Pharma FDI Debate: Highly Opinionated, Sans Assessment of Tangible Outcomes?

Posted on November 18, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In 2001, the Government of India (GoI) allowed 100 percent Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the pharmaceutical sector through automatic route to attract more investments for new asset creation, boost R&D, new job creation and ultimately to help aligning Indian pharma with the modern pharma world in terms of capacity, capability, wherewithal, reach and value creation.

Thereafter, several major FDI followed, such as:

No.	Company	Acquirer	Value US$M	Year
1.	Ranbaxy	Daiichi Sankyo	4600	2008
2.	Shantha Biotechnics	Sanofi Pasteur	781	2009
3.	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3700	2010
4.	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	200	2012
5.	Agila Specialties	Mylan	1850	2013

FDI started coming:

Even recently, in April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in otherwise gloomy FDI scenario of India.

However, out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one was in the Greenfield area. It is now clear that the liberal pharma FDI policy is being predominantly used for taking overs the domestic pharma companies, as indicated earlier.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data reveals that between April 2012 and April 2013, US$ 989 million FDI was received in brownfield investments, and just US$ 87.3 million in Greenfield investments.

As a result, in 2010 pharma Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) captured over 25 percent of the domestic Indian market, as against just around 15 percent in 2005.

An assessment thus far:

While assessing the outcomes of liberal pharma FDI regime, especially at a time when India is seeking foreign investments in many other sectors, following facts surface:

New asset creation:

Most of the FDIs in pharma, during this period, have been substitution of domestic capital by foreign capital, rather than any significant new asset creation.

Investment in fixed assets (1994-95 to (2009-10):

Companies	Rs. Crore	Contribution %
Indian	54,010	94.7
MNC	3,022	5.3
Total	57,032	100

(Source: IPA)

Thus contrary to the expectations of GoI, there has been no significant increase in contribution in fixed assets by the pharma MNCs, despite liberalization of FDI.

Similarly, the available facts indicate that 100 percent FDI through automatic route in the pharma sector has not contributed in terms of creation of new modern production facilities, nor has it strengthened the R&D space of the country. The liberalized policy has not contributed to significantly increase in the employment generation by the pharma MNCs in those important areas, either.

The following figures would vindicate this point:

R&D Spend:

Companies	1994-95(Rs. Crore)	Contribution %	2009-10(Rs. Crore)	Contribution %
Indian	80.61	55.7	3,342.22	78.1
MNC	64.13	44.3	934.40	21.9
Total	144.74	100	4,276.32	100

(Source: IPA)

The above table vindicates that post liberalization of FDI regime, MNC contribution % in R&D instead of showing any increase, has significantly gone down.

Wage Bill/ Job Creation:

Companies	1994-95(Rs. Crore)	Contribution %	2009-10(Rs. Crore)	Contribution %
Indian	664	65.5	8,172	87.1
MNC	350	34.5	1,215	12.9
Total	1,014	100	9,387	100

(Source: CMIE)

In the area of job creation/wage bills, as well, liberalized FDI has not shown any increasing trend in terms of contribution % in favor of the MNCs.

Delay in launch of cheaper generics:

There are instances that the acquired entity was not allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges 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.

Key concerns expressed:

Brownfield acquisitions seem to have affected the entire pharma spectrum, spanning across manufacturing/ marketing of oral formulations; injectibles; specialized oncology verticals; vaccines; consumables and devices, with no tangible perceptible benefits noted just yet.

Concerns have been expressed about some sectors, which are very sensitive, such as, cancer injectibles and vaccines.

Moreover, domestic Indian pharma exports generic medicines worth around US$ 13 billion every year establishing itself as a major pharmaceutical exporter of the world and is currently the net foreign exchange earner for the country. If the Government allows the domestic manufacturing facilities of strategic importance to be taken over by the MNCs, some experts feel, it would adversely impact the pharmaceutical export turnover of the country, besides compromising with the domestic capacity while facing epidemics, if any or other health exigencies. It would also have a negative fall out on the supply of affordable generic medicines to other developing nations across the world.

Countries such as Brazil and Thailand have a robust public sector in the pharma space. Therefore, their concerns are less. Since India doesn’t have a robust public sector to fall back on, many experts feel that unrestrained acquisitions in the brownfield sector could be a serious public health concern.

Some conditions proposed:

The DIPP proposal reportedly wants to make certain conditions mandatory for the company attracting FDI, such as:

If a company manufactures any of the 348 essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), the highest level of production of that drug in the last three years should be maintained for the next five years
The acquirer foreign company would not be allowed to close down the existing R&D centres and would require to mandatorily invest upto 25 per cent of the FDI in the new unit or R&D facility. The total investment as per the proposed condition would have to be incurred within 3 years of the acquisition.
Reduction of FDI cap to 49 per cent in rare or critical pharma verticals, as discussed above.
If there is any transfer of technology it must be immediately communicated to the administrative ministries and FIPB

Vaccines and cancer injectibles, which have a limited number of suppliers, could fall under the purview of even greater scrutiny.

Conclusion:

The Ministries of Health and Commerce & Industries, which are in favor of restricting FDI in pharma stricter, are now facing stiff opposition from the Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission.

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has now repotedly prepared a draft Cabinet Note after consulting the ministries of Finance, Pharma and Health, besides others. However, as comments from some ministries came rather late, the DIPP is reportedly moving a supplementary note on this subject.

The matter is likely to come up before the cabinet by end November/December 2013.

While FDI in pharma is much desirable, it is equally important to ensure that a right balance is maintained in India, where majority of the populations face a humongous challenge concerning access to affordable healthcare in general and affordable medicines in particular.

There is, therefore, an urgent need for critical assessment of tangible outcomes of all pharma FDIs in India as on date, based on meaningful parameters. This would help the Government while taking the final decision, either in favor of continuing with the liberalized FDI policy or modifying it as required, for the best interest of country.

Otherwise, without putting the hard facts, generated from India, on the table, is it not becoming yet another highly opinionated debate in its ilk, between the mighty MNC pharma lobby groups either directly or indirectly, the Government albeit in discordant voices and other members of the society?

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.

In VUCA World: Changing Dynamics of Prescription Generation Process

Posted on November 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The acronym VUCA is often being used to emphasize upon the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity in various situations. The term has been derived from military vocabulary and is being used since 1990s in the business management parlance. VUCA is also considered as a practical code for awareness and readiness.

I find all the elements of VUCA playing an active role in the prescription demand generation space too, as it is based on various assumptions of what will work and what won’t in a fast changing pharmaceuticals business environment.

The interplay:

Primary interplay in the sustainable prescription demand generation process of today’s digitally empowered VUCA environment, I reckon, could be as follows:

Volatility: Fast changing dynamics of medical communication with interfaces made of emerging modern technological tools carrying high risks of rapid obsolescence.
Uncertainty: Lack of predictability in assessing outcomes of increasingly expensive product detailing inputs, coupled with too many surprise elements popping-up in the environment almost from nowhere and more frequently.
Complexity: Multi-factorial Doctor-Medical Representative (MR) interactions, which get even more complicated with increasing time constraints for effective product detailing to take place.
Ambiguity: Difficult to fathom changing needs of the doctors/payors, leading to increasing cause-and-effect confusion by the pharma marketing strategy planners.

Keeping these in view, today I shall deliberate on the ‘Criticality of Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ for sustainable prescription demand generation in a VUCA environment.

The key influencer – a new study:

A research study published in June 2013, in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’ establishes that the interaction between physicians and MRs, though essential for improvement of medical care, is indeed complex. This is mainly because of the apprehension that conflict of interests may affect the doctors’ prescription decision-making process.

However, the fact comes out, the doctors tend to prescribe more of expensive medical products after interacting with MRs from the concerned manufacturing companies, which, in turn, raises the treatment costs for patients.

Study established MRs influence prescription decision:

This particular AHJ study compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents, Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that MR presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced on the use of DES, and resulted in higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

Interestingly on such interactions between the MRs and the drug/devices industry two opposite viewpoints emerge.

‘MR-Doctor interaction important‘ – Industry:

Quoting the Associate General Counsel and Director of Legal and Medical Affairs at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical technology trade association, Reuters reported, “interactions between sales representatives and doctors benefit patients and are supported by professional medical organizations.”

‘MR interaction should not influence prescription decision’ – Doctors:

In the same report, the study’s lead author was quoted saying, “We need to evaluate carefully any interactions with medical industry to ensure that we minimize an effect on our decision making process.”

The bottom-line, though the debate continues:

This debate will keep continuing even in the years ahead. Be that as it may, the key fact that emerges out of the above study is, MRs do play a critical role in the prescription decision-making process of the doctors, especially for expensive medical products . Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies will prefer maintaining such ‘influencing’ roles of MRs to boost revenues of their respective brands.

This process assumes even greater importance in a VUCA world, as situation specific more frequent human interventions, strongly backed by state of art technological supports, would need to be effectively deployed for generation of sustainable prescription demand to excel in business.

The X-Factor:

However, one of the most challenging issues even in a VUCA situation is that pharma players continue and will continue to target the same sets of prolific prescribers for any given class of products in pursuit of success. As a result, time being so limited, very often even after waiting for hours MRs may not be able to meet the key prescribers.

Moreover, as and when the meeting takes place, it may well get restricted to just a very brief discussion due to the X Factor – paucity of the doctors’ time. Thus, delivering an effective product message in such a short time becomes increasingly challenging. Further, the difficulty in arresting un-interrupted attention of the busy practitioners due to X-Factor when they are with patients, compounds the problem.

Pivotal role of state of art technological tools:

The effectiveness of connection between respective brands of different drug makers and the doctors can be greatly facilitated with the application of state of art technology and modern internet based tools in varying proportions, as the sales and marketing communication strategy would dictate.

This area is emerging as a crafty game, which calls for wide-scale application of analytics.

Traditional strategies not enough:

In a VUCA world, while traditional face-to-face product detailing to doctors may continue to be the primary means for prescription demand generation, experimentation with a good number of new Internet based initiatives has already been started, as I discussed in my earlier article.

Hence, the concepts of digital marketing and e-detailing are gaining ground fast. Such initiatives of augmented digital communication of key marketing messages to doctors, would also help driving the key customers’ traffic to respective product Websites of the concerned companies for more detailed and convincing medical treatment solutions, as and when required by the busy doctors.

Types of digital interventions:

These digital interventions may include:

Highly targeted brand specific e-mailing responding to pre-identified needs of individual doctors
Sample ordering as per requirements of doctors
Live online product presentations at a time convenient to individual doctors
Quick and need-based problem solution centric online chats 24×7
Strategic usage of social media, backed by a robust pre-decided key output measuring matrix

However, the mix of each of these digital applications will need to be carefully worked out as robust supporting measures to key prescription demand generation activities, spearheaded by the MRs.

MRs to remain as ‘Spearheads’:

In my view, MRs would still remain the frontline force in the emerging world (dis)order, may be lesser in number, for sustainable prescription demand generation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take them on board upfront and train suitably to make the modern digital interfaces successful as powerful differentiating support tools.

Technology based training on digital marketing and e-detailing as empowering initiatives, demonstrating tangible benefits that such high tech-interventions can offer in the overall sales performance of MRs, would play a critical role. Such efforts would, in turn, immensely help making digital augmentation strategies for pharma detailing successful, in the long run.

MR involvement is critical:

In my view, to be successful in a VUCA environment with all these endeavors, however tech-intensives those may be, there will be a critical need to make the MRs understand and learn the process. In tandem, it is equally important to actively engage them in the execution of the integrated medical communication strategy of the concerned companies.

Keeping this perspective in mind, I guess, it will be quite apt to quote Ben Franklyn, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, scientist, musician, inventor and economist, all in one, who once wrote:

“Tell me and I forget,

Teach me and I remember,

Involve me and I learn”

Thus, MRs would continue to have a critical role to play in the demand generation process for prescription medicines. However, they must be properly trained to be able to provide the types of knowledge and information that the doctors may not have ready access from elsewhere.

The entire process would, at the same time, require massive technological interventions, not incremental in nature but radical in scope and dimensions, and at a much wider scale than what we have been attempting today.

Challenges in India:

The very concept of VUCA in the changing dynamics of sustainable prescription demand generation, brings to the fore the issue of quality of MRs in India.

Currently there is a wide, both inter and intra company, variation in the educational qualifications, relevant product and disease area knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards between MRs in our country.

Employability of MR in a VUCA world:

Just when we talk about augmented digital interfaces in medical communications, there exists a huge challenge in the country to strike a right balance between the level/quality of sales pitch generated by the MRs for a brand.

At times, many of them may not be properly armed with requisite scientific knowledge, and the basic norms of professional conduct/ ethical standards, while rendering their services.

They may not also be able to handle the sophisticated technological tools with quick application of minds. Hence, the subject of employability of MR in a VUCA world needs to be addressed afresh in India.

‘One size fits all’ strategies:

To make it happen, the pharmaceutical players would require to jettison, ‘one size fits all’ types of strategies in a VUCA world.

In tandem, pharma marketing strategists will need to be intimately conversant with a relatively difficult process of cerebral gymnastics to help formulating individual key prescriber-centric communication strategies, where MRs can play a key role with optimal digital interventions.

This is possible, if supported by the respective employers creating an environment of empowerment, backed by requisite product training, technological tools, modern behavioral inputs and above all by making investments to create of a large sustainable emotional capital for longer term business excellence.

Conclusion:

All the elements of VUCA would keep playing very critical roles in sustainable prescription demand generation process in the years to come, more than ever before.

There is a critical need to understand the interplay between each of these dynamics on an ongoing basis to make strategic modifications quickly, whenever required. This is important, as the prowess to introduce right changes at right times will differentiate men from the boys in this ultimate ball game of the pharma industry.

To succeed in a VUCA environment, pharmaceutical companies may choose to predominantly focus on harnessing their technological expertise.

However, to face the waves of virtually unpredictable continuous change, only technology based efforts, I reckon, are less likely to fructify. Unless, these high- tech interventions are spearheaded by time-specific fast enough and intelligent skilled human responses in form of MRs.

Having said that, it would be foolhardy to even think of completely taming VUCA with whatever human and technological wherewithal that any pharma player may be able to garner to achieve its goals. It is, in fact, a matter of relativity in managing VUCA in a given situation at a given time.

Thus I believe, there is, on the contrary, a need to leverage a VUCA environment, for creation of an ‘Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ in the product detailing process with a high sense of urgency. This would be critical to gain cutting edge advantages for generation of increased prescription demand in a sustainable way.

For the pharmaceutical marketing strategists, this new ball game would obviously not be a piece of cake either, as the key success factors would involve the right mindset of first unlearning and then relearning the process on an ongoing basis, virtually in all time to come

With this perspective, I conclude by quoting the famous American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler, who once said,

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on October 28, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
Patented products’ pricing rationale,
Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example, the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

Comparing them to a placebo
Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.

These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.

These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.

These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India.

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year.

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1	US Chamber of Commerce	136.3
2	National Association of Realtors	41.5
3	Blue Cross / Blue Shield	22.5
4	General Electric	21.1
5	American Hospital Association	19.2
6	National Cable & Telecom. Association	18.9
7	Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)	18.5
8	Google	18.2
9	Northrop Grumman	17.5
10	AT&T	17.4
11	American Medical Association	16.5
12	Boeing	15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

Intellectual Property (IP)
Patent
Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe:

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

	Company	Amount US$ Million	Year	Reasons
1.	GlaxoSmithKline	3, 000	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2.	Abbott	1,500	2012	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3.	Johnson & Johnson	1,200	2012	Unlawful promotion
4.	Merck	950	2011	Unlawful promotion
5.	Ranbaxy	500	2012	Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6.	Johnson & Johnson	327	2011	Unlawful promotion
7.	Boehringer Ingelheim	280	2011	Overcharging government health programs
8.	Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit	280	2010	Overcharging government health programs
9.	Elan	203	2010	Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10.	Johnson & Johnson	158	2012	Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest,

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000 to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

What is then the real issue with pharma innovation?
Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

First-in-class
Advance-in-class
Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags, creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts:

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.

In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.

There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.

Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.

More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both.

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs,

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1. ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance:

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types. In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Tapan Ray

International award winning documentary film, ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’ could possibly set a raging fire in your blood too, just like mine. It made me SAD, REFLECTIVE and ANGRY, prompting to share ‘MY TAKE AWAYS’ with you on this contentious subject, immediately after I put across a brief perspective of this yet to be released film in India.

FIRE IN THE BLOOD is an intricate tale of ‘medicine, monopoly and malice’ and narrates how western pharmaceutical companies and governments aggressively blocked access to low-cost HIV/AIDS drugs in African countries post 1996, causing ten million or more avoidable deaths. Fortunately, in the midst of further disasters in the making, some brave-hearts decided to fight back.

The film includes contributions from global icons, such as, Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu and Joseph Stieglitz and makes it clear that the real struggle of majority, out of over 7 billion global population, for access to life-saving affordable patented medicines is far from over. This film has been made by Dylan Mohan Gray and narrated by Academy Award winner, William Hurt.

Two trailers worth watching:

Please do not miss watching, at least, the trailer of this the sad and cruel movie by clicking on the link provided on the word ‘trailer’ above and also here. To get an independent perspective, please do watch the review of the film along with interesting interviews by clicking here.

(Disclaimer: I have no personal direct or even remotely indirect interest or involvement with this film.)

International newspaper reviews:

The NYT in its review commented as follows:

“The only reason we are dying is because we are poor.” That is the heartbreaking refrain heard twice in the documentary “Fire in the Blood,” about an urgent and shameful topic: the millions of Africans with AIDS who have died because they couldn’t afford the antiretroviral drugs that could have saved their lives. Former President Bill Clinton, the intellectual property lawyer James Love, the journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. of The New York Times and others offer perspectives on this situation and also on the concern that pharmaceutical companies value profits over lives.”

The Guardian reviewed the film as follows:

“A slightly dry, yet solid reportage on a humanitarian disgrace: the failure of western pharmaceutical companies to provide affordable drugs to patients in the developing world. As presented, the corporate defense sounds horribly racist: that poorer Africans’ inability to read packaging or tell the time leaves them ill-suited to following any medication program… hope emerges in the form of the Indian physicist Yusuf Hamied, whose company Cipla undertook in the noughties to produce cheap, generic drugs in defiance of the Pfizer patent lawyers.”

MY TAKE AWAYS:

Discrimination between human lives?

Life, as we all have been experiencing, is the greatest miracle of the universe and most astonishing creation of the Almighty. Among all types of lives, the human lives indeed have been playing critical roles in the development and progress of humanity over many centuries. These lives irrespective of their financial status, cast, creed, color and other inequities need to be protected against diseases by all concerned and medicines help achieving this objective.

What’s the purpose of inventing medicines?

“The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer”, said the management guru of global repute, Peter F. Drucker. What is then the purpose of inventing new medicines in today’s world of growing financial inequity?

Further, in his well acclaimed book, “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”, C.K. Prahalad, explained that the world’s over five billion poor make up the the fastest growing market in the world. Prahalad showed how this segment has vast untapped buying power, and represents an enormous potential for companies, who can learn how to serve this market by providing the poor with innovative products that they need. Do the Big Pharma players have any lesson to learn from this doctrine?

R&D is not free, has costs attached to it:

Medicines protect human lives against various types of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies surely play a critical role in this area, especially the innovator pharma players, by making such medicines available to patients.

These companies identify new products largely from academic institutions and various research labs, develop and bring them to the market. This has obviously a cost attached to it. Thus, R&D cannot be considered as free and the prices of patented products should not be equated with off-patent generic drugs. Innovators must be allowed to earn a decent return on their R&D investments to keep the process of innovation ongoing, though the details of such costs are not usually made available for scrutiny by the experts in this field.

Discourage insatiable fetish for profiteering:

Respective governments must always keep a careful vigil to ensure that earning a decent profit does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering, where majority of people across the world will have no other alternative but to succumb to diseases without having access to these innovative medicines. This situation is unfair, unjust and should not be allowed to continue.

Big Pharma – strongest propagators of innovation…bizarre?

It is indeed intriguing, when patients are the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical innovations, why mostly the Big Pharma MNCs, their self-created bodies and cronies, continue to remain the most powerful votaries of most stringent IPR regime in a country, though always in the garb of ‘encouraging and protecting innovation’.

Thinking straight, who do they consider are really against innovation in India? None, in fact. Not even the Government. India has under its belt the credit of many pioneering innovations over the past centuries, may not be too many in the field of medicine post 2005, at least, not just yet. Do we remember the disruptive invention of ‘Zero’ by the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (597–668 AD) or the amazing ‘Dabbawalas’ of Mumbai? India experiences innovation daily, it has now started happening in the domestic pharma world too with the market launch of two new home grown inventions.

Coming back to the context, India, as I understand, has always been pro-innovation, in principle at least, but is squarely and fairly against obscene drug pricing, which denies access to especially newer drugs to majority of patients, in many occasions even resorting to frivolous innovations and evergreening of patents.

Mighty pharma MNCs are increasingly feeling uncomfortable with such strong stands being taken by a developing nation like India, in this regard. Thus, expensive and well orchestrated intense lobbying initiatives are being strategized to project India as an anti-innovation entity, while pharma MNCs, in general, are being highlighted as the sole savior for encouraging and protecting innovation in India. The whole concept is indeed bizarre, if not an open display of shallow and too much of self-serving mindset.

This analysis appears more convincing, when genuine patients’ groups, instead of supporting the pharma MNCs in their so called ‘crusade’ for ‘innovation’, keep on vehemently protesting against obscene drug pricing, across the world.

Obscene pricing overshadows the ‘patient centric’ facade:

Obscene pricing of patented medicines, in many cases, overshadows the façade of much hyped and overused argument that ‘innovation must be encouraged and protected for patients’ interest’. This self-created ‘patient centric’ facade must now be properly understood by all.

I reckon, India has now assumed a critical mass attaining a global stature. This will not allow any successive governments in the country to change the relevant laws of the land, wilting under intense pressure of global and local lobbying and expensive PR campaigns.

Genuine innovation must be protected:

Genuine innovations, as explained in the Patents Act of India, must be encouraged and protected in the country, but not without sending a strong and clear signal for the need of responsible pricing.

It is also a fact, though some people may have different views, that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) encourage innovation.

At the same time, the real cost of R&D must be made transparent by all innovators and available for scrutiny by the experts in this field to put all doubts to rest on the subject.

When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is being widely discussed globally, which has now been made mandatory in India, these players keep arguing almost unequivocally that, thinking about ‘have nots’ is the sole responsibility of the Government.

Patents guarantee market exclusivity, NOT absolute pricing freedom:

Patent gives right to the innovators for 20 years market exclusivity, but NOT absolute pricing freedom in the absence of any significant market competition in that area.

Innovator companies do argue that patented products also compete in their respective therapeutic classes. This is indeed baloney. If patented products meet the unmet needs, how can it be ‘me too’ even in a therapy class? Unless of course, insatiated fetish of Big Pharma for market monopoly with free pricing even for ‘me too’ types of so called ‘innovative products’, becomes the key motive behind such an argument.

Who benefits more with patented medicines?

Who gets benefited more with these patented medicines? Certainly a small minority living in the developed world and NOT the vast majority of the developing world.

At the same time, huge profits earned by these companies from a small minority of these patients make them so rich and inexplicably arrogant that they do not bother at all for others without having adequate deep pockets, even in India.

Conclusion:

I have a huge problem in accepting the pharma MNCs’ argument that ‘IPR’ and lack of ‘Access’ to IP protected drugs for ‘affordability’ reasons, are unrelated to each other. For heaven’s sake, how can they be?

As I said before, absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs is obscene, if not vulgar and must be curbed forthwith with the application of intelligent and well-balanced sensible minds and also in a way, which is just for all, both the innovators and the patients.

Big pharma MNCs can no longer afford to remain just as huge profit making entities, responsible only to their shareholders, shorn of societal needs for affordable medicines, required for around six out of over seven billion human lives of the world.

Modern society, key opinion leaders and respective governments should not allow them to shirk their responsibility in this area any more, as we move on.

If not, will narratives like ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’, not keep us haunting again, again and again, on similar incidents taking place in some other countries, at some other time, involving extinction of millions of precious lives for not having access to affordable new drugs? They may be ‘have nots’, so what?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Humongous Pharma Corruption: China Ups The Ante…and India?

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In the ‘pharma bribery’ related scandal in China, many postulated that the Chinese Government has cracked down selectively on Multinational Corporations (MNCs) to extend unfair business advantages for its local players.

Media reports of September 2013 indicate that in all probability the intent of the Chinese Government is not to spare homegrown corruption in this area. The country appears to be taking tough measures against both global and local perpetrators of such criminal acts, which have spread their vicious tentacles deep into the booming Chinese pharmaceutical industry.

The report names the following domestic companies:

Sino Biopharmaceutical Ltd has set up a team to investigate allegations broadcast on the state television that its majority-owned subsidiary had paid for illegal overseas trips for doctors to Thailand and Taiwan.

Privately held Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals investigating allegations of spending around US$ 130.75 million to bribe doctors to promote their pharmaceutical products over five years.

More MNCs under investigation:

At the same time, international media are reporting names of more and more big global pharma players allegedly involved in this humongous scam, as follows:

In July 2013, the British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was allegedly involved in around US$ 490 million deceptive travel and meeting expenses as well as trade in sexual favors. Chinese authorities detained four senior executives of GSK in China to further investigate into this matter.

In the same month Chinese police reportedly visited the Shanghai office of another British pharmaceutical major AstraZeneca for investigation related to this scam.

In August 2013, Sanofi of France reportedly said that it would cooperate with a review of its business in China after a whistle-blower’s allegations that the company paid about US$ 276,000 in bribes to 503 doctors in the country.

Again in August 2013, a former employee of the Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis has reportedly claimed that her manager urged her to offer ‘kickback’ to doctors to increase use of the cancer drug Sandostatin LAR. She had about US$ 105,000 budget for payments to doctors who prescribed at least 5 doses, aiming for 50 doses in all. She filed the compensation claim of US $817,000 after resigning from the company.

In the same month, another whistleblower has reportedly made bribery allegations involving Eli Lilly of the United States and US$ 4.9 million in purported kickbacks to Chinese doctors.

In September 2013, media reports indicated that the Chinese authorities are investigating the German pharma major – Bayer over a “potential case of unfair competition”.

Another very recent report of September 17, 2013 states, Alcon Eye Care division of Novartis is investigating allegation of fabricated clinical trials to bribe doctors. The report says Alcon outsourced the trials to a third-party research company, which in turn compensated doctors with “research payments”. It is claimed by the whistleblower that Alcon used funds earmarked for “patient experience surveys” on lens implants to bribe doctors at more than 200 hospitals. One doctor received about US$ 7,300, for studying 150 patients. Alcon allegedly spent more than US$ 230,000, on such studies last year.

This list of pharmaceutical companies involved in alleged serious malpractices to boost their sales and profits in China is probably not exhaustive.

However, only time will unravel whether this juggernaut of scams will keep moving unabated despite all high voltage actions, bulldozing patients’ interest.

Crack down on food companies too:

Crack down of the Chinese Government on alleged malpractices has reportedly extended to milk products’ companies too.

Again in August 2013, Mead Johnson Nutrition and Danone were among six dairy companies ordered to pay a combined 669 million Yuan by the Chinese Government for price fixing of their products.

Global industry lobby has a different view point:

In an interview with the BBC, an expert from APCO Worldwide, considered as the giant of the lobbying industry said:

“China’s behavior was very worrisome for foreign companies. They don’t know what’s hitting them right now. The government is resorting to its traditional “toolbox” of coercive methods, including shaming and ordering people to confess that they’ve done wrong so that your penalties can be minimized. They’re just treating foreign companies the way they’ve treated their own for many years, and this is the way the Party does things.”

He continued, “What may be going on is they’re telling foreign companies and they’re telling private companies here: Behave yourself; remember we’re the Party, we’re in charge.”

This is seemingly an interesting way of pooh-poohing serious allegations of bribery and other malpractices by the pharmaceutical companies in China without even waiting for the results of the pending enquiry.

However, such comments coming from an industry lobbying organization or any Public Relations (PR) Agency is not uncommon. That’s their business.

Possible reasons for crack down:

Experts opine that China has a high drug price problem. This is vindicated by the fact that while most developed nations of the world spend not more than 10-12 percent of their healthcare budget on medicines, in China it exceeds 40 percent. This huge disparity is believed to have prompted Beijing’s crackdown on the industry, especially the MNCs that dominate the Chinese pharmaceutical industry with newer drugs. The powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China has already said that it is examining pricing by 60 local and international pharmaceutical companies.

Some other reports point out, low basic salary of the doctors at the 13,500 public hospitals in China, who are the key purchasers of drugs, is the root cause of corruption in the Chinese healthcare industry.

According to McKinsey with estimated healthcare spending of China nearly tripling to US$1 trillion by 2020 from $357 billion in 2011, the country is increasingly attracting pharma and medical equipment companies from all over the world in a very large number.

The fall out:

A recent media report indicates that Chines crackdown on the widespread pharma bribery scandal in the country is quite adversely affecting the sales of both global and local players, as many doctors in the Chinese hospitals are now refusing to see medical representatives for fear of being caught up in this large scam.

Drug expenditure is even more for healthcare in India:

Several studies indicate that Out Of Pocket Expenditure towards Healthcare in India is one of the highest in the world and ranges from 71 to 80%.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare as follows:

Items	Outpatient/ outside Hospital (%)	Inpatient/ Hospitalization (%)
Medicines	63	43
Consultation/Surgery	-	23
Diagnostics	17	16
Minor surgeries	01	-
Private Consultation	14	-
Room Charge	-	14
Others	05	04

Despite these facts, India has remained virtually inactive in this critical area so far, unlike China, except some sporadic price control measures like, Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs (NLEM 2011), which covers around 18% of the total pharmaceutical market in India.

Universal Healthcare (UHC): A possible answer?

Another interesting study titled, ‘The Cost of Universal Health Care in India: A Model Based Estimate’ concludes as follows:

The estimated cost of UHC delivery through the existing mix of public and private health institutions would be INR 1713 (USD 38) per person per annum in India. This cost would be 24% higher, if branded drugs are used. Extrapolation of these costs to entire country indicates that Indian government needs to spend 3.8% of the GDP for universalizing health care services, although in total (public+private) India spent around 4.2% of its GDP on healthcare (2010) at 11% CAGR from 2001 to 2010 period.

Moreover, important issues such as delivery strategy for ensuring quality, reducing inequities in access, and managing the growth of health care demand need be explored.

Thus, it appears, even UHC will be 24% more expensive after a public spend of staggering 3.8% of the GDP towards healthcare, if branded drugs are used, which attract huge avoidable marketing expenditures, as we have seen in the Chinese pharma industry scandal.

High marketing costs making drugs dearer?

A recent article, captioned “But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?” vindicates the point, though the drug companies spend substantial money on R&D, they spend even more on their marketing related activities, legally or otherwise.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A:	23% to 34%
R&D:	12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, the marketing practices have still remained a very contentious issue despite many attempts of self-regulation by the industry. Incessant media reports on alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down significantly, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation. This is indeed a critical point to ponder.

Scope and relevance of ‘Corporate Ethical Business Conducts and Values’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts and value standards’ of a company should not just be limited to marketing. These should usually encompass the following areas, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
Caring for the society and environment
Fiduciary responsibilities
Business and marketing practices
R&D activities, including clinical trials
Corporate Governance
Corporate espionage

That said, codes of ethical conduct, corporate values and their compliance should not only get limited to the top management, but must get percolated downwards, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to codes of business ethics and corporate values are important to know, but perceptible qualitative changes in ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): A deterrent?

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen.

FCPA currently has some impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

However, looking at the ongoing Chinese story of pharma scams and many other reports of huge sums paid by the global pharmaceutical companies after being found guilty under such Acts in the Europe and USA, it appears, levy of mere fines is not good enough deterrent to stop such (mal)practices in today’s perspective.

China acts against pharma bribery, why not India?

Like what happened in China, many reports, including from Parliamentary Standing Committee, on alleged pharma malpractices of very significant proportions, which in turn are making drugs dearer to patients, have been coming up in India regularly, since quite sometime.

Keeping these into consideration, abject inertia of the government in taking tough measures in this area is indeed baffling and an important area of concern.

Conclusion:

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and more importantly their effective compliance, in letter and spirit, are of increasing relevance in the globalized business environment.

Unfortunately, as an irony, increasingly many companies across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments.

Intense quarterly pressure for expected business performance by stock markets and shareholders, could apparently be the trigger-points for short changing such codes and values.

There is, of course, no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ uniformly across the world. However, even if these are implemented in country-specific ways, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and ‘owning responsibility’.

That said, to uphold patients’ interests, China is already giving the perpetrators of the ongoing humongous pharma scam a ‘run for life’, as it were, despite what the industry lobbyists have been laboriously working on for the world to believe. Today, common patients’ in India being in a much worse situation for similar sets of reasons, should the domestic regulators not now wake up from the ‘deep slumber’, up all antennas, effectively act by setting examples and bring the violators to justice?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others, a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

“Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”

“Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

SG&A	23% to 34%
R&D	12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients.

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

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

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

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

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

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition 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 getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country.

Another 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.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010.

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?

By: Tapan J. Ray

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on August 12, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

“The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”

The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”

“The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer):

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October 2012, after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a ‘novel’ product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (Gefitinib) on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.”

“Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Indian Patents Act prevails:

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary by the vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

AstraZeneca 180 patents
Roche with 166 patents
Sanofi with 159 patents
Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

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

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses.

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients?

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1			2			3
3TC (Lamivudine)			Zerit (Stavudine)			Viramune (Nevirapine)
Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year /Patient in US$
GSK	Cipla	Hetero	BMS	Cipla	Hetero	B.I.*	Cipla	Hetero
3271	190	98	3589	70	47	3508	340	202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim)

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India causing immense hardships to them.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Conclusion:

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients, signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: companies

Pharma FDI Debate: Highly Opinionated, Sans Assessment of Tangible Outcomes?

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

Humongous Pharma Corruption: China Ups The Ante…and India?

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?