Drug Prescription In Generic Names Only, No Branded Generics

Posted on August 20, 2023 by Tapan Ray

The World Bank Report released on April 07, 2023 highlights that patients’ Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenses as a percentage of their total healthcare expenditure in India still accounted for as high as 50.59%. This means that patients in India generally pay for the majority of their healthcare costs themselves, rather than through insurance or government funding. The high level of OoP expenses in India has been a major problem for many patients, even today. Studies indicate it often leads to financial hardship, especially for low-income families.

A number of factors contribute to the high level of OoP in the country, as a whole, with regional variations. According to several studies, the healthcare costs in India are rising faster than inflation, making it increasingly difficult for more people to afford the care they need, especially for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Different union governments while in power have taken several steps to address this problem, such as, in 2018, the launch of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY), a national health insurance scheme. It provides free coverage for poor and vulnerable families. The PMJAY is expected to have helped in reducing OoP for some patients, but it is not yet clear how much of an impact it has had overall.

On April 24, 2017, I asked on this blog – would drug ‘Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?’. Interestingly, in August 2023, a new circular from the National Medical Commission (NMC) notified professional conduct regulations for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), including guidance to doctors on drug prescriptions. This has raised a furor, as it were, among many medical practitioners and their associations. In this article, I shall deliberate on the pros and cons of this decision and its practicality in India. Let me start with the rationale behind such thinking, as I see it.

The rationales behind drug prescription only in generic names in India:

As I see it, there are several rationales behind doctors prescribing drugs only under generic names in India. Here are some of the most important ones:

Cost savings: Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs. This is because generic drugs do not have to go through the same expensive clinical trials and marketing campaigns as brand-name drugs. As a result, they can be sold at a much lower price. This can save patients a significant amount of money, especially for expensive medications.

Increased access to medicines: The lower cost of generic drugs can make them more accessible to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them. This is especially important in India, where a large proportion of the population lives below access, the poverty line. Generic drugs can help to ensure that everyone has access to the medicines they need.

Improved competition: The availability of generic drugs can lead to increased competition in the pharmaceutical market. This can drive down prices even further and benefit patients.

Reduced risk of counterfeit drugs: Generic drugs are regulated by the government and must meet the same quality standards as brand-name drugs. This means that patients can be confident that they are getting a safe and effective product, regardless of whether it is a generic or brand-name drug. Counterfeit drugs, on the other hand, are often made with substandard ingredients and can be dangerous to take. By prescribing generic drugs, doctors can help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs.

Transparency and accountability: In addition to these benefits, prescribing drugs under generic names can also help to promote transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. When doctors prescribe drugs under generic names, it is easier for patients to compare prices and choose the best option for their needs. This can help to drive down prices and improve the quality of care.

A draft regulation was notified in 2022 for comments by all concerned:

For this purpose, a draft regulation was issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) on May 23, 2022, for comments by all concerned, before it becomes mandatory in 2023. The NMC has also stated that it will take steps to ensure that the quality of generic drugs is maintained. The NMC will work with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to ensure that generic drugs meet the required quality standards.

The final notification goes beyond drug prescription in generic names:

On August 03, 2023, The National Medical Commission (NMC) notified the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP). It not only provides guidance to avoid branded generic drugs and prescribing drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only, but also, restricts doctors from getting involved in any third-party educational activity like Continuing Professional Development, seminar, workshop, symposia, conference, etc., which involves direct or indirect sponsorships from pharmaceutical companies or the allied health sector.

It justified its decision by saying, “India’s out-of-pocket spending on medication accounts for a major proportion of public spending on health care. Further, generic medicines are 30% to 80% cheaper than branded drugs. Hence, prescribing generic medicines may overtly bring down health care costs and improve access to quality care.” The notification also provided guidance on telemedicine consultation and prescriptions.

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) Protested against it:

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) submitted a memorandum to the Indian regulator, the National Medical Commission (NMC), on February 7, 2023, protesting against the compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The memorandum argued that the regulations would harm patients and doctors, and that they were being implemented without proper consultation with stakeholders.

The IMA also stated that the regulations would violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of doctors. The memorandum said that doctors should be free to prescribe drugs based on their medical judgment, and that they should not be forced to prescribe generic drugs.

The IMA’s protest is significant because it is the first major challenge to the NMC’s regulations on compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The protest could have a significant impact on the implementation of the regulations, and it could also lead to changes in the regulations.

It is important to note that the IMA is not the only organization that has expressed concerns about the NMC’s regulations. Several other medical associations have also expressed concerns, and some doctors have also spoken out against the regulations.

The controversy over the NMC’s regulations is likely to continue for some time. It is important to note that there are valid concerns on both sides of the issue. It is also important to remember that the regulations are still in the early stages of implementation, and that it is too early to say what their long-term impact will be.

A few reasons why doctors in India may be hesitant to prescribe drugs under generic names.

Here are some of the most common reasons:

Lack of awareness: Some doctors may not be aware of the benefits of generic drugs. They may believe that brand-name drugs are always better than generic drugs, even though this is not always the case.

Influence from pharmaceutical companies: Pharmaceutical companies often give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This can create a conflict of interest for doctors, who may be more likely to prescribe brand-name drugs even if they believe that generic drugs are just as effective.

Patient demand: Some patients may specifically ask for brand-name drugs, even if generic drugs are available. This can put pressure on doctors to prescribe brand-name drugs, even if they believe that generic drugs are a better option.

Quality concerns: There have been some cases of counterfeit generic drugs being sold in India. This can lead to doctors being hesitant to prescribe generic drugs, as they may be concerned about the quality of the drugs.

Some ways to encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs:

Educate doctors about the benefits of generic drugs. Doctors need to be aware of the benefits of generic drugs in order to be willing to prescribe them. They should be taught about the cost savings, increased access, and improved quality of generic drugs.

Reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies on doctors. Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This would help to ensure that doctors are prescribing drugs based on the best interests of their patients, rather than on financial considerations.

Encourage patients to ask for generic drugs. Patients should be aware of the benefits of generic drugs and should ask their doctors to prescribe them whenever possible. This will help to create a demand for generic drugs and encourage doctors to prescribe them.

Improve the quality control of generic drugs. The government should take steps to improve the quality control of generic drugs in India. This would help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs.

By taking these steps, we can encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs and make them more accessible to patients. This would help to save patients money, improve access to medicines, and reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation.

Conclusion:

I now revert to this month’s notification of the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), providing new guidance for drug prescriptions in India. It clearly indicates that doctors should avoid prescribing branded generic drugs, instead prescribe drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only. ‘However, in the case of drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, biosimilars, and similar other exceptional cases, the practice of prescribing generic names only, can be relaxed,’ it elaborated.

Weighing the pros and cons of this notification, I reckon, despite the reasons articulated by doctors and their associations, besides the branded generic manufacturers, there are many benefits to prescribing drugs under generic names only. Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs, and they are just as effective. They can also help to reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation, besides several other benefits, as cited above. As a result, doctors should be encouraged to prescribe generic drugs whenever possible. Let me hasten to add, changing the prescribing practices of doctors and addressing concerns about the quality of generics can be a complex and gradual process.

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.

Data Integrity Issue Haunts Again With Covid Vaccine?

Posted on March 29, 2021 by Tapan Ray

On March 22, 2021, by a media release, AstraZeneca announced that its ‘US Phase III trial of AZD1222 demonstrated statistically significant vaccine efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalization.’

Quite unexpectedly, on March 23, 2021, the above claim on AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine, triggered a rare post-midnight statement by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the United states. It rekindled a lurking fear of many, yet again, on the issue of questionable data integrity within the drug industry, in general.

This News Release articulated: “Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.”

The concern was on the possible inclusion of outdated information from that trial, ‘which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data.’ It urged AstraZeneca to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as soon as possible.

Later on that very day, AstraZeneca released another statement saying: “The numbers published yesterday were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cutoff of 17 February. We have reviewed the preliminary assessment of the primary analysis and the results were consistent with the interim analysis. We are now completing the validation of the statistical analysis.”

The company further emphasized, “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” And also added that AstraZeneca intends to issue the results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.

However, the impact of the NIAID’s announcement on the unfurling of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine in the U.S, is yet to be ascertained. It’s also still unknown what this news could mean for the vaccine’s alleged efficacy. Be that as it may, it all happened at a time when millions of people, in many countries of the world, including India, have already taken, at least, the first dose of this vaccine.

In this article, I shall deliberate on broader aspects of this critical issue and its relevance in the present case. However, before doing so, let’s try to figure out, why data integrity still remains a major concern of many experts in this area.

Why data integrity is still a major issue:

There are many studies that raised serious concern in this area, over a period of time. For example – ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’ – was claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017.

This study reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials, published during the past 15 years, in two prestigious medical journals – JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance (or be termed as ‘unforced error’) in a credible dataset, the paper concluded.

Even my own article of September 30, 2019 deliberated on various facets of ‘data integrity’ involving novel therapy, across the world. There, I quoted one of the top medical experts related to the above paper, saying: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

The ghost of a recent example still haunts:

Not so long ago, much reported fallout from Novartis’ alleged data manipulation fiasco with its billion-dollar gene therapy Zolgensma, shook all concerned. So much so, that the Company CEO had to pledge during an investor conference that: ‘the company will be more proactive in reporting data integrity issues to the FDA.’

He also added, Novartis has responded to the FDA’s Form 483 and is making documents available as requested, while reiterating that the data manipulation uncovered at the San Diego site “does not impact the safety, efficacy or quality of Zolgensma.”

The key point to ponder, therefore, especially in AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine case – is the same ghost haunting us, yet again?

Is it happening again?

One may, possibly, find some cue of the answer to this question while looking at what followed after ‘validation of the statistical analysis’ by AstraZeneca, as it was promised by the company. Interestingly, the following day, after apparently a thorough analysis, the data released by AstraZeneca, re-iterated effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine, which apparently, is broadly similar to the results released earlier.

The Company highlighted therein, ‘US Phase III primary analysis confirms safety and efficacy,’ with the following points:

76% (earlier shown as 79%) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19
100% efficacy against severe or critical disease and hospitalization
85% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 in participants aged 65 years and over.

It may continue to remain unclear to many – whether or not there was some suspected issue of data integrity – till the answers, at least, to the following questions are made public:

Why did the data and safety monitoring board for the trial write a harsh letter to AstraZeneca on its claim, and copied the leadership of NIAID and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority?

As the proof of the pudding is in its eating, why there will even be a slight downward revision in the rate of efficacy of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine?

Conclusion:

I wrote in this blog, way back on August 03, 2015 that data manipulation issues are dangerously leapfrogging into clinical trial domain, even in India. As a result, many domestic drug players had to pay a heavy price – in terms of drug import bans by USFDA and other regulators. Several questions on the quality of efficacy and safety of Indian generic drugs were also raised in many developed countries. A number of best-selling books were also written on this issue.

Some may recall, just ahead Covid pandemic struck, trial data of a highly complex and very expensive gene therapy was also questioned by the US-FDA, for the same reason. However, on March 31, 2020, on completion of its review of the information, records of the inspection, the evidence collected, and the firm’s corrective actions, US-FDA stated: “Objectionable conditions were found and documented but the objectionable conditions observed during the inspection do not meet the threshold for regulatory action.”

Almost in a similar line, after the NIAID decided to make its data related concern public on AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, its head, Anthony Fauci, reportedly, characterized this issue as “an unforced error.” This is indeed a cryptic comment. The root cause of this entire saga with details is still awaited.

Interestingly, the term “unforced error’ is widely used in Tennis, and means, ‘a mistake in play that is attributed to one’s own failure rather than to the skill or effort of one’s opponent.’ From this perspective, after AstraZeneca’s statement of clarification on its Covid-19 vaccine data, the concern on its phase three trial data would possibly be put to rest. At least for now, let’s not see the ghost of data integrity for this vaccine, where there doesn’t seem to be any.

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.

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on May 27, 2019 by Tapan Ray

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019. This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants:

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem. Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

Posted on October 9, 2017 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, the significance of trust is profound. It is virtually all-pervasive. Building trust is fundamental in retaining any relationship – be it in the family, society or even in business, such as pharmaceuticals. For long-term success and sustainability of any enterprise, trust is of strategic importance, and will continue to remain so.

In that sense, it is interesting to note that a growing number of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of a variety of corporate business entities, including pharmaceutical and also from India, have started experiencing a new challenge in a new paradigm, more than ever before. The rapid pace of evolution of the state of the art technology is further complicating the quagmire. CEOs, in general, are realizing the hard way that ‘in an increasingly digitalized world, it’s harder for businesses to gain and retain people’s trust’, keeping their nose to the grindstone of the conventional business process.

This feeling has been well-captured, among other issues, in the 20^th CEO Survey titled, “Gaining from connectivity without losing trust”, conducted by PwC. The participating CEOs mostly believe that social media could have a negative impact on the level of trust in their industry over the next five years. With this trend, ‘as new technologies and new uses of existing technologies proliferate, they envisage new dangers emerging – and old ones getting worse.’ 1,379 CEOs were reportedly interviewed from 79 countries, including 106 from India in PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey.

In the context of Indian pharma sector, the above finding is unlikely to raise many eyebrows, rather be construed as an obvious one. In this article, keeping the above as the backdrop, I shall discuss what the Indian CEOs recently expressed regarding their near-term business performance. After analyzing their confidence level on business growth, together with critical concerns, I shall try to gauge the quality of interconnection between the critical success requirements for business growth, and the optimism they voiced, drawing relevant data from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, and other important sources.

Indian CEO confidence in business growth:

CEOs confidence, or optimism or pessimism about the business growth prospect of their companies is often used as a measure of ‘Business Confidence’. Financial Times defined ‘Business Confidence’ as “an economic indicator that measures the amount of optimism or pessimism that business managers feel about the prospects of their companies/organizations. It also provides an overview of the state of the economy.” A score above 50 indicates positive confidence while a score above 75 would indicate strong positive confidence.

According to published data, ‘Business Confidence’ in India increased to 64.10 in the first quarter of 2017 from 56.50 in the fourth quarter of 2016 with an. average 58.08 from 2005 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 71.80 in the first quarter of 2007, and a record low of 45.70 in the third quarter of 2013.

More recently, as per Press Release dated September 22, 2017 of the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), ‘Business Confidence’ Index fell by 2.5 per cent in July 2017 over April 2017 on a quarter-on-quarter basis, for different reasons.

PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey, by and large, captures similar optimism, as it says: “Nearly three quarters of India’s CEOs are very confident about their company’s prospects for revenue growth over the next 12 months as opposed to 64% in the previous year. In terms of optimism, CEOs in India surpass their global counterparts (38%) and their counterparts in China (35%) and Brazil (57%).”

Interestingly, as the report says, the motivation behind high CEO optimism is primarily driven by those factors, which are being widely discussed, at least, over a decade, such as favorable demographic profile, rising income levels and urbanization.

A mismatch:

Remarkably higher confidence level of the Indian CEOs on business growth, as compared to their global counterparts, is indeed encouraging. Nevertheless, while exploring the reasons behind the same, a glaring mismatch surface between high level of CEO optimism and their concern on uncertain economic growth, as PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey indicates. 82 percent of Indian CEOs expressed concern about uncertain economic growth in the country, in this study. A staggering 81 percent of them perceive over-regulation and protectionist policies and trends, as serious threats to their growth ambitions. Intriguingly, 64 percent of CEOs in India are concerned about protectionism as opposed to 59 percent globally, as the report flags.

The concern about uncertain economic growth in the country has also been voiced by many economists. For example, in an article, published by The Times of India on October 04, 2017, Ruchir Sharma – Chief Global Strategist and head of the Emerging Markets Equity team at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, wrote: “The global economy is enjoying its best year of the decade, with a worldwide pick up in GDP and job growth, and very few economies have been left behind. India is one of the outliers, with GDP growth slowing and unemployment rising.”

Sharma further added: “The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says that all 45 economies that it tracks will grow this year, the first time this has happened since 2007, the year before the global financial crisis led to a worldwide recession. Moreover, three quarters of all the countries will grow faster this year than they did last year; India is in the slumping minority, with GDP growth now expected to decelerate this year.”

This mismatch throws more questions than answers.

Wherewithal required to meet expectation:

It goes without saying that Indian CEOs must have required wherewithal to achieve whatever growth they think is achievable in their respective businesses. Besides financial resources, this will also involve having both, soft skills – which are basically ‘people skills,’ and the hard skills – that include an individual’s technical skill set, along with the ability to perform specific tasks for the organization.

A. Soft skills:

Indian CEOs identified ‘leadership’, ‘creativity and innovation’, ‘adaptability’ and ‘problem solving’ as the four important soft skills required to achieve the key business goals, according to the 20^th CEO Survey, as quoted above.

A mismatch:

Here again, a strong mismatch is visible between the ‘importance of the skill’ and ‘Difficulty in recruiting people with skill’, as experienced by the CEOs:

Skills	Importance of the skill	Difficulty in recruiting people with skill
Leadership	98	73
Creativity and innovation	95	74
Adaptability	98	66
Problem solving	99	64

(Source: PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey)

B. Hard skills:

Adaptation of any technology involves people with required hard skill sets in any organization. Currently, various state of the art technology platforms and tools, including digital ones, are absolutely necessary not just in areas like, research and development or manufacturing, but also for charting grand strategic pathways in areas, such as sales and marketing.

This is quite evident from PwC’s 20^th CEO Survey data. While 76 percent of Indian CEOs participating in the survey expressed concerns about rapidly changing customer behavior, 77 percent of them highlighted the need to create differentiation in their products and offerings, by managing data better. Both these can be well addressed by digital intervention. Interestingly, 81 percent of CEOs in India have stated that it is important to have digital skills, and 66 percent have already added digital training to their organizations’ learning programs.

A mismatch:

The intent of having adequate hard skill, such as digital technology, within an organization is indeed laudable. However, here too a key mismatch stands out regarding their overall perception of the digitizes word. This is evident when 73 percent of CEOs participating in this survey felt that it is harder for businesses to keep and gain trust in an increasingly digitized world.

On the contrary, a 2017 report of EY, titled ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India’ says: “Digitization can not only enhance trust, transparency and brand equity, but also generate new revenue streams beyond the pill.”

The report further says: “Since 2000, digital disruption has demolished 52% of Fortune 500 companies. These companies have either gone bankrupt, been acquired or ceased to exist. The pace of transformation has increased, competition has intensified and business models have been profoundly disrupted. This shift is happening at breakneck speed across industries, and pharma can no longer be an exception. Customers have already embraced technological changes, through their many digital touch points, and pharma must look toward digital to re-imagine the customer experience. The urgency of acting is acute. It is time that pharma companies in India took a step back and re-envisioned digital as a core strategic enabler.”

I am, therefore, not quite sure about the thought process behind this perception of the CEOs in the digitized world. Instead, by increasing business process transparency, digitized world helps gaining and retaining trust not just of the customers, but all stakeholders, including the employees and the Government, further strengthening the relationship. This is now a well-established fact.

Conclusion:

While analyzing the optimism of Indian CEOs for business growth in the near future, alongside the key concerns, it appears, they are quite perturbed on retaining trust of the stakeholders, especially the customers. More importantly, a telltale mismatch is visible between their level of business confidence, and the reality on the ground – including wherewithal needed to translate this optimistic outlook into reality.

Such incongruity, especially in the Indian pharma sector, calls for a quick reconciliation. Ferreting out relevant facts for the same, I reckon, will be the acid test for evaluating the fundamental strength behind CEOs’ confidence for near-term business growth in India.

In tandem, reasonable success in creating a high degree of trust and transparency in the DNA of their respective organizations, will undoubtedly be pivotal for this optimism coming to fruition. The name of the game for business excellence in this complex scenario is – breaking status quo with lateral thinking.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patient Services Aren’t Optional Any More For Pharma Business Excellence

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In the modern world of abundance of information through various sources and platforms, patients are increasingly looking for greater engagement in their healthcare decision-making process with the doctors, slowly but steadily, and in that process seeking better services from different service providers in this area, including the pharmaceutical companies.

This trend has now been well-captured, globally. Various research studies have conclusively established that greater patient’s engagement in health care contributes to improved health outcomes. The obvious question that surfaces in this context is what is this patient engagement?

Patient engagement:

It broadly means a process that realizes the importance of providing adequate knowledge, skills and related services to people effectively, making them understand various disease management and alternative treatment measures, and thereby facilitating them to be an integral part of their health care related interventions, for better health outcomes.

When patients, physicians, other related constituents, including the pharma companies share both the process and goal of disease management or treatment processes, a win-win situation evolves to everybody’s full satisfaction. This has immense commercial relevance too.

Deserves to be a part of the grand design:

In that sense, pharmaceutical companies, especially those operating in India, would need to roll up sleeves and pull up socks to play a greater role in delivering a better experience for patients through effective engagement and offering relevant high quality services. This exercise now deserves to be an integral part of a grand design and planning of any sales and marketing strategy. A recent survey by Accenture Consulting also concluded that patient services from pharma companies are most important to patients.

Key patient service providers:

Besides several others, especially the following two important constituents can play defining roles as patient service providers by directly engaging with patients, to achieve this objective:

Patient advocacy groups or organizations (PAO): These entities provide a special attention to patient care and protection of their rights, and engage them accordingly. Patient advocates of these groups are a liaison between patients and various healthcare providers to improve or maintain a high quality of health care for the former. Some global drug players also recognize that these groups possess a highly influential voice in the healthcare system.

Pharmaceutical, biotech or device companies: Some of these companies, mostly in the developed world have established strategic patient advocacy functions within their corporate structure to foster relationships with patients, their caregivers, and the disease-specific nonprofit advocacy groups usually support them. These interactions should ideally ensure that the voice of patients is understood across every function within the company, from R&D to commercialization, as articulated in a recent Whitepaper of BioNJ on this subject.

There is a need to strengthen this approach within the Indian pharma industry, as well, for the benefit of local patients, of course, by scrupulously avoiding any possible serious controversy, which I shall discuss below.

A recent study:

A 2016 report by Accenture concludes that patient services are no longer optional for pharma companies, as they are gradually becoming a cutting edge competitive driver. In a situation like this, the question isn’t whether they should really gear up to offer such services, the immediate need, instead, is to put their ears on the ground to carefully decide which ones would be most appropriate for the individual players, and how best to offer them.

For this study, Accenture surveyed more than 200 patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism and cancer. The respondents agreed that much work and greater resources need to be invested in this area to gain a competitive edge in business.

This is further evident from the trend that around 84 percent of pharma companies in the United States plans to invest more in patient-centric services, such as adherence, remote monitoring and medication delivery – over the next 18 months, as the report highlights.

For marketing patient services alone to facilitate direct communications to patients, the digital platforms are most preferred with social media and web page usages being 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

A serious concern:

Providing various health related services useful to patients, by the PAOs or by pharma, biotech or device companies separately, without any form of financial relationship or influence of any kind to one another, would probably earn a great appreciation from all stakeholders.

Nevertheless, serious concerns are often expressed on the core intent of various pharma company’s generous funding to various patient advocacy organizations, including the eminent ones involved with patients suffering from cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Several of them don’t even report such contributions, besides providing justifiable explanations on the objectives and actual use of such financial contributions.

If one wants to draw a simile, this is what exactly allegedly happening today, because of such type relationship, between pharma, biotech or device companies on the one hand, and doctors, many other health care providers, including retail chemists, on the other. In the Indian context, as well, it holds good. A paper from ‘CUTS International’, aptly drives home this point. Another September 17, 2016 article published in ‘The New York Times’, reiterates the same.

What’s wrong in funding PAOs?

Some may argue, what’s wrong with pharma industry’s funding the PAOs. On the face of it, there may not appear to be anything wrong either. However, scholarly articles still express serious concern on such practices, mainly for conflicts of interest. For example, a September 2013 article titled, “Patient Advocacy Organizations: Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Trust, and Trustworthiness”, published in The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics unambiguously states as follows:

“Numerous studies have found that even established and respected researchers and physicians are influenced by drug company money and gifts, which can bias study conclusions and encourage increased prescribing of potentially harmful medications. There is no reason to believe that PAOs are any less susceptible to such influence. In fact, there is little oversight of relations between PAOs and their for-profit donors, which in itself increases the potential for undue influence. Similar concerns regarding the lack of oversight have been raised regarding the physician professional groups that develop clinical care guidelines.”

Why is it a potential conflict of interest?

Many construe such financial relationships as potential conflicts of interest, because pharma players appear to be more interested in earning maximum possible profit through high drug pricing, while PAOs advocate for highly efficacious, safer and more affordable medicines for all, besides some other interests and rights of patients. Moreover, some large constituents of patient advocacy groups aren’t even seen lending their voices to the concerted protests of other stakeholders, including the political leaders – irrespective of their affiliations, against the sharp increase in prices of many life-saving drugs, covering both patented and generic medicines.

Several studies on this concern:

A March 02, 2017 report titled, “Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations”,

published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’, probably vindicates this point. This is mainly because, if pharma funding gets reciprocated through their remaining quiet, passive or even indirectly supporting any possible bias in the physicians prescribing decisions for high cost drugs – having other cheaper alternatives, that may not be in the best health and economic interest of many patients.

After examining and analyzing 104 large patient-advocacy organizations with an annual revenue of minimum USD 7.5 million, the researchers of the above study found that 83 percent of PAOs receive significant financial support from drug, device and biotechnology companies; and more interestingly, industry executives often serve on these groups’ governing boards.

Another article on this report commented though, that this study may have some limitations as the most organizations examined in this study did not provide exact figures for their reported donations, besides only 10 percent of patient-advocacy organizations revealed how they used the industry donations.

This NEJM study is not just one of its kind, another January 2017 report published in JAMA Internal Medicine, also concluded that there is a need to improve this conflict of interest issue of the patient advocacy groups or PAOs on their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

In conclusion:

Keeping aside altogether the contentious issue of funding PACs by the pharma, biotech or device companies, I would submit that it’s about time that the pharma industry in India realizes that patients have started perceiving themselves as consumers of health care. This perception is increasing by a manifold with improving access to not just the Internet, but consequent word of mouth sharing of such information with even those who do not have digital or health literacy.

The quest of many patients to ride the crest of this wave by gaining relevant information, especially through numerous digital platforms, besides word of mouth, is increasing. A lot more would eventually seek a wide range of relevant information on various disease treatment options and their effective management processes. Facilitated by this knowledge, many patients would opt only for those ones offering the best value within their respective economic means. Some enlightened individuals have already started expressing their preference to take part in the treatment and prescribing decision making process with the doctors. This visibly ascending trend is unstoppable now, as patients increasingly perceive themselves as consumers of health care.

Consequently, the pharma, biotech or device players in India would require to deeply understand the patients’ needs on the ground, not what they think those are, and treat patients as the key partner for business excellence – at least, as much as what they consider for other stakeholders, such as doctors and hospitals, if not even much more than that. Some companies are trying to make it happen through doctors, which don’t seem to be working as much as these should, according to another Accenture study.

Currently, several global pharma, biotech or device players claim that they follow ‘patient-centered’ approaches, and try to drive home this point through advocacy campaigns. However, many stakeholders don’t buy it any more. This is because such an approach must always lead to a win-win outcome. It, therefore, requires passing the acid test of conformance to the very definition of a ‘patient-centered’ approach, which requires establishing a partnership to ensure that all related decisions would respect patients’ wants, needs and preferences and solicit patients’ input on the education and support they need to make decisions.’

Thus, respective players in this arena need to shift gears fast, as the ball game is fast changing with its traditional version unlikely to yield the desired business results any longer. The name of the new version of this game is ‘direct engagement with patients’ to impart high quality of meaningful services in the therapy areas that the respective companies are in, by charting clear, innovative and well integrated strategies, and not just through single minded focus on sales and marketing. It’s important for all of us to realize that providing patient services aren’t optional any more for pharma business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on July 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones.

Hurdle creation and the core intent:

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry.

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether.

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry.

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar.

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics.

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever.

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the recent weeks, three significant developments related to the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, have triggered rejuvenated concerns in the following critical areas:

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

B. Self serving interest, rather than patients’ interest, dominate the prescribing decisions

C. Government assurance to American Trade Organization on ‘Compulsory License (CL)’ in India.

These important issues fall under three key regulatory areas of India, as follows:

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)
The Medical Council of India (MCI)
The Indian Patent Office

It is worth mentioning here that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th Report, placed before both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, on the functioning of the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, for the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

Most importantly, all these concerns, if not properly clarified and appropriately addressed by the Government, soon enough, have the potential to create an adverse snowballing impact on the uniform access to affordable quality medicines, for all sections of the society in India.

Under this backdrop, I shall discuss in this article briefly, my perspective on each of these critical areas, as they are today, and not just the drug safety concerns.

The headline of this article is expected capture not only the prevailing mood of some key regulators, but also their inertia to address critical healthcare concerns and above all how the core public health related issues are getting lost, and the trivial ones are gradually occupying the center stage.

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit, filed against the Drugs Consultative Committee and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was listed on the Supreme Court website for hearing on March 11, 2016.

The PIL has been filed by one Dinesh Thakur, requesting the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines by which manufacturers could be made liable for violating drug standards and also give a direction to the government to set up a ‘Drug Approvals Review Committee’ for examining criminality in the manner in which faulty drug approvals were granted.

Many may recall that the same Dinesh Thakur worked for Ranbaxy from 2003 for two years, and is now the Chief Executive of MedAssure Global Compliance based in Florida, US. Thakur’s Company now advises pharma manufacturers on drug safety and quality standards.

As reported by Reuters, Thakur had earlier exposed how the erstwhile largest drug maker of India, Ranbaxy Laboratories, failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests on drugs and lied to regulators about its procedures. Consequently, USFDA fined Ranbaxy US$500 million for violating federal drug safety laws, and making false statements to the US regulator.

This news report further states: “Indian Parliamentary Committee, thereafter, reportedly demanded an investigation and the drugs regulator committed to one in 2013. Thakur received a statement from the health ministry last year, seen by Reuters, showing no inquiry had begun.”

On the last Friday, however, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain this PIL of Dinesh Thakur, saying it does not have time to adjudicate academic issues, such as, need for guidelines to regulate quality of medicines.

The core issue:

The core issue here is not at all the above PIL, not at the very least. The issue is the much reported concern being expressed, over a period of time, regarding the drug safety standards in India. The reasons include breach of of data integrity, and gross violation of the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ standards. Such instances are being detected, almost regularly, by the foreign drug regulators, in several manufacturing facilities run by many large and small Indian drug producers.

It is well vindicated by the fact that around 45 Indian drug manufacturing plants have been banned by the USFDA alone, from shipping generic drugs to the United States, as these were considered unsafe for consumption of patients in the US. Some other foreign regulators too had taken similar action, citing similar reasons. The USFDA website specifies the details of gross violations made in each of these cases.

Ironically, all such facilities can manufacture and sell their drugs in India, as they conform to the quality requirements of the Indian drug regulator. Consequently, the Indian patients consume even those medicines, which are considered unsafe by the USFDA for American patients, innocently, as and when prescribed by the doctors.

Arising out of these incidents, when asked about the drug safety standards in India, and the public health-safety, instead of giving credible and action oriented answers for public reassurance, some of the apparently brazen replies of the DCGI are quite stunning for many stakeholders, both within and outside the shores of India.

I would now quote below just a few of those replies, just as examples.

“…Whistleblower’s Intentions Should Be Nationalistic” - DCGI:

According to Reuters, it has received the following response from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), on the above PIL related to the drug safety standards in India:

“We welcome whistleblowers, we have got great respect, but their intentions should be genuine, should be nationalistic… I don’t have any comment on this guy.”

Thus, many industry watchers feel that in a situation like this, the honorable Supreme Court of India would possibly require to intervene, just as what it did on alleged ‘Clinical Trial’ malpractices in the country or for drug price control, solely for public health interest.

The same attitude continues:

Such brazen response of the Central Drug Regulator, and that too on a serious subject, is indeed bizarre. It becomes increasingly intriguing, as the same attitude continues without any perceptible meaningful intervention from the Ministry of Health.

For example, on February 22, 2014, in the midst of a more intense scenario on a similar issue, instead of taking transparent and stringent measures, the DCGI was quoted by the media commenting:

“We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

On February 26, 2014, presumably reacting to the above remarks of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly commented, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”

Such apparently irresponsible and loose comments keep continuing, despite the 2012 report of the Parliamentary Committee of India alleging collusion between some pharmaceutical companies and officials of the CDSCO, which oversees the licensing, marketing and trials of new drugs. The report also commented that the agency is both chronically under-staffed and under-qualified.

Some possible remedial measures:

As the saying goes, “better late than never”, considering all these continuing developments, it is about time to reconsider some of the key recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on a similar subject and make amendments in the relevant Act accordingly, soon, to facilitate creation of a robust with high accountability ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’. It would introduce a centralized licensing system for drug manufacturing, along with stringent drug safety standards; besides, sale, export and distribution of drugs. Perhaps, the draft bill on CDA is now lying in the heap of archival documents with the change in Government.

Why does India need CDA?

I believe, the formation of a robust CDA with high accountability, besides meeting with drug safety concerns, would provide the following significant benefits, both to the Industry and also to the Government:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a Pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

B. Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision:

That the self serving interest, rather than patient interest, dominate the prescribing decision, was vindicated by a key announcement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) last month.

In February 2016, apparently succumbing to continuous and powerful external pressure, the MCI announced an amendment in a clause of its Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, exempting doctors’ associations from the ambit of its ethics code, as applicable to doctors now across the country. Prior to the amendment, this section used to read as: “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”.

In other words, it means that the professional associations of doctors will no longer come under the ambit of ethics regulations, legitimizing their indulgence in the identified unethical and corrupt practices, by receiving gifts in cash or kind from the pharma or healthcare industry.

A large section of the key stakeholders believes that this amendment would help creating an additional large space for the pharmaceutical marketing malpractices to thrive, unabated, at the cost of patients.

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

In its 92nd Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare titled, “The Functioning of Medical Council of India”, presented to the Rajya Sabha and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 8th March, 2016, the Committee observed on this amendment as “an action that is ethically impermissible for an individual doctor cannot become permissible, if a group of doctors carry out the same action in the name of an association.”

The report also noted the failure of MCI to instill respect for a professional code of ethics in the medical professionals and take disciplinary action against doctors found violating the code of Ethics, etc.

The Committee called for a complete restructuring of the MCI, since it believes that the Council has failed as a regulator of medical education and the profession. Casting serious aspersions on the functioning of the MCI, the house panel of the Parliament recommended that the Act under which the MCI was set up be scrapped and a new legislation be drafted “at the earliest”.

The report castigated the health ministry:

The lawmakers castigated the Health Ministry in this report saying, “The committee also finds it intriguing that instead of intervening to thwart attempts of MCI at subverting the system, the ministry meekly surrendered to MCI.”

While summing up, the report states, “the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to implement the recommendations made by it in this report immediately and bring a new Comprehensive Bill in Parliament for this purpose at the earliest.”

How will it pan out now?

I reckon, it will now be immensely interesting now for all concerned to follow, how does the Government deal with this report to curb, among others, the strong interference of mighty and powerful vested interests to continue with the rampant pharma marketing malpractices, at the cost of patients in India.

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’:

On March 3, 2016, a media report quoted a submission by the US Chamber of Commerce to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) as follows:

“While the Government of India has privately reassured (American) industry that it would not use compulsory licenses for commercial purposes, a public commitment to forgo using (this) would enhance legal certainty for innovative industries.”

This is an interesting development, primarily because there are a number of legal provisions for granting Compulsory Licenses (CL) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, including, when a drug is not widely available, extremely expensive and some other situation. In some these provisions, law should follow its own course and there is no legally permissible scope for Government’s administrative interference. Grant of CL for Nexavar of Bayar is one such example, and incidentally, that’s the sole CL that India has granted, so far, from the date of amendment of the country’s Patents Act in 2005.

Thus, a blanket assurance of not invoking any of the provisions of the CL, as provided in the Indian Patents Act 2005, if true, would possibly require to pass through intense legal scrutiny, as that would adversely impact the access to key medicines in a necessary situation, for the public health interest.

So far, India has amply demonstrated to all, time and again, that the country does not grant a CL at the drop of a hat. That situation should continue to encourage and protect innovation.

Nevertheless, “a written public commitment to forgo using the CL provisions for enhancing legal certainty for innovative industries,” as demanded by the US Chamber of Commerce, appears to be unreasonable, goes against the spirit of India’s Patents Act, and perhaps is not legally tenable either, unless the IP Act is amended accordingly in the Parliament.

Conclusion:

All these three areas, as discussed above, are critical from the healthcare perspective of the country.

Ironically, while deliberating on the subject, the capability, credibility and competence of some of the key regulators of the country, are being repeatedly questioned. These doubts emanate not just from Tom, Dick and Harry, but from an illustrious spectrum of constitutional institutions of India, spanning across the lawmaking Parliament, through its various committee reports, to the ultimate legal justice provider – the Supreme Court of India, through is various orders and key observations.

Regrettably, in this specific space, which is primarily related to healthcare, nothing seems to be changing on the ground, since long. The same tradition continues, without any visible sense of urgency, even from the Government.

On the contrary, we now read a new genre of comments, even from a key regulator, on the stakeholder concerns. For example, reacting to concern on drug safety standards, instead of articulating tangible actions to usher in a perceptible change, the chief action taker reportedly specified a totally judgmental and an outlandish requirement: “…Whistleblower’s intentions should be Nationalistic.”

Together with these incidents, the key public healthcare concerns of India too, are now apparently getting drowned in the high decibel ‘Nationalistic’ versus ‘Anti-nationalistic’ cacophony. But, the hope still lingers… for a change…for our nation’s sound health!

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on August 19, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

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

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

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

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

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

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

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

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

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

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries:

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

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

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

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

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

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

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

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

Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.

In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.

Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.

In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.

Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.

With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

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

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

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

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

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: concern

Drug Prescription In Generic Names Only, No Branded Generics

Data Integrity Issue Haunts Again With Covid Vaccine?

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Indian Pharma: Optimism, Concern and Retaining Trust

Patient Services Aren’t Optional Any More For Pharma Business Excellence

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

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