors by the pharmaceutical companies directly or indirectly, as reported frequently by the media all over the world, including India, to prescribe their respective brand of drugs has now reached an alarming proportion, jeopardizing patients’ interest, seriously more than ever before.

In this context July 4, 2012, edition of  The Guardian reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also being increasingly reverberated day by day. It has also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament. An article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has been done in India just yet to address such malpractices across the industry in a comprehensive way, despite indictment by the Parliament, to effectively protect patients’ interest in the country.

Countries started taking steps with disclosure norms:

It is interesting to note that many countries have already started acting, even through implementation of various regulatory disclosure norms, to curb such undesirable activities effectively. Some examples are as follows:

USA

The justice department of the U.S has reportedly wrung huge settlements from many large companies over such nexus between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

To address this issue meaningfully, on February 1, 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States of America released the final rules of implementation of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)’, which is commonly known as the “Physician Payment Sunshine Act” or just the “Sunshine Act”.

This Act has been a part of President Obama’s healthcare reform requiring transparency in direct or indirect financial transactions between the American pharmaceutical industry and the doctors and was passed in 2010 by the US Congress as part of the PPACA.

The Sunshine Act requires public disclosure of all financial transactions and transfers of value between manufacturers of pharmaceutical / biologic products or medical devices and physicians, hospitals and covered recipients. The Act also requires disclosure on research fees and doctors’ investment interests.

The companies have been directed by the American Government to commence capturing the required data by August 1, 2013, which they will require to submit in their first federal reports by March 31, 2014.The first such disclosure report will be available on a public database effective September 30th, 2014.

France:

On December 2011, France adopted a legislation, which is quite similar to the ‘Sunshine Act’. This Act requires the health product companies like, pharmaceutical, medical device and medical supply manufacturers, among others to mandatorily disclose any contract entered with entities like, health care professionals, hospitals, patient associations, medical students, nonprofit associations, companies with media services or companies providing advice regarding health products.

Netherlands:

On January 1, 2012, Netherlands enforced the ‘Code of Conduct on Transparency of Financial Relations’. This requires the pharmaceutical companies to disclose specified payments made to health care professionals or institutions in excess of € 500 in total through a centralized “transparency register” within three months after the end of every calendar year.

UK:

According to Deloitte Consulting, pharmaceutical companies in the UK are planning voluntary disclosures of such payments. One can expect that such laws will be enforced in the entire European Union, sooner than later.

Australia and Slovakia:

Similar requirements also exist in Australia and Slovakia.

Japan:

In Japan, the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA) reportedly requires their member companies to disclose certain payments to health care professionals and medical institutions on their websites, starting from 2013.

India still remains far behind:

This issue has no longer remained a global concern. Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for hearing, in not too distant future.

It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern stating, the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry.

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of photocopies of the air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company on the pretext of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly reiterated to the PMO, “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trails of offending companies and deny the tax incentives on such expenses.

Incidences of such alleged malpractices are unfolding much faster today and are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Indian Parliamentary indictment for not having a ‘Marketing Code’:

Thereafter, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 58th Report on the action taken by the Government on the recommendations / observations contained in the 45th report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The committee with a strong indictment to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), also observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date.

Ministry of Finance fires the first salvo:

Firing the first salvo closer to this direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

An internal circular dated August 1, 2012, of the CBDT addressed to its tax assessment officers categorically stated that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors, which do not conform to the revised MCI guidelines, will no longer be allowed as business expenses.

The High Court upheld the CBDT order:

As expected, the above CBDT circular was challenged in the court of law by an aggrieved party.

However, on December 26, 2012, in a significant judgment on the this CBDT circular related to promotional expenses, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, ordered as follows:

“Therefore, if the assesse satisfies the assessing authority that the expenditure is not in violation of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI), then it may legitimately claim a deduction, but it is for the assesse to satisfy the assessing officer that the expense is not in violation of MCI regulations as mentioned above. We, therefore, find no merit in the in the petition, which is accordingly rejected, No costs.”

Unless this High Court order is challenged in the Supreme Court and reversed subsequently, the CBDT circular related to pharmaceutical promotional expenses has assumed a legal status all the way.

Current situation in America post ‘Sunshine Act’:

After enactment of the ‘Sunshine Act’ one gets a mixed response as follows, though these are still very early days of implementation of this new Law in America.

Low awareness level of the ‘Sunshine Act’:

Though this Act was passed in the U.S in 2010, the awareness level is still very low. More than half of the 1,025 physicians interviewed in a recent survey said, they didn’t know that the law requires pharmaceutical and medical device companies to track any payments or “transfers of value” to physicians and teaching hospitals as of August 1, 2013.

The ground reality:

Despite all such measures, current situation in the United States on this issue is still not very encouraging.

The same 2013 survey highlights that many physicians in the United States continue to have some sort of financial relationship with the industry, as follows:

  • Receiving samples (54%)
  • Receiving food and beverage in their workplace (57%),
  • Participating in an “industry-funded program” (48%),
  • Participating in speakers bureau programs (11%)
  • Advisory board programs (10%).

Spin-off benefits of the Law:

It has been reported that the ‘Sunshine Act’ will also provide enormous data on how much the pharmaceutical companies and each of their competitors spend to make the doctors prescribe their drugs from the public data that will be available from September 2014. This will help these companies tracking which type of marketing tools and processes have a linear relationship to generate increased number of prescriptions.

Thus the above report concludes that pharmaceutical players ‘will not stop wooing doctors. They may simply get better at it’, making their marketing expenditure increasingly productive.

However, despite all these, another recent report indicated that after the ‘Sunshine Act,’ some pharma companies have really started cutting back on their payments to doctors and many others have stepped up their efforts in this direction. This augurs a good beginning, if fructifies on a larger scale.

Such Laws could be more impactful in India:

A law like ‘Sunshine Act’ of America, if implemented well in India is expected to have much greater and positive impact. This is mainly due to existence of an effective pharmaceutical pricing ‘watchdog’ in the country in form of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ .

When pharmaceutical-marketing expenditures of individual pharma companies, through such public disclosures, will be found to contributing disproportionately to the total expenses of any player, pressure from the regulators and the civil society will keep mounting to bring down the prices of medicines.

An interesting survey in India:

A survey report of Ernst and Young titled, “Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct”, carried out in September 2011 on the UCMP and MCI guidelines, highlighted the following:

  • Two-third of the respondents felt that the implementation of the UCPMP would change the manner in which pharma products are currently marketed in India.
  • More than 50% of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50% of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90% of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.
  • 72% of the respondents felt that the MCI was not stringently enforcing its medical ethics guidelines.
  • 36% of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of pharma companies.

The Planning Commission of India expresses its anguish: 

Recently even the Planning Commission of India has reportedly recommended strong measures against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices as follows:

“Pharmaceutical marketing and aggressive promotion also contributes to irrational use. There is a need for a mandatory code for identifying and penalizing unethical promotion on the part of pharma companies. Mandated disclosure by Pharmaceutical companies of the expenditure incurred on drug promotion, ghost writing in promotion of pharma products to attract disqualification of the author and penalty on the company, and vetting of drug related material in Continuing Medical Education would be considered.”

The Ministry of Health may now intervene: 

It was reported by the media just last week that the Ministry of Health (MoH) strongly feels that unethical practices and aggressive promotion of drugs by the pharmaceutical companies through the doctors in lieu of gifts, hospitality, trips to exotic foreign and domestic destinations are adding up to cost of medicines significantly in India. Thus, the MoH is expected to suggest to the Department of Pharmaceuticals for 
mandatory implementation of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Practices (UCPMP)’ by the industry soon.

Conclusion:

Statistics of compliance to UCPMP are important to know, but demonstrable qualitative changes in the ethics and value standards of an organization in this regard should always be the most important goal to drive any pharmaceutical business corporation in India.

The need to announce and implement the UCPMP by the Department of Pharmaceutical, without further delay, assumes critical importance in today’s allegedly chaotic pharmaceutical marketing scenario.

Very unfortunately, the status quo remains unbroken even today. The juggernaut of marketing malpractices keeps moving on unabated. The ‘Cat and Mouse’ game continues as ever. The moot question still remains, who bells the cat? …For patients sake.

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.

Patented Drugs’ Pricing: Apprehensive Voices Could Turn into a Self-Defeating Prophecy

Posted on by
Reply

On February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

This committee was constituted way back in 2007 to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

In that process, the Committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the Pharmaceutical Industry including FICCI, NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration.

Simultaneously, the Committee had commissioned a study at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of Patented Drugs in many countries, across the world. The Committee reportedly has considered this ‘Expert Report’ while finalizing its final submission to the Government.

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only for:

  • The Government procurement/reimbursement
  • Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

  • Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries where there are robust public health policies, with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will still remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand
  • The government should, therefore, extend Health Insurance Scheme covering all prescription medicines to all citizens of the country, who are not covered under any other insurance /reimbursement scheme.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee has identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

1. A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence

2. A drug that has therapeutic equivalence but also has a therapeutic edge over the  existing ones

3. A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

The Committee recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

A bullish expectation of the Government on Patented Drugs market:

The report highlights that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has currently registered a turnover exceeding US$ 21 billion with the domestic turnover of over US$ 12 billion.

The report also estimates that the total value turnover of patented medicines in India, which is currently at around US$ 5 million, is expected to grow at a brisk pace due to the following reasons:

  • Rapid up-gradation of patent infrastructure over the past few years to support new patent laws with the addition of patent examiners.
  • Decentralization of patent-filing process and digitization of records.
  • Increase of population in the highest income group from present 10 million to 25 million in next 5 years.

All these, presumably have prompted the Government to come out with a ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ mechanism in India.

Pricing Mechanism in China: 

Just to get a flavor of what is happening in the fast growing neighboring market in this regard, let us have a quick look at China.

In 2007, China introduced, the ‘New Medical Insurance Policy’ covering 86 percent of the total rural population. However, the benefits have so far been assessed as modest. This is mainly because the patients continue to incur a large amount out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare.

There does exist a reimbursement mechanism for listed medicines in China and drug prices are regulated there with the ‘Cost Plus Formula’.

China has the following systems for drug price control:

  • Direct price control and competitive tendering

In this process the Government directly sets the price of every drug included in the formulary. Pharmaceutical companies will require making a price application to the government for individual drug price approval.The retail prices of the drugs are made based on the wholesale price plus a constant rate.

Interestingly, unlike Europe, the markup between the retail and wholesale price is much higher in China.

Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’: 

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

  1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:
  • The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.
  • In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.
  • The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.
  • The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out for India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.
  • The same methodology would be applicable for medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

  • If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly
  • PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

  • PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.
  • PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documented evidence.
  • This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subjected to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Strong voices of support and apprehension:

A.  Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Interestingly there have emerged strong voices of support on this Government initiative from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, as follows:

  • Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has commented, “This policy is in the right direction as we know that Compulsory License (CL) cannot address the need of price control for all patented drugs, so this policy takes care of that issue of a uniform regulation of price control for all patented drugs”. IPA had also suggested that the reference pricing should be from the developed countries like UK, Australia and New Zealand where the 80 percent of the expenditure being incurred on public health is borne and negotiated by the government.
  • Pharmexcil - another pharma association has commented, “This report is balanced and keeps India’s position in the global market in mind while recommending a pricing formula.”
  • Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) & Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI) had submitted their written views to the Committee stating that FOPE supports price negotiation mechanism for Patented Drugs and strongly recommends that Compulsory License (CL) provisions should not get diluted while going for price negotiation.
  • Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA) supported price negotiation for all Patented Drugs and recommended that the issue of CL and price negotiation should be dealt separately.

However, the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) feels, as the report indicates, ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They have already expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’, as detailed in the above report.

B. Apprehension within the Government

Even more interestingly, such apprehensive voices also pan around the Government Ministries.

Though the DoP has proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as under:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out then, the following issues must be ensured:

(i) Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

(ii) Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

C. Apprehension of other stakeholders 

The NGOs like, “Lawyer’s Collective HIV/Aids Unit” and “Medicines Sans Frontiers (MSF)” reportedly have urged that the price negotiation should not be allowed to weaken the position of CL for the Patented Drugs.

They had mentioned to the Committee as follows:

“As regards the plea of the patent holder that they had spent a large sum on R&D, one should note that most of the funds for R&D come from the Governments of their respective countries”. They further stated, “when the cost of production of the patented drugs is not known, it would be impossible to negotiate the price in a proper manner.”

The DoP report states that the other members of the NGOs also seconded these views.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, on January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

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

-       Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

-       Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia)

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

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ could well benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government procurement of these drugs at a negotiated price.

On the other hand, apprehensive voices as are now being expressed on this issue, just hoping for drastic measures of grant of frequent CL by the Government for improved patients’ access to innovative drugs, could well turn into a self-defeating prophecy – making patients the ultimate sufferers, yet again, as happens most of the time.

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.

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to the damning stricture made by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2013, the Ministry of Health, as expected, by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 has made the norms of compensation to patients participating in Clinical Trials (CT) more stringent.

‘Patient Compensation’ will now include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CT.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the civil society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Just a day after, on February 1, 2013, the Ministry of Health also notified final regulations on the conditions under which CT sites will be authorized by the local licensing and the inspection authorities of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

Key features of the new Government ‘Action’ on patient compensation:

Following are the key features in the new norms for patient compensation:

1. The sponsors of CTs will now be liable for injuries or deaths, which will take place during the course of a clinical trial and will be required to pay compensation to the patients or their families.

2. The investigator of the CT must inform the concerned pharmaceutical company, the Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and the Ethics Committee regarding injury or death during CT within 24 hours.

3. It will be mandatory for all CT Ethics Committees to be pre-registered with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), unlike the old system where this was not required and trial sponsors reportedly could staff the committee.

4. The pharmaceutical companies and the CROs will get 10 days time to submit a detailed report on related serious adverse event to the Ethics Committee, which in turn will get another 10 to 11 days to convey its evaluation on compensation to be paid to the independent expert committee. The Expert Panel will then advise the DCGI of an appropriate financial compensation within 30 days from the date of receiving the above report.

5. It will no longer require inclusion of specific amount of compensation for injury or death in the informed consent form and does not refer to insurance coverage for potential liability.

6. It requires the sponsors of CTs to provide the trial subject with free “medical management” for as long as it will require.

Will make CT more expensive in India:

Clinical Trials (CT), as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context the above notification will now make CT more expensive in India.

Sharp ‘reaction’ of CT related industry:

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some Clinical Research Organizations have expressed concerns in areas like:

  1. Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries
  2. The use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials,
  3. Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and the lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

Some other Experts related CT industry do highlight a few more troubling issues in the notification, as follows:

1. Compensation to be paid for ‘failure of an investigational product to provide intended therapeutic effect.’ This, they expressed, is intriguing as the very nature of a CT is to ascertain whether the investigational drug is efficacious or not.

2. If compensation is not paid as required, a sponsor or CRO may be banned from conducting any further trials in the country. This, they feel, provision could make India a challenging place to conduct CT.

3. There should also be clarity on the formula to determine compensation, the process for determining a compensation amount, and how an appeal process would work.

The bottom-line is, due to this new policy on ‘Patient Compensation’ CT expenses may go up considerably in India.

Other expert views:

On the other hand, some other experts opined to the International Weekly Journal on Science – ‘nature’ as follows:

“These reforms should go further to restore public confidence and the Indian government should establish special courts to deal quickly with allegations of medical misconduct, such as not fully disclosing to participants the risks involved in a clinical trial”.

Global concern on ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies:

In this context, though issues related to ‘Placebo Controlled’ trials have been raised by the CT related industry in India, very interestingly a paper of Research Administration of the University of California on the ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies’ clearly articulates that the use of a placebo in clinical research has remained a contentious issue in the medical community since long.

Some strongly argue that use of placebos is often unethical because alternative study designs would produce similar results with less risk to individual research participants. Others argue that the use of placebos is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from the widespread use of ineffective medical treatment.

However, as per the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidebook, “Placebos may be used in clinical trials where there is no known or available (i.e. US-FDA-approved) alternative therapy that can be tolerated by subjects.”

This issue also needs to be deliberated and effectively addressed by the Indian drug regulator in the debate of patient compensation for ‘placebo controlled trials’.

A perspective on CT in India:

Interestingly, in this critical area India is fast evolving as a major hub. This is vindicated by a study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), which states that India now participates in over 7 per cent of all global phase III and 3.2 per cent of all global phase II trials. The key points of attraction of the global players, so far as India is concerned, were reported as follows:

1. Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world

2. Huge patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile

3. Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is easy to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants.

Such opportunities, experts believe, should have ideally made the clinical research industry to demonstrate greater responsibility to ensure that patients’ safety needs are adequately taken care of. Unfortunately, despite such expectations, some important areas like ‘patient compensation’ have still remained blatantly neglected.

It has now come to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was with a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths that occur during trials on a person’s pre-existing medical condition and not related to CT.

DCGI had hauled-up 9 companies for blatant negligence:

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by nine pharmaceutical companies, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related death, which ranged from Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 3000) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 6000).

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon these nine pharmaceutical companies on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and with a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to clinical trial by June 20, 2011, or else all other CTs of these nine companies, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The report also indicates that after this ultimatum all the nine companies as mentioned therein had paid the compensation to the families of the patients who had died related to the CT.

Long exploitation of the fragile CT regulations in India:

For all these reasons, the subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

“Pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs”:

There seems to be nothing basically wrong in this approach per se. However, a recent report does highlight as follows:

“Clinical trials conducted by global drug makers and their proxies have generated increased scrutiny in recent years as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs and populations where patients are not exposed to as many medications that can confound results. India has been a prime example”.

A lesson to learn by the Indian Drug Regulator:

It is worth noting that US-FDA in a communication meant for the consumers has stated as follows:

“The Food and Drug Administration’s job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.”

The above approach seems to be drastically missing with the drug regulator in India as on date.

Conclusion:

Over a long period of time, a blatant negligence on reasonable care and financial compensation was allowed to continue by the Drug Regulator and the sponsors alike on the CTs conducted in India. A perceptible intent of justice to the patients, with the enforcement of stricter compensation laws and regulations for CT though belated, could dramatically change the CT scenario in India for the better in the years ahead.

In the fine balance of national priority for this area, patients’ safety and interest, I reckon, should always weigh more than the possibility of increase in the costs of CT in India. Thus,  the new norms of Patient Compensation indeed bring with it a breath of fresh air for the concerned stakeholders.

That said, the lose knots in some areas of the new norms, as discussed above, must be properly addressed and adequately tightened for greater clarity of the CT process, for all concerned.

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.

MCI asks Doctors to Prescribe Medicines in Generic Names

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, on January 21, 2013, in a circular addressed to the Dean/Principals of all the Medical Colleges, Director of all the hospitals and Presidents of all the State Medical Councils, the Medical Council of India (MCI) called upon the doctors practicing medicine to prescribe Drugs with Generic names, as far as possible.

The MCI circular reinforced that all Registered Medical Practitioners under the Indian  Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 will comply with it without fail. At the same time, wide publicity of this regulation be given and necessary steps be taken to ensure observance of this provision in its letter and spirit.

PSC also recommended it:

Prior to this circular, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) for Health and Family Welfare in its recommendation to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, also recommended prescription of medicines by their generic names.

The basic premises:

All these recommendations are reportedly based on the basic premises that high ‘Sales and Marketing’ costs of branded generic drugs in India can be significantly reduced, if prescription in generic names are encouraged, to make medicines available to patients at cheaper and much affordable prices.

‘Sales and Marketing’ expenses of ‘Branded’ drugs:

According to a recent report in BMJ every dollar that the pharmaceutical companies spend on “basic research,” US$ 19 goes toward promotion and marketing.

Another recent report from Forbes India titled “Will Pharma Companies Have to Stop ‘Gifting’ Doctors?“ states as follows:

“The budget that pharma companies have for freebies is huge. According to one estimate, the top 20 drug makers in India spend about $600 million a year on only freebies for doctors. It is still a paltry sum compared to the US, where drug makers spend $58 billion or more annually on marketing drugs, including freebies for doctors.

While the practice of giving gifts to doctors is rampant internationally, several sources told Forbes India that in India it borders on petty corruption. Doctors often refuse to write prescriptions unless they are offered at least Rs 50,000 in cash every time a new drug needs to be prescribed.” 

The prescribers’ ‘diplomatic’ stand:

It is interesting to note that some doctors reportedly are of the view that:

“For the benefit of patients and to get the best possible results, highest quality drugs with best possible pharmacological properties should be used by all doctors. If the quality of generic drugs is up to high standards, doctors should prescribe generic medicines.”

This comment needs to be taken considering that it has been made in response to the above MCI circular by a doctor. However, I reckon, in the real world such intent, as reflected in various independent retail audit reports, is hardly seen getting translated into reality, at least not just yet.

Ongoing debate on the quality issue with generic medicines:

Many opine that there could be a huge quality issue with generic medicines, which could make such drugs unsafe for the patients.

In response, other school of thought leaders often raise, among many others, the following questions:

  1. Are all generic medicines of dubious quality and branded generics are of good quality?
  2. If quality parameters can be doubted for both in many cases, why then raise this issue only in context of generic medicines?
  3. If the quality issues are not much with the larger companies and are restricted to only smaller companies, why then some branded generic drugs of smaller companies prescribed so much by the doctors?
  4. Currently many large companies market the same drugs both as generics and also as branded generics, why then the branded generic versions sell more than their generic equivalents, though manufactured by the same large companies?
  5. Why are the generic medicines available at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets (though small in number) cost a fraction of their branded generic equivalents?
  6. Why do the doctors also not show much interest in prescribing generic medicines as of date?
  7. Why not those who argue that phonetically similar or wrong reading of generic names at the chemist outlets may cause health safety hazard to the patients, also realize that many already existing phonetically similar brand names in totally different therapy areas may cause similar hazards too?
  8. How does a doctor while prescribing a branded generic or generic medicine decide which ones are of good quality and which others are not?

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA.  2008; 300(21) 2514-2526]‘.

Similar studies are also required in India to resolve much hyped ‘quality issue’ for generic medicines.

Some countries are taking similar steps: 

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Interestingly, the above point, though considered as a positive fall-out in Spain, is reportedly taken negatively in India with the oft repeated argument, ‘India is different’.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e. in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78 percent of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

This vindicates that prescription in generic names is encouraged in the US too for various reasons.

Concerns over pharmaceutical marketing malpractices in India:  

Ethical concerns on significant expenditure towards alleged sales and marketing malpractices since quite some time has further strengthened the demand for prescriptions only in the generic name of a drug.

Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject, involving even the Government and also the Parliament. It has been reported that a related case is now pending with the Supreme Court for hearing in not too distant future.

In 2010, “The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that ‘the evil practice’ of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India (MCI) has no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.”

It was widely reported that the letter of a Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of photocopies of the air tickets claiming, “Doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company”, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the said pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO stating, “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies and deny the tax incentives.

Incidences of such alleged malpractices related to financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession are unfolding reasonably faster now. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses. 

The response in favor of ‘Branded Generics’:

The proponents of ‘Branded Generics’ argue that the brand name is built on various differential value parameters to create a proper position of the brand in the minds of healthcare professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to generic drugs and is of high importance for both the doctors and the patients. 

The areas of complexity:

Those who favor branded generics also highlight, among others, the following three areas of complexity:

1. In India, over 50% medicines prescribed by the physicians are for Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs), spanning across almost all therapeutic categories. Thus, it could be difficult for doctors to prescribe such medicines in generic names and might equally be difficult for the chemists to dispense such prescriptions.

They also argue that in case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. Currently doctors use brand names to differentiate one formulation from the others. Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Patients also could face other difficulties due to generic prescribing. As is known, different brands of FDCs may have different proportions of same active ingredients. If chemists do not know or have the exact combination prescribed by the doctor in their shops, they would possibly substitute with a different combination of same drugs, which could well be less effective or even harmful to the patients.

The common perception:

The entire issue arises out of the key factor that the patients do not have any say on the use/purchase of a brand/brands that a doctor will prescribe.

It is generally believed by many that doctors predominantly prescribe mostly those brands, which are promoted to them by the pharmaceutical companies in various questionable ways, as reported above.

Thus, in today’s world and particularly in India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services, as often reported by the media, has reached a new high, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in the medical and also in the pharmaceutical sales and marketing practices at the altar of greed and conspicuous consumption.

Conclusion:

The recent MCI circular to doctors calling upon them to prescribe medicines in the generic names making them more affordable to patients, may be an important step towards a better future.

This assumes even greater importance when medicines constitute over 70 percent of the total treatment cost, especially for domiciliary treatment, and around 80 percent of total healthcare expenses is ‘out of pocket’ in our country.

However, the moot point is, the need of the hour calls for a total change in the mindset of all concerned. The importance of genuine care for the societal needs, while being in pursuit of professional excellence, in tandem, should ideally be demonstrated through voluntary measures by the concerned players in this area, leaving enforcement of stringent regulations as a last resort by the Government.

That said, while generic drugs per se are in no way bad for the patients, a careful analysis of all possible risk factors against expected benefits, especially for FDCs and different drug delivery formulations, will be important in the Indian perspective. Without effectively addressing the above issues, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory for all drugs, it could possibly be counter productive jeopardizing patients’ safety and interest.

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.