Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Posted on May 8, 2023 by Tapan Ray

Public access to healthcare in India is a complex issue with several challenges. While India has been making progress over the years in improving healthcare access and reducing the burden of disease, there are still significant disparities in healthcare access and outcomes across the country. The three primary barriers continue to remain:

Affordable access to quality healthcare: This arises out of the shortage of healthcare infrastructure and resources, more in rural areas. The shortage includes an inadequate number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, as well as inadequate facilities and equipment.

Cost of healthcare: While India has a largely publicly funded healthcare system, the quality of care in public hospitals is often poor, and many people are forced to opt for private healthcare, which can be expensive.

Access to affordable drugs: Despite India being a major producer of generic drugs, many people in India still lack access to essential medicines. This is due in part to the high cost of branded medicines, which are often out of reach for many people, as well as a lack of availability of certain medicines in some areas.

Undoubtedly, this remains a weak area for the country, till date. Successive Indian governments have taken steps to address these challenges. However, public funding on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and implementation of policies to increase access to medicine, continue to remain below par. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all people have access to quality healthcare and essential medicines.

Amid this situation, especially on the international political front, drug MNCs are continuously blaming India for the fact that the Indian Patents Act is not robust enough to protect their drug patents on NMEs and technologies. For example, in its 2022 Special 301 Report, the USTR designated seven countries on the Priority Watch List. These are Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela. To give some more examples from the available reports:

In February 2021, PhRMA, a trade group representing multinational pharmaceutical companies, raised concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. PhRMA argued that India’s policies were undermining innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India.

In March 2021, Pfizer’s CEO also expressed concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. He said that Pfizer was facing challenges in obtaining patents for its products in India, and that the lack of adequate patent protection was discouraging investment in research and development.

In May 2021, Novartis’s CEO criticized India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. HE stated that the lack of adequate patent protection in India was discouraging innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India.

Against this backdrop, in today’s article I shall deliberate on this vexing issue – starting from some key grievances of drug MNCs in this regard. Thereafter we will look at the Indian industry response to drug MNCs’ concern about the robustness of the Indian Patents Acts. This could possibly help us to understand the key question – Is it then an attempt to exploit India’s weakness regarding inadequate overall access to medicines for monopolistic gain by the vested interest?

Key grievances of drug MNCs for poor access to medicines in India:

One can recall that the Patent Act in India was amended in 2005 to comply with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The amendment made it more difficult for multinational pharmaceutical companies to obtain patents for their products in India for the ‘me too’ type of innovation, which has led to lower prices for medicines and increased access to affordable drugs for the Indian population.

However, drug MNCs generally argue that:

The lack of adequate patent protection in India discourages innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately limits the availability of new drugs for patients in India.

They have also criticized the Indian government’s use of compulsory licensing, which allows the government to authorize a third party to produce a patented drug without the consent of the patent holder. They argue that this undermines their intellectual property rights and discourages investment in research and development, which ultimately limits access to new and innovative drugs for patients in India.

Counter argument by Indian companies:

Indian companies, on the contrary, defend their position and policies related to access to medicines and healthcare in India, and have responded to the accusations made by drug MNCs in the following ways:

Provides adequate patent protection: The Indian Patents Act provides adequate IP protection, in accordance with the TRIPS agreement. They have also pointed out that the patent laws in India allow for the grant of patents for genuine inventions, while preventing the grant of frivolous or secondary patents (the me-too types), which can result in excessive monopolies and high prices for medicine.

Encourage innovation: Indian policies have not discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have pointed out that Indian companies invest heavily in research and development and have developed several innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities in India and around the world.

Rare occurrence of Compulsory licensing: The use of compulsory licensing is a legitimate tool under international law and is aimed at promoting public health and ensuring that life-saving drugs are accessible and affordable to patients in India. They have also pointed out that the use of compulsory licensing is a rare occurrence in India and is only used in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, Indian drug companies have emphasized their commitment to improving access to medicines and healthcare in India, while ensuring that their policies are in line with international laws and regulations. They have also emphasized the need for collaboration and dialogue with multinational pharmaceutical companies to find mutually acceptable solutions that benefit patients in India and around the world.

Examples of innovative drugs developed by Indian drug companies:

It’s interesting to note that in the same IP scenario, Indian companies with limited resources, are developing innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities around the world. Here are a few examples, as reported at different times:

Lipaglyn: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Lipaglyn is the first-ever drug approved for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. It has been approved in India and several other countries, including the European Union.

Tafinlar: Developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tafinlar is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Mycapssa: Developed by Sun Pharma, Mycapssa is a novel oral formulation of octreotide, a hormone therapy used to treat acromegaly. It has been approved by the US FDA.

Saroglitazar: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Saroglitazar is a dual PPAR agonist that has been approved in India for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Nexavar: This much discussed drug, originally developed by Bayer and by Natco Pharma, is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of liver and kidney cancers.

Conclusion:

The IP issues keep haunting India and are being captured in different Special 301 Reports of the USTR, even after The Indian Patents Act 2005 came into force – till 2022. Any change to this Act seems very unlikely now as this is an important piece of legislation that helps balance the interests of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and access to affordable medicines. Any dilution of this Act could have negative consequences for India and its citizens.

From this perspective, I reckon, any further pressure in this area may be construed as an attempt to exploit India’s weakness of inadequate access to medicines for monopolistic gain by vested interests.

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.

Unsustainable New Cancer Drug Prices: Resolution Remains A Far Cry

Posted on April 13, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is primarily due to the fact that their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Today, a very large number of poor and even the middle-income patients, who spend their entire life-savings for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new drugs market.

The plights of such patients are worse in India and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

I discussed about the recent decision of the Government for shelving UHC in my recent Blog Post titled, “Would Affordable ‘Modicare’ Remain Just A Pipe Dream In India?”

Irresponsible pricing?

To highlight this point, I shall quote from the research paper titled, “Five Years of Cancer Drug Approvals, Innovation, Efficacy and Costs” published in JAMA Oncology dated April 02, 2015. This report states that just one year’s cost of treatment with a patented new cancer drug now routinely exceeds US$ 100,000. It is much known today that the medical bills for cancer treatment have become the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy, in many countries of the world.

The issue is even more impactful and heart wrenching in India, as with much lower per capita income, compared to the global median, a cancer patient pays around the same price for the same patented drugs in the country. Much talked about Nexavar of Bayer, has been a good example.

The above report underscores, the big global pharma players still vigorously contend to establish that the high cost of drugs is required to support their research and development efforts. However, none would possibly deny the hard data that, when costs and revenues are balanced, the pharmaceutical industry generates high profit margins.

On a lighter vain – the fact that the richest person in India is a pharma player of ‘low price generic medicines’ vindicates this point.

The latest report on pharma R&D costs:

In a ‘Press Release’ of November 18, 2014, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development announced, “Cost to develop and win marketing approval for a New Drug is US$2.6 Billion”.

This is around 2.5 times more than its previous estimate published in 2003, which reads as US$802 million.

Although the study is not publicly available, neither has it been peer reviewed, it does reflect that above overall inflation rate, pharma R&D costs are reportedly going up at an annual rate of around 8 percent!

Even if the R&D cost of US$2.6 Billion is accepted as correct to justify high prices of patented drugs, one should note that this figure is applicable only to those types of New Chemical Entities (NCE) that did not receive any outside funding in their developmental process, such as, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

It is worth noting, such types of NCEs account for less than one-sixth of the annual new drugs approval in the United States.

Interestingly, Tufts Center receives its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, according to reports.

When is a high cost of medicine defendable?

According to some, high price may be justified, if novel products offer significant benefits to patients giving rise to indirect quantifiable economic value through restoration of health of patients.

This is understandable, as those patented drugs represent significant and well-accepted pharmacological advances over the existing ones, offering novel mechanisms of actions for better treatment value through ‘high-risk-high-cost’ research.

Price is a function of the value that a drug offers:

The price of any drug must be a function of the value that it offers to the patients. Not just the cost of its innovation, irrespective of the fact, whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even a ‘Me-too’ NCE.

The above April 2015 research report published in JAMA Oncology, investigated at length, whether novelty of medications or their relative benefits dictated drug pricing.

In that endeavor, the authors found out that from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, the USFDA approved 51 drugs in oncology for 63 indications. During this period, 9 drugs received more than 1 approved indication.

The study observed:

Of these 51 drugs:

- 21 (41 percent) exert their effect via a novel mechanism of action

- While 30 (59 percent) are next-in-class drugs

Despite this fact, there was no difference in the median price per year of treatment between the 30 next-in-class drugs (US$119, 765) and the 21 novel drugs (US$116, 100).

Global cancer market is soaring high fuelled by astronomical prices:

According to a report that quotes an official of IMS Health, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States is now US$10,000, up from $5,000 just a year ago. At the same time, according to a 2014 study by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, global oncology spending has hit US$91 billion in 2013, and despite patent cliff is growing at 5 percent annually.

None likes nightmarish cancer drug-pricing trend:

None likes this worrisome drug-pricing trend, not even in the developed world. God forbid, just one cancer patient in the family can drag even a middle class household to the poverty level, especially in a country like India, where Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses for health hovers around 70 percent and Universal Health Coverage still remains a pipe dream.

Payers, including governments and private insurers, in the top cancer markets such as the United States and Europe, are trying hard to bring the cancer drug prices to a reasonable level through regulatory pressure of various kinds and forms. For example, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and the regulators for drug cost-effectiveness in other large European countries, are coming hard on patented new cancer drugs with small improvements in survival time but priced much higher than the existing ones.

Even many private insurers in those countries are now raising questions about the additional value offerings in quantifiable terms, especially for the new cancer drugs and other treatments for life-threatening ailments, such as hepatitis C. To give an example, in late 2014, Express Scripts in America negotiated hard for an exclusive deal with AbbVie to provide its hepatitis C treatment Viekira Pak over Gilead’s exorbitantly priced Sovaldi.

Action by the doctors outside India:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced in ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut Zaltrap price by half.

Unlike in India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only on their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a recent 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of such drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the U.K.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Tokenism by the Indian Government:

India sent a signal to global pharma players about its unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country on March 9, 2012. On that day, the then Indian Patent Controller General issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating that an article published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 quoted Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer AG saying: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

Be that as it may, India did send a very strong signal in this regard, which some construe as mere tokenism. Nonetheless, this action of the Indian Government shook the global pharma world very hard, that it would find difficult to forget in a foreseeable future.

Government’s determination to make it happen is still eluding:

The headline of this article would probably invoke an instant negative response from my friends in the industry, an understandably so, expressing… ‘Hey, are you talking against innovation and suggesting one more regulator for the heavily regulated pharma industry?’

I would very humbly say, no…I am suggesting neither of those two, but requesting to give shape to a very important decision already taken by the Government on this issue, in a meaningful way. That decision has been scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and was notified on December 07, 2012.

On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

The following long drawn unproductive events would vindicate, beyond even an iota of doubt, that a strong determination to make it happen, by even by the new Government, is still eluding by far.

Is this committee ‘Jinxed’?

To utter dismay of the patients and their well-wishers, the above committee took over six years after it was formed to submit its report.

It recommended ‘Reference Pricing’ for the Patented Drugs in India, after adjusting against India’s Gross National Income and Purchasing Power Parity. The suggested ‘Reference Countries’ were UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand, where there exist a strong public health policy, together with tough bargaining power of the governments for drug price negotiations.

However, our Government found this report useless for various reasons and dissolved the panel. The grapevine in the corridors of power whispers, it could possibly be due to intense pressure from the global pharma players and their powerful lobby groups.

Interestingly, again by the end of 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) set up a brand new inter-ministerial committee with four representatives each from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and one from the DoP to resolve the same issue of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ in India.

Unfortunately, a serious issue of this magnitude has still remained unresolved, even under the new seemingly dynamic Government, till date. There were media reports though, just prior to the Union Budget in January 2015, that ‘the Government may negotiate prices of patented medicines with their manufacturers before allowing pharmaceutical companies to launch them in India.’

The scenario is still far from even sketchy. A lurking fear, therefore, creeps into the minds of many: Is this committee on ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ jinxed or incompetent or has deliberately been kept non-functional under tremendous external pressure on pricing of patented drugs?

The way forward:

To find an implementable ‘Patented Drug Pricing Model’ soon, the new committee of the Government should consider Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model for the country.

Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value of the drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

Thus, PBP/VBP basically offers the best value for money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.

To the best of my knowledge, the Public Health Foundation of India, spearheaded by well-reputed internationally acclaimed physician – Dr. Srinath Reddy, has requisite expertise in this area and to build on it further, as required by the committee.

This new model would help establishing in India that the price of any drug is always a key function of the value that it offers and not of the so called ‘high cost of innovation’, irrespective of whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even ‘Me-Too’ NCE.

The concept is gaining ground:

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Price tags of most of the patented new cancer drugs, do not seem to give any indication that the pharma players believe in this pricing model, even remotely. As JAMA Oncology has established in their recent research study, there is no difference in the median price of per year of treatment between ‘Next-in-Class’ and ‘Novel Drugs’.

Thus far, India has been able to address this issue either through section 3(d) or Compulsory Licensing (CL) provisions of its Patents Act. As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the net fall-out of these measures has been demonstrably profound. For example, the global pharma giant Gilead has entered into voluntary License (VL) agreements with several local companies to market in India one of the most expensive products of the world – Sovaldi, at a small fraction of its original price of US$1,000/tablet.

That said, effective long-term resolution of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ issue, in my view, is long overdue in India, especially for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. This has been necessitated by the fact that in many cases, therapeutic benefits of most of these drugs are not commensurate to their high costs.

The provision for ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ has already been made in the NPPP 2012, though not implemented, as yet. While working out an implementable mechanism for the same, the new committee of the present Government may consider ‘Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model’ to effectively resolve this crucial issue. The specialized group that will operate this system could be a part of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India.

The struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, without having access to new life-saving drugs, has indeed assumed a mind-boggling dimension in India, especially in the absence of Universal Health Coverage. It would continue to remain so, unless the new Government demonstrates its will to act, putting in place a transparent model of patented drugs pricing, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

The bottom-line is: It has to happen soon…very soon. For patients’ sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Posted on June 24, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Current general scenario in CT:

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘Magic Moment’ in the present regulatory process:

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

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

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

Adaptive Licensing:

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

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

Difference between current mechanism and AL:

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

Current system:

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

Adaptive Licensing:

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

Most desirable for many drugs:

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

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

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

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

A continuous regulatory evaluation and decision-making process:

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

Not necessary for all drugs in the near term:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent example of AL:

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

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

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

Another interesting recent development:

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

Criteria to include drugs under additional monitoring are:

Medicines authorized after January 1, 2011 that contain a new active substance.

Biologics for which there is limited post-marketing experience.

Medicines with a conditional approval or approved under exceptional circumstances.

Medicines for which the marketing-authorization holder is required to carry out a post-authorization safety study (PASS).

Other medicines can also be placed under additional monitoring, based on a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

Conclusion:

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

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

That said, some other experts do opine as follows:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Posted on December 24, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In India, there are various hurdles to address the healthcare issues in a comprehensive way. Though, these do not seem to be insurmountable, the country needs a clear time-bound grand strategy to squarely address this vexing concern, which also has its consequent socioeconomic fallout.

If we look at the history of development of the industrialized countries of the world, we shall easily be able to fathom that all of them not only had heavily invested, but even now are investing to improve the socioeconomic framework of the country where education and health are the center pieces. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas are proven key drivers of economic growth of any nation.

Just as focus on education is of utmost importance to realize the economic potential of any country, so is the healthcare. It will be extremely challenging for India to realize its dream of becoming one of the economic superpowers of the world, without a sharp strategic focus and significant resource allocation in these two areas.

The World Health Statistics:

As reported by the ‘World Health Statistics 2011′, India spends around 4.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, which is quite in line with other BRIC countries like, China and Russia.This has been possible mainly due to increasing participation of the private players in the healthcare sector and not so much by the government. The following table on ‘Health Expenditure’ will highlight this point:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Exp. on Health (% of GDP)	8.4	4.8	4.2	4.3
Govt. Exp. on Health(% of Total Exp. on Health)	44	64.3	32.4	47.3
Pvt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	56	35.7	67.6	52.7
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Govt. Exp.)	6	9.2	4.4	10.3
Social Security Exp. on Health (% of General Govt. Exp. on Health)	-	38.7	17.2	66.3

Key healthcare goals:

As articulated in a recent paper titled ‘Meeting the Challenges of Healthcare Needs in India: Paths to Innovation’, the key healthcare goals of any country have been described as follows:

Improved quality of care and population health as measured by life expectancy and other measures of wellness

Cost containment and pooled risk-sharing by the population to allow financial access to care as well as avoid catastrophic ruin
Provide access to care in an equitable manner for all citizens

Specifically to India one of the key challenges to healthcare is ‘Universal Access’ to care and health equity. However, in terms of pure concept the country has a universal healthcare system, where theoretically any citizen is entitled to avail the public health facilities irrespective of socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, the reality is far out of the line.

Health is a ‘State subject’:

In Indian system, health is primarily a state subject and the Central Government deals with:

Health related policies
Health related regulations
Initiatives related to identified disease prevention and control

Whereas, each state needs to take care of:

Healthcare administration
Healthcare delivery
Healthcare financing
Training of personnel related to healthcare

The system:

Primary Health Centers (PHCs) of India located in the cities, districts or rural villages are expected to provide medical treatment free of cost to the local citizens. The focus areas of these PHCs, as articulated by the government, are the treatment of common illnesses, immunization, malnutrition, pregnancy and child birth. For secondary or tertiary care, patients are referred to the state or district level hospitals.
The public healthcare delivery system is grossly inadequate and does not function, by and large, with an optimal degree of efficiency, though some of the government hospitals like, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) are among the best hospitals in India.

Most essential drugs, if available, are dispensed free of cost from the public hospitals/clinics. Outpatient treatment facilities available in the government hospitals are either free or available at a nominal cost. In AIIMS an outpatient card is available at a nominal onetime fee and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free to the patient.

However, the cost of inpatient treatment in the public hospitals though significantly less than the private hospitals, depends on the economic condition of the patient and the type of facilities that the individual will require. The patients who are from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families are usually not required to pay the cost of treatment. Such costs are subsidized or borne by the government.

Private sector is expensive:

That said, in India health facilities in the public sector being inadequate, generally under-staffed and under-financed, a large section of population still does not have access to affordable modern healthcare. As a result, more often than not, common patients are compelled to go to expensive private healthcare providers. Majority of the population of India cannot afford such high cost private healthcare, though comes with a much better quality.

Thus, as things stand today the public sector actually provides just about 20% of actual care services. The balance is catered by the private sector.

A great potential:

A 2012 report on ‘Indian Healthcare Industry’ indicates that in 2010 the size of the industry was around US$ 50 billion and is expected to register a turnover of US$ 140 billion in 2017 with a CAGR of 15 percent. This growth momentum, despite all these, positions India as one of the most lucrative markets within the developing countries of the world. On a global perspective as well, healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing segments clocking a turnover of US$ 5.5 trillion in 2010.

Growth drivers:

The main drivers of growth for the Indian healthcare industry are considered as follows:

Second highest growing economy in the world
Changing demographic profile
Increasing disposable income
Higher incidence of Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD)
New investment avenues
A large talent pool
Cost-effective human resource

Besides above, other growth drivers are as follows:

Increased penetration of pharmaceuticals in the rural markets
Increased export potential for low cost and high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as a large number of patents are going to expire in the next 5 years
Emergence of various health cities and also single specialty clinics offering quality healthcare
Health insurance portability is expected to increase the penetration of insurance, improve quality of service and raise competition among insurers to retain customers
Telemedicine: E-healthcare in rural areas is gaining popularity with the involvement of both
public and private players like, ISRO, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center and Narayana Hrudayalaya. Some telecom companies like, Nokia and BlackBerry are also contemplating to extend the use of mobile phones for remote disease monitoring as well as diagnostic and treatment support. Introduction of 3G and in the near future 4G telecom services will
further enhance opportunities of e-healthcare through mobile phones, expanding the field of healthcare.

Promising sectors:

Within the healthcare industry, the most promising sectors are:

Pharmaceuticals
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Medical equipment
Pathological labs and other diagnostic service providers

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector, besides pharmaceuticals, have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

Government initiatives:

On its part, the Indian government is also in the process of giving a thrust to the healthcare sector as a whole by:

Increasing public expenditure on healthcare from 1 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan Period
Encouraging public-private partnerships (PPP) in hospital infrastructure and R&D
Encouraging medical tourism
Attracting Indian and foreign players to invest in Tier-II and Tier-III cities with huge untapped market potential. For example:

- Expansion of major healthcare players in tier-II and tier-III cities of India like, Apollo, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Max Hospitals, Aravind Eye Hospitals and Fortis

- BCG Group will reportedly open shortly a multidisciplinary health mall that would provide a one-stop solution for all healthcare needs starting from doctors, hospitals, ayurvedic centers, pharmacies including insurance referral units at Palarivattom in Kochi, Kerala.

BCG’s long-term plan, as reported in the media, is to set up a health village spanning across an area of a 750,000 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of US$ 88.91 million. Along the same line, to set up more facilities for diagnostic services in India, GE Healthcare reportedly has planned to invest US$ 50 million for this purpose

Introduction of the ‘National Commission for Human Resources for Health Bill 2011( NCHRH Bill 2011)’, which will bring all independent bodies like the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the Nursing Council of India (NCI) under a centralized authority for a more cohesive action.

Attracting FDI:

According to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), the healthcare sector is undergoing significant transformation and attracting investments not only from within the country but also from overseas.

The Cumulative FDI inflow in the healthcare sector from April 2000 to October 2012, as per DIPP publications, is as follows:

Sector	FDI inflow (US$ million)
Hospital and diagnostic centers	1482.86
Medical and surgical appliances	571.91
Drugs and pharmaceuticals	9775.03

(Source: Fact Sheet on FDI – April 2000 to October 2012, DIPP)

Job creation:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following facts:

The Healthcare sector in India recorded a maximum post-recession recruitment to a total employee base of 36, 21,177 with a new job creation of 2, 73, 571, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2012’.

Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.

With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sectors of India in the years ahead.

A Strategy Prescribed:

Though the report of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on the ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ is already in place, without going into the implementability issues of the report in this article, I would like to propose a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process to achieve the national healthcare objectives:

1. The government should focus on its role as provider of preventive and primary healthcare to all, through public hospitals, dispensaries and PHCs, including free distribution of essential medicines.

2. In tandem, the government should play the role of enabler to create Public-Private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels with appropriate fiscal and other incentives.

3. PPP also may be extended to create a robust health insurance infrastructure urgently.

4. The insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate with concerned doctors, hospitals and other organizations, all fees payable by the patients to doctors, hospitals, for diagnostic services etc., including cost of medicines for both inpatients and outpatients treatment, with the sole objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the Healthcare Services Regulatory Authority (HSRA).

8. Make HSRS accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare to the entire population of the country together with a grievance redressal mechanism.

9. Make HSRS accountable, its operation transparent to the civil society through HSRS website and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

Conclusion:

All the ten steps prescribed as above, will help ensure a holistic approach to healthcare needs of India and reduce prevailing socioeconomic inequalities within the healthcare delivery systems of the country.

Rapidly growing urban centric five-star private healthcare initiatives are welcome but these are now just catering to the privileged few, perpetuating the pressing healthcare issues unanswered.

Only a well-orchestrated, comprehensive, time-bound and holistic approach is capable of addressing the humongous healthcare needs of India and at the same time providing much required growth momentum to the Indian healthcare industry, positioning India as one of the most lucrative healthcare hubs within the emerging economies of the world.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India

Posted on December 17, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The ‘hysteria’ on ‘Corporate Lobbying’ influencing the key policy decisions of India, reverberated in the corridors of power of the Indian Parliament last week with consequent media attraction and triggering a raging public debate.

On Monday, December 10, 2012 the Upper House of the Indian Parliament reportedly expressed itshuge concern over a lobbying disclosure in the United States related to a contentious government policy decision India.

Taking part in the debate a distinguished Member of the Parliament and an eminent lawyer Mr.Ravishankar Prasad reportedly articulated, “Lobbying is illegal in India and is a kind of bribe. If Wal-Mart has said that hundreds of crores of rupees were spent on India, then it is a kind of bribe.Government should tell who was given this bribe.”

Responding to the opposition demand on this subject, the Government has already ordered a judicial probe on this allegation.

Corporate Lobbying:

The term ‘Lobbying’ has been defined as “a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by Lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups”.

April 21, 2012 edition of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled. “The Chamber of Secrets - The biggest business lobby in the United States is more influential than ever”, reported that ‘Americas first chamber of commerce was founded in Charleston in 1773.

Many a times the key issues of corruption, morality and ethics are being used with ‘lobbying’ activity. However, following two different perceptions remain generally associated with this terminology:

Corporates or people with mighty socioeconomic power, by themselves or through their industry bodies, corrupt the laws to serve a self-serving agenda by bending or deflecting them away from general fairness to majority of the population.
It gives an opportunity to defend minority interest against corruption and tyranny of the majority.

An article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ on August 14, 2011 argued that “Blame for financial mess starts with the corporate lobby” in America.

In a recent book titled, “Time to Start Thinking – America and the Specter of Decline”, the author described how the big money in America has almost completely bought over the political process along with a pen picture of the organized lobbying group continuing to wield their mighty power despite reported ban of this activity in the ‘White House’ by President Barrack Obama.

Lobbying is legal in many countries:

It is worth mentioning that lobbying is a legal activity in many countries, such as, the United States of America, Europe and Canada. In the US, many Indian companies, including the government of India have been lobbying since so many years to present their cases and argument with the American law and policy makers.

When President Obama came to power in the US, it was reported: ‘one of the first acts of the Obama administration in office was to have an executive order which prohibited the Obama Administration either from hiring lobbyists – those who had lobbied within two years of joining the administration or allowing people who had left the Obama administration to service lobbyists for two years. The idea is that you want to break the chains where there is undue influence of special interest groups upon the government’.

‘Disclosure’ required in the US:

In the US, lobbying being recognized as a legitimate business activity, the companies are required to inform all such activities through quarterly disclosure reports to the US Senate.

In America, in 2012 alone and only in Washington DC there were reportedly 12,016 active registered lobbyists, who spent a whopping US$ 2.45 Billion for lobbying activities . Similarly, as per publishedreports, there are currently an estimated 15,000 individual lobbyists and 2,500 lobbyist organizations in Brussels to seek favorable business decisions through the legislative process of the European Union.

It has been reported that in the U.S. lobbying is a huge and established industry. This is quite contrary to Indian situation, where lobbying has not been legalized and the activity, going by general perception, ‘smacks of illegal gratification and is ravished by corruption scandals like 2G scams”.

Indian corporates also lobby in the US:

Records with the US House of Representatives reportedly show that around 27 Indian companies have spent money on lobbying in the US. Some examples are as follows:

Reliance Industries (RIL): Unspecified issue
Tata Sons:
Ranbaxy Lab,
The National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom )
Wipro
Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council, among others.

Some sensational recent reports:

Following are some sensational recent reports on Corporate Lobbying:

The ‘Pharma Letter’ in its in its March 29, 2012 edition reported that “New research reveals that the pharmaceutical industry lobby is spending more than 40 million Euros (US$ 53.5 million) annually to influence decision making in European Union.”

Back home ‘Live Mint (The wall Street Journal)’ reported on October 6, 2011 as follows:

“Wal-Mart has disclosed earlier, “discussion related to India FDI (Foreign Direct Investment)” as one of the issues in its lobbying with the US lawmakers in the first two quarters of 2011, during which it spent nearly US$ 4 million on various lobbying activities.”

On December 13, 2012, ‘The Telegraph‘ reported that in a recent regulatory disclosure in the United States, Walmart has stated that it spent US$ 25 million in the last four years on lobbying for, among other its hopes for “enhanced market access for investment in India”.

Not legalized in India:

As stated above, though Lobbying is considered a legal business activity in many countries, in India it is still not considered as a legally and recognized business activity. However, many industrial sectors have formed their respective associations primarily for lobbying with the government, which is generally termed as ‘advocacy’.

A recent article published in the India Law Journal titled, ‘Corporate Lobbying and Corruption-Manipulating Capital’ articulates that “lobbying is the preferred means for exerting political influence in developed countries and corruption the preferred one in developing countries. However, lobbying and corruption are symbiotic in nature as both are ways of obtaining help from the public sector in exchange for favors.”

The article further states that corporate lobbying or advocacy has expanded in India mostly as intensive briefings and presentations to the ministers and senior bureaucrats, though it is not yet recognized in a statutory or non-statutory form in the country.

Thus, right from the debate on Bofors Guns to the telephone tapes of high profile lobbyist Niira Radia related to 2G telecom scam and then Tatra trucks scam of the Indian Army and now on Walmart debate in the Parliament, one gets a clear feel that corporate lobbying falls in a grey zone under the Indian law.

Difference between ‘Lobbying’ and ‘Advocacy’:

According to the article titled, ‘Lobbying and Advocacy—Similarities and Differences, published by Charity Lobbying for the Public Interest’, when nonprofit organizations advocate on their own behalf, they seek to positively affect majority of the society, whereas lobbying refers specifically to advocacy efforts that attempt to influence policy or legislation of a country by interested groups, irrespective of its best outcome to the society.

More debate:

In a very recent reported debate published on December 15, 2012 titled, “Is lobbying an acceptable business practice? “, one distinguished professional said, ‘While lobbying can be considered routine, the response to it should not be, as it can be deeply harmful to our country’.

In the same debate, another equally distinguished person commented, ‘Lobbying may be a legitimate activity subject to strict regulatory oversight in the US. But in India, it a sophisticated alibi for the more brazen bribe-giving, what with cash still ruling the roost with its subterranean links lubricating all sections of the economy.”

More controversy:

Not so very long ago, some consumer activists from the civil society vehemently protested against the ‘Intellectual Property Conferences’ held in India, which were allegedly sponsored by some interested groups in a guise to influence the policy makers and the judiciary of India.

It was widely reported that the consumer activists viewed these IP summits, organized by the George Washington University Law School of USA as ‘attempts to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues that are pending in Indian courts.’

In a letter dated February 26, 2010 addressed to Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India, over 20 NGOs demanded transparency and more information on such meetings and wanted the government of India ‘to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with Indian judges and policymakers to promote their own requirements for intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases currently pending before, various courts and the Indian Patent Office.”

In raising their concerns, the civil society groups argued that the posture adopted by the lobbyists and their supporters is to “force India to adopt greater standards” of IP protection “beyond the mandatory levels” required by the WTO, which may ‘go against public health interest of India’.

The need for a middle path:

In the current volatile scenario, it is quite reasonable to expect that lobbying activities in India, especially after the current uproar in the Parliament, may come under greater scrutiny both by the media and the government. The intervention of the courts against ‘Public Interest Litigation (PIL)’ cannot also be ruled out.

However, it is also believed by many that long-term interest of India is expected to ultimately prevail in this closely watched raging debate with the acceptance of a middle path.

A strong argument in favor of lobbying/advocacy:

As stated above, there is also a strong argument in support of lobbying or advocacy, based on the following grounds:

In a democratic country like India, people from across the spectrum, including the industries and its associations, should have the right to convey their views to policy makers.
Lobbying should be regarded as a “fundamental basis to express a point of view”, industry included.
Trying to influence the government is a natural process by all, including the civil society, other stakeholders and the industry alike.

Regulating lobbying activities – An option:

Considering the fast changing environment and arising out of some recent very sensational lobbying related financial/policy scams in India, as mentioned above, the moot question, as is being raised by many across the country is: “Should the government regulate lobbying activities in the country with appropriate regulations?”

Surrogate lobbying:

The instances of ‘surrogate lobbying’ by the industries with funds coming from various parts of the world are also being raised by the civil society, media and recently by the Government. The contentious issue became the subject of a heated debate related to ‘Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant’ in Tamil Nadu.

In February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reportedly charged that foreign NGOs for stoking protests with foreign funds at the ‘Kudankulam Nuclear power Plant’ for vested interests and ordered further investigation by the Ministry of Home Affairs to track the trails of funds.

As a result of all these developments, the Government is reportedly becoming increasingly more vigilant against direct or indirect ‘foreign hand’ through surrogate lobbying in the policy related issues of the country, against majority interest of the society. The ‘Walmart saga’ is a case in point, at this stage.

Industry observers have opined, probably many other forms of surrogate lobbying are currently operational in India, which needs to be thoroughly probed and in case of any illegal activity, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, sooner than later, whether it is related to ‘Kundamkulam Nuclear Power Plant’ or any other .

Examples of political fall-out of lobbying activities:

On June 1, 2012, FiercePharma reported as follows:

“The cat is out of the bag so to speak with the disclosure of memos today detailing the level of drug industry support for passage of President Obama’s prized healthcare reform”

It continued to state, “Big Pharma came around to support the original bill, trading about $80 billion in additional taxes and some price rebates to federal programs for an expanded pool of insured.”

Back home in India, The Outlook Magazine reported on June 6, 2010 on the political fall-out of lobbying related to 2G telecom spectrum allocation scam in India as follows:

“Since Outlook published extracts from the CD of Radia’s phone conversations (submitted to the court) taped by the I-T department and put the 140 conversations up on its website, there has been a raging debate on what they tell us about the role of lobbyists in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, how the media interplays in such a system, and how our political class and retired bureaucrats are more often than not willing partners in the game.”

“These debates do not detract from the aim of punishing the guilty behind the 2G scam; rather they raise disturbing questions we all have to answer. Who is this woman who can speak to the “highest and mightiest” in this country in this way? From where does she draw her power? And what does it tell us about our society? When ‘Outlook’ asked her, whether she would like to give her version of these recent events, Radia SMSed back: “No. Thank You.” This is her story..”

Conclusion:

Despite a long history of regulated and legalized lobbying in the US, there are still severe criticisms even in that country about the way lobbying activities have worked there in the past so many decades. India has plenty to learn from such experiences.

In the prevailing situation within India many experts often question, whether the economic/ other critical policy decisions of the country are mostly based on what the local population would require or depend on the money power of vested interests or business houses within and outside the country to influence such decisions.

To eliminate any possibility of illegal gratification, directly or indirectly or in any other manner or form, the process of lobbying or advocacy should be made absolutely transparent for all through appropriate rules and regulations, legally acceptable lobbyists and an appropriate disclosure mechanism for all such related expenses, just as exists in the United States of America.

In absence of these transparent and robust measures, lobbying or advocacy will continue to be perceived not just as an illegitimate activity, but also an ignoble and dubious profession in the eyes of majority living in India.

The fantastic vocabulary of ‘Good Governance’ should not be used just for others to practice. It is a time to ‘walk the talk’ for all stakeholders, including the government to douse histrionics of various kinds like, what happened last week on ‘Corporate Lobbying in India’.

By: Tapan J Ray

A NEW Study on Ballooning Pharma R&D Cost: Exploring a Sustainable Model for Greater Patients’ Access

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The high-decibel debate on increasing prices for patented drugs affecting patients’ access to innovative medicines gets a new fuel. A brand new study dated December 2012 carried out by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), UK, which was partly supported by a grant from AstraZeneca, estimated that the cost of developing new medicine has risen by ten times from US$100 million in the 1970s to as high as US$ 1.9 billion in 2011.

The study identifies the following key reasons for a galloping increase in the cost of research and development:

Inflation-adjusted investments
Sharp increase in the rate of failure
Stringent regulatory demands together with scientific complexity
Longer time for clinical development
Significant increase in the cost of capital

Another recent study goes even beyond:

Many experts have gone even further on this subject, arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real cost is much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article articulates.

The important caveat:

The authors also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

A positive side of the story:

The book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

The ground reality: R&D productivity is going south

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

According to findings of the latest review of ‘Pharmaceutical R&D returns performance’ by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters of December 2012, the R&D Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of leading pharmaceutical companies has fallen for a second successive year to 7.2 percent in 2012 from 7.7 percent in 2011.

High cost of failure:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Conventional thinking and an unsustainable model:

Research scientists have already articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
Significant reduction in drug development time.

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model still remains a wishful thinking and a question mark to many for various other reasons.

Exploring a seemingly ‘Sustainable Model’:

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move from the traditional models to a much less charted frontier?

Perhaps towards this direction, in November, 2010 a report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Open Source Innovation Increasingly Being Used to Promote Innovation in the Drug Discovery Process and Boost Bottom-line”, underscored the urgent need of the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective Research and Development initiatives, in general.

‘Open Innovation’ model, they proposed, will be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process. Currently, on an average it takes about 8 to 10 years to bring an NCE/NME to market with a cost of around U.S$ 1.9 billion.

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used by the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades all over the world, including India. Web Technology, the Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ – the open source mobile OS, are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ in IT.

In the sphere of Biotechnology Human Genome Sequencing is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam commented, “Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) explores new models of drug discovery”. He highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source philosophy’ by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world. In today’s world ‘Open Innovation’ in the pharmaceutical R&D has a global relevance, especially, for the developing world of many ‘have-nots’.

‘Open Innovation’:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. The licensing arrangement of OSDD where both invention and copyrights will be involved, will be quite different from any ‘Open Source’ license for a software development.

In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of:

Open development
Open access
Open source

As stated earlier, ‘Open Innovation’ concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where a large number of scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. However, this innovation process was first used to understand the mechanics of proteins by the experts of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries.

Making innovative drugs affordable through ‘Open Innovation’:

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a reasonably cheaper price, especially for Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD) or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis etc. and also many neglected diseases of the developing countries, to make innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized people of the world.

Multiple benefits:

According to the above report of Frost & Sullivan on the subject, the key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals will include:

Bringing together the best available minds to tackle “extremely challenging” diseases
Speed of innovation
Risk-sharing
Affordability

The key barrier: Shared IPR

Industry observers feel that the key barrier to ‘Open Innovation’ is that IPR needs to be shared. Hence, large innovator companies, by and large, have not evinced much commercial interest in this initiative as yet. Other issues for ‘Open Innovation’ model are:

Who will fund the project and how much?
Who will lead the project?
Who will coordinate the project and find talents?
Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

However, the experts feel that all these do not seem to be an insurmountable problem at all, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

The Global initiatives on ‘Open Innovation’:

In June 2008, GlaxoSmithKline announced that it was donating an important slice of its research on cancer cells to the cancer research community to boost the collaborative battle against this disease. With this announcement, genomic profiling data for over 300 sets of cancer cell lines was released by GSK to the National Cancer Institute’s bioinformatics grid. It has been reported that over 900 researchers actively contribute to this grid from across the industry, research institutes, academia and NGOs. Many believe that this initiative will further gain momentum to encourage many more academic institutions, researchers and even smaller companies to add speed to the drug discovery pathways and at the same time make the NCE/NME coming through such process much less expensive and affordable to a large section of the society, across the globe.

The Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is another example of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) project with an objective ‘to define the rate of progress of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, develop improved methods for clinical trials in this area and provide a large database which will improve design of treatment trials’.

Recently announced ‘Open invitation’ strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example where GSK has collaborated with European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make the details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US$ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility.

Indian initiative:

In India, Dr. Samir Brahmachari, the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India OSDD will help the common people to meet their unmet medical needs in the areas of neglected tropical diseases.

‘Open Innovation’ project of CSIR is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

To fund this initiative of the CSIR the Government of India has allocated around U.S$ 40 million and an equivalent amount of funding would be raised from international agencies and philanthropists.

Conclusion:

Currently pharmaceutical R&D is an in-house initiative of innovator global companies. Mainly for commercial security reasons, only limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to the projects.

‘Open Innovation’ on the other hand, is believed to have the potential to create a win-win situation, bringing in substantial benefits to both the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients.

According to available reports, the key advantage of the ‘Open Innovation’ model will be substantial reduction in the costs and time of R&D projects, which could be achieved through voluntary participation of a large number of Researchers/Scientists/Institutions in key R&D initiatives. This in turn will significantly reduce ‘mind-to-market’ time of more affordable New Chemical/Molecular Entities in various disease areas making innovative medicines affordable to all.

Thus, many experts argue, high prices of new patented drugs, giving rise to low access to majority of patients, at least, in the developing world, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. They feel, such ballooning increase in research and development expenditures is commercially unsustainable even in the medium term.

Many thought leaders now believe, despite hard commercial consideration related to IPR, which perhaps has to be amicably sorted out willy-nilly in the long run, ‘Open Innovation’ concept could well be an important commercial model for tomorrow’s global R&D initiatives. This sustainable model would possibly address the issue of improving access to innovative affordable Medicines to a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs, more effectively and with greater care.

By: Tapan J Ray

Revocation and Denial of Patents on Patentability Ground in India: The Fallout and the Road Ahead

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Tapan Ray

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug 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, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. Interestingly Pegasys was granted patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – 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, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), which was granted by 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.

A twist and turn:

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

The key reason:

All these are happening, as the amended Patents Act 2005 of India includes special protections for both patients and generic manufacturers by barring product patents involving ‘incremental’ changes to existing drugs. This practice is called “evergreening” by many.

It is worth noting, such ‘incremental innovations’ qualify for the grant of patents across the world including, Europe, Japan and the USA and that reason prompted initiation of a raging debate throwing strong arguments both in favor and against of this issue, though the subject conforms to the law of the land.

‘Incremental innovation’ still a contentious issue in India:

As on today in the Indian Patents Act 2005, there is virtually no protection for ‘incremental innovation’, as the section 3(d) of the statute states 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.”

The apprehension:

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

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industriy, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
A robust patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs.
Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Is it ‘MNC Interest’ versus ‘Indian Interest’ issue?

Many domestic stakeholders reportedly are looking at this particular subject as ‘MNC Interest’ versus ‘Indian Interest’ in the realm of intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While others holding opposite view-points counter it by saying, this is a narrow and unfair perspective to address the much broader issue of fostering innovation within the Indian pharmaceutical industry helping capacity building, attracting talent and investments, while creating an IPR friendly ecosystem for the country in tandem.

Incidentally many MNCs, as reported by a section of the media, have demonstrated proven long-standing commitment to India, as they have been operating in the country with impeccable repute for a much longer period than most of the domestic pharmaceutical players, if not all, spanning across all scale and size of operations.

Are the patent challenges under section 3(d) being used as a ‘business strategy’?

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India.

This game seems to have just begun and may probably assume unhealthy dimension, if not openly debated and appropriate remedial actions are taken, as will deem necessary by the law makers keeping in view the long term, both global and local, implications of the same.

The beginning of the dispute:

As we know, 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. However, Novartis challenged the decision in the Supreme Court of India and in September, 2012, the final arguments in the Glivec case commenced. The matter is now sub judice.

Experts have opined that this interesting development has put Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 to an ‘Acid Test’ and the final verdict of the apex court will have the last say on the interpretation of this much talked about section of the statute.

Industry observers from both schools of thought – pro and against, are now waiting eagerly for the final outcome of this long standing dispute with bated breath, as it were.

Differing view points on impact:

Though the domestic stakeholders, including the local pharmaceutical industry, by and large, have expressed satisfaction with the law having taken its own course, the adversely affected companies articulated their strong disappointments with the developments. These companies argue, since valid patents were granted across the world for all these products, they had deployed significant financial and other resources starting from the regulatory approval process to market launch of such products in India with reasonable confidence.

Now with the such revocation and denial of patents, the concerned companies feel that they will have to suffer significant financial losses besides high ‘Opportunity Costs’ for these molecules in India.

Interestingly, neutral observers have reportedly opined that this contentious issue, if not addressed appropriately and sooner by the government keeping in view the global business climate, will ultimately leave a lasting negative impression on the global community regarding the quality of IP ecosystem and investment climate in India, which consequently could lead to far reaching economic consequences extending even beyond the pharmaceutical industry of the country.

However, most of the local stakeholders advocate that there is no need to have a relook at it, in any way.

Opposition from the domestic industry:

It has been reported that a detailed study commissioned by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ and authored by Mr. T. C. James, Director, National Intellectual Property Organization, and a former bureaucrat in the ‘Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)’, articulated as follows:

“There is no clinching evidence to show that without a strong patent protection regime innovations cannot occur, that minor incremental innovations in the pharmaceutical sector do not require patent protection and that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act is not a bar for patenting of significant incremental innovations.”

In his report Mr. James also criticized large ‘Multinational Companies (MNCs)’ for “exploring strategies to extend their hold on the market, including through obtaining patents on minor improvements of existing drugs.”

The author continues to argue in favor of the section 3(d) the as follows:

It will be incorrect to conclude that Section 3 (d) is not compatible with TRIPS Agreement.
It has stood the test of time and does not introduce any unreasonable restrictions on patenting.
It is a major public health safeguard as it blocks extension of patent period through additional patents on insignificant improvements paving the way for introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.
Pharma companies need to be given incentives for undertaking more research and development, but removing section 3(d) will be counterproductive.
A good marketing strategy for the companies would be to concentrate on R & D in diseases which are endemic to countries like Brazil, China and India which are fast emerging as major economies.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

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.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will indeed be a nightmarish situation for innovators of all caste, creed and colors, irrespective of national or multinational background.

Recapitulation of ‘Revised Mashelkar Committee Report’:

In August 2009, the Government accepted the revised report of the ‘Mashelkar Committee’, which observed the following:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology.”

2. “Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Could it have an impact on FDI?

Keen observers of these developments have reportedly expressed that revocation of granted patents or denial of patents on patentability criteria for the molecules, which hold valid patents elsewhere in the world, is sending a very negative signal to the global community and vitiating, among others, the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) climate in the country. However, many local experts interpret this observation as mere ‘posturing’ at the behest of the MNCs’ interest.

The point to ponder:

The innovator companies have been arguing since quite some time that innovation involving any New Chemical Entity (NCE) never stops just after its market launch. Scientists keep working on such known molecules to meet more unmet needs of the patients within the same therapeutic class.

They substantiate their argument by citing examples like, after the discovery of beta-blockers, incremental innovation on this drug continued. That is why, from non-cardio-selective beta-blockers like Propranolol, the world received cardio-selective beta-blockers like Atenolol, offering immense benefits and choices to the doctors for the well being of patients.

Thus, global innovators reiterate very often that such examples of high value ‘incremental innovation’ are important points to ponder in India.

Patent challenge is a legal process, but…:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue with gusto that ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process and the law should be allowed to take its own course.

However, the opposition counter-argues that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being that the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents and the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather difficult to accept. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Conclusion:

The spirit of ‘public health interest’ and avoidance of frivolous patents behind Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act is indeed commendable.

However, exclusion of almost all kinds of ‘incremental innovation’ for not meeting the very subjective and highly discretionary ‘efficacy’ criterion in the above section could prove to be counterproductive in the long run, even for the domestic players. The reason being, many such innovations will help enhancing safety, efficacy and compliance, besides other properties, of already existing molecules meeting various unmet needs of the patients.

Looking from a different perspective altogether, restrictive provisions in Section 3(d) could well go against the public health interest in the longer term, especially when the government is considering a mechanism of price negotiation for the patented drugs in India, as stated above.

Thus weighing pros and cons of both the arguments, in the finer balance of probability in terms of net gain to India as a nation, I reckon, appropriate legislative amendment in the section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 will give a much required boost and incentive to pharmaceutical research and development in India.

This long overdue course-correction, if dealt with crafty win-win legal minds, will be able to protect not only high value “incremental innovations” of all innovators, global or local, in pursuit of significantly better and better drugs for the patients of India, but at the same time will effectively address the genuine apprehensions of ‘evergreening’ through frivolous patents.

…Or else should we wait till the final verdict of the Supreme Court comes on the Glivec case of Novartis?… Keeping my fingers crossed.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Conundrum of Stringent IPR Regime in India: Responsible Pricing still remains ‘The Final Frontier’

Posted on November 26, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In his management classic named, ‘The Practice of management’, published in 1954, the universal management guru Peter Drucker postulated that any successful business is driven by only the following two fundamental functions:

Marketing
Innovation

…and all the rests are costs. Drucker’s above postulation is as valid today as it has been in the past for so many decades. Cutting edge expertise in managing innovation, which may not necessarily mean the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and marketing the same better than competition will continue to remain the name of the game for business excellence, perhaps in all time to come, across the world and India is no exception. No doubt, for the same reason the current decade has been termed as ‘the decade of innovation’ by none other than the Prime Minister of India.

The innovators’ financial and non-financial claims on the fruits of value-adding creations following the prescribed inventive steps is epitomized in the IPR, which confers a legal protection to the innovator based on the relevant national IP Act of individual countries. Any successful innovation will give rise to meeting an unmet need with innovative products or services for doing things more efficiently and effectively than ever before.

Excellence in the financial performance of business organizations driven by innovation is expected to keep this wheel of progress moving with optimal speed in perpetuity. Thus, innovation must be encouraged through appropriate legal protection of IP, creating a win-win socioeconomic environment for a country.

Why protect patent?

The pharmaceutical major Eli Lilly had very aptly summarized the reason for patent protection in their website called ‘LillyPad’, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies continue to invest in innovation not only because it is good for business, but it is what patients expect. If we want to continue to have breakthrough products, we need patent protection and incentives to invest in intellectual property. The equation is simple, patents lead to innovation – which help lead to treatments and cures”.

Positive impact of an IPR regime:

In a paper titled “Strengthening the Patent Regime: Benefits for Developing countries – A Survey”, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, the authors concluded that innovativeness of developing countries has now reached a stage where it is positively impacted by a robust Intellectual Property regime. The authors further stated that a robust patent ecosystem is among other important policy variables, which affect inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the developing nations.

Another paper titled, “The Impact of the International Patent system in the Developing Countries”, published by the ‘World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’, though a bit dated of October 2003, states that a robust national patent system in developing countries contributes to their national socioeconomic development. The paper also highlights the experience of some developing nations, which found usefulness of a strong patent system in creation of wealth for the nation.

IPR debate is not non product exclusivity:

It is important to understand, though a raging debate is now all pervasive related to the level of IPR protection for drugs, across the world, there has not been many questions raised by most stakeholders on the exclusive rights on patents by the innovators. The center piece of the arguments and counter-arguments revolves predominantly around responsible pricing of such IPR protected medicines affecting patients’ access.

Need to go beyond IPR:

Echoing similar sentiments in the Indian context the Global CEO of GSK commented in October 18, 2012 that while intellectual property protection is an important aspect of ensuring that innovation is rewarded, the period of exclusivity in a country should not determine the price of the product. Witty said, ‘At GSK we will continuously strive to defend intellectual property, but more importantly, defend tier pricing to make sure that we have appropriate pricing for the affordability of the country and that’s why, in my personal view, our business in India has been so successful for so long.’

Is this view shared by all in the global pharma industry?

Not really. All in the global pharmaceutical industry does not necessarily seem to share the above views of Andrew Witty and believe that to meet the unmet needs of patients, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of innovative products must be strongly protected by the governments of all countries putting in place a robust product patent regime and the pricing of such products should not come in the way at all.

The industry also argues that to recover high costs of R&D and manufacturing of such products together with making a modest profit, the innovator companies set a product price, which at times may be perceived as too high for the marginalized section of the society, where government intervention is required more than the innovator companies. Aggressive marketing activities, the industry considers, during the patent life of a product, are essential to gain market access for such drugs to the patients.

In support of the pharmaceutical industry the following argument was put forth in a recent article:

“The underlying goal of every single business is to make money. People single out pharmaceutical companies for making profits, but it’s important to remember that they also create products that save millions of lives.”

IPR, product price and patients’ access:

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.

The Doha Declaration:

Many independent experts in this field consider the Doha Declaration as an important landmark for recognizing the primacy to public health interest over private intellectual property and the rights of the members of WTO to use safeguards as enumerated in TRIPS, effectively. To protect public health interest and extend access to innovative medicines to majority of their population whenever required, even many developed/OECD countries do not allow a total freehand for the patented products pricing in their respective countries.

How much then to charge for an IPR protected drug?

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce, after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price. Moreover, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market.

An evolving rational system for responsible pricing of IPR protected drugs:

The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

In countries like, Australia and within Europe in general, health outcomes data analysis is almost mandatory to establish effectiveness of a new drug over the existing ones.

Even in the US, where the reimbursement price is usually negotiated with non-government payors, many health insurers have now started recognizing the relevance of these data.

Such price negotiations at times take a long while and may also require other concessions by manufacturers, just for example:

In the UK, a specified level of profitability may constrain the manufacturers.
Spain would require a commitment of a sales target from the manufacturers, who are made responsible to compensate for any excess sales by paying directly to the government either the incremental profit or by reducing the product price proportionately.

Metamorphosis in Pharmaceutical pricing models:
Pharmaceutical pricing mechanism is undergoing significant metamorphosis across the world. The old concept of pharmaceutical price being treated as almost given and usually determined only by the market forces with very less regulatory scrutiny is gradually but surely giving away to a new regime. Currently in many cases, the prices of patented medicines differ significantly from country to country across the globe, reflecting mainly the differences in their healthcare systems and delivery, along with income status and economic conditions.

Global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

The reference drug may be of different types, for example:

Another drug in the same therapeutic category
A drug having the same clinical indications available in the country of interest e.g. Canada fixes the drug prices with reference to prices charged for the same drug in the US and some European Union countries.

Responsible pricing in the changing paradigm:

Taking note of the above scenario, while looking at the big picture, the global pharmaceutical players, experts believe, should take note of the following factors while formulating their India-specific game plan to be successful in the country without worrying much about invocation of Compulsory License (CL) for not meeting ‘Reasonably Affordable Price’ criterion, as provided in the Patents Act of the country:

While respecting IPR and following Doha declaration, the government focus on ‘reasonably affordable drug prices’ will be even sharper due to increasing pressure from the Civil Society, Indian Parliament and also from the Courts of the country triggered by ‘Public Interest Litigations (PIL)’
India will continue to remain within the ‘modest-margin’ range for the pharmaceutical business with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
Although innovation will continue to be encouraged with IPR protection, the amended Patents Act of India is ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented, including restrictions on patentability, which, based on early signals, many other countries are expected to follow as we move on.
This situation though very challenging for many innovator companies, is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, even under pressure of various “Free Trade Agreements (FTA)”.

Many global companies are still gung-ho about India:

Despite above scenario, many global companies like GSK are reportedly still quite gung-ho about India as evident in the following recent statement of their Global CEO, Andrew Witty:

“I am a huge bull on India and I have a very strong sense of optimism about the future potential of this country. Of course, there continues to be policy uncertainties in certain areas of government decision-making, particularly in pharma. While there are the areas under question, but the overall picture makes you feel positive about India.”

Late 2011, echoing similar sentiment the Global CEO of Sanofi and now the ‘President Elect’ of the European Pharmaceutical Association EFPIA commented as follows:

“I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Recognition of national healthcare priorities:

It may be prudent to recognize and accept that a paradigm change is taking place, slowly but surely, in the way pharmaceutical businesses are conducted in India, where replication of any western business model could be counterproductive. The strategy has to be India specific, accepting the priorities of the countries.

Be a part of the solution process:

To achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical market of India, there is a dire need for all stakeholders to join hands with the Government, without further delay, to contribute with their global knowledge, experience and expertise to help resolving the critical issues of the healthcare sector of the nation. This will help demonstrating that the global pharmaceutical industry is extending its hands to be a part of the healthcare solution process of India, like:

Creation and modernization of healthcare infrastructure leveraging IT
In the implementation of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project
Reaching out to help formulate win-win regulatory policies
Help Creating employable skilled manpower
Ensure availability of reasonably affordable medicines for the common man through a robust government procurement and delivery system

Right attitude of all stakeholders to find a win-win solution for all such issues, instead of adhering to the age-old blame game in perpetuity, as it were, without conceding each others’ ground even by an inch, is of utmost importance at this hour.

In this rapidly changing scenario, the name of the game for all players of the industry, both global and local, I believe, is recognition of the changing socioeconomic environment and market dynamics of India, active engagement in its paradigm changing process and finally adaptation to the countries changing aspirations and priorities to create a win-win situation for all.

Government should reach out:

It is high time for the Government of India, I reckon, to also reach out for reaping a rich harvest from the emerging lucrative opportunities, coming both from within and the outside world in the healthcare space of the country. Effective utilization of these opportunities, in turn, will help India to align itself with the key global healthcare need of providing reasonably affordable healthcare to all, despite a robust IPR protected regime across the world.

Conclusion:

While encouraging innovation and protecting it with an effective IPR regime is very important for any country, no nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the powerful growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

At the same time, it should be recognized by all that there should be full respect, support and protection for innovation and the IPR system in the country. This is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

Having said that, available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population. It is, therefore, now widely believed that pharmaceutical products, which play a pivotal role in keeping the population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should not be exploited by anyone.

Pharmaceutical companies are often criticized in this area by those stakeholders who claim to be genuinely concerned with the well-being of particularly the underprivileged population across the world.

Some experts have already opined that prices of IPR protected drugs will no longer remain ‘unquestionable’ in increasing number of countries. In that scenario, responsible pricing may, therefore, emerge as the ‘Final Frontier’ to address the conundrum of a robust IPR protected regime in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Compulsory Licensing

Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Unsustainable New Cancer Drug Prices: Resolution Remains A Far Cry

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India

A NEW Study on Ballooning Pharma R&D Cost: Exploring a Sustainable Model for Greater Patients’ Access

Revocation and Denial of Patents on Patentability Ground in India: The Fallout and the Road Ahead

The Conundrum of Stringent IPR Regime in India: Responsible Pricing still remains ‘The Final Frontier’