Tag Archives: concerns

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

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.

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on by
Reply

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region

Countries
North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

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.

 

Why does the Government divert focus on to fringe issues to address critical healthcare concerns of the nation?

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India has recently initiated a public debate through a ‘Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licensing (CL) of Patented Pharmaceutical Products’.

The key intent of the discussion is presumably to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the people of the country.

Could such debate serve any meaningful purpose?

Since the issue of CL involves only patented products, I wonder, whether this debate would in any way help sorting out the issue of poor access to modern medicines in our country or this is just another ‘hog wash’ or ‘diversion ploy’ of the decision makers to divert the attention of the stakeholders from the core issues of poor access to healthcare for the common man of India.

Will CL be able to address abysmally poor access to medicines issues in India?

A quick analysis of the prevailing situation related to access to modern medicines in India suggests that the usage of patented pharmaceutical products account for much less than 1% of the sum total of all medicines consumed in India in value terms. In volume terms it will be even more miniscule in terms of percentage.

As per IMS (MAT July, 2010) Indian Pharmaceutical Market size is Rs. 44,476 Crore, even 1% market share of the patented pharmaceutical products will mean Rs. 445 Crore, which is quite far from reality.

Thus, CL of patented medicines would have no sustainable and meaningful impact on improving access to modern medicines for the common man of the country. Moreover, around 40% of the population of India live below the poverty line (BPL). These ‘Children of a lesser God‘ very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicine, however cheap these could be. Vast majority of the such population who lack the financial capability to pay for even the cheapest off-patent generic medicines, which comprise more than 99% of the total medicines consumed within the country, will continue to be left in the lurch.

65% of Indians do not have access to WHO list of essential medicines, which surpasses even the African countries:

Our government also admits that 65% of Indians do not have access to even WHO list of essential medicines, none of which holds a valid patent in the country. This should be the key concern in the country. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during 2000-2007, India had poorer access to essential medicines than even many African countries. It is worth noting that many of these African countries has a patent life for pharmaceuticals for around 30 years, against of 20 years in India. What are we then talking about?

Provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are robust enough:

In any case, the provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are not only quite clear and well articulated, but also at the same time offer flexibility in the decision making process to the Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) to invoke CL in a justifiable situation. Thus proposed guidelines related to CL would possibly invite more questions than answers. Consequently, it will be an extremely complicated process for the IPOs to categorize all the situations related to CL. Therefore, in my view, such initiatives, as initiated by the DIPP to frame guidelines for CL could prove to be totally counterproductive, as such guidelines, as stated above, would seriously limit the flexibility of the IPOs to take appropriate action, even when it would require to do so.

Moreover, it is absolutely imperative for the Government to ensure that the primacy of the patent statutes is not disturbed in any way, as such guidelines related to CL would only be consistent with the appropriate provisions within the statute and cannot be used beyond the Patent Law of the land. It goes without saying that any dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of the provisions within the statute related to CL, should only be resolved by the judiciary.

Conclusion:

How could then CL possibly offer answers to the vexing healthcare access issues of the nation? Is the Government not wasting its precious little time, instead of trying to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and resolve the critical ‘access to affordable quality medicines’ issue of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives?

By Tapan Ray

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

A brief history of the Indian Patent System from Indian Pharmaceutical Industry perspective, the concerns and opportunities.

Posted on by
Reply
Although a comprehensive Act on Patents and Designs allowing product patents of drugs came into force in India in 1911, the first Patents Act of India was enacted in 1856.This Act gave a head start to the global pharmaceutical companies in this business primarily through imports into India. As a result, in no time the global pharmaceutical companies curved out a sizeable chunk of the Indian pharmaceutical market capturing over 80% of the total domestic consumption of drugs and pharmaceuticals.It has been reported that in 1959 an American Senate Committee headed by Senator Kefauver wrote in its report:

“…in drugs, generally, India ranks amongst the highest priced nations of the world”.

In 1970 the Indian Patents Act was amended abolishing the product patent system, based on ‘Ayyangar Committee report, 1959’, which examined the factors influencing the high prices of the drugs and pharmaceuticals in India and concluded:

“.. high prices resulted from the monopoly control foreign based pharmaceutical companies exercised over the production of drugs.”

The Indian Patent Act of 1970 was, once again, amended under the TRIPS agreement and the Indian Patents Act, 2005 came into force effective January 1, 2005 , re-introducing product patents for the drugs and pharmaceuticals, as a part of the globalization process of the country including the pharmaceutical industry of India.

This is perhaps the testimony of India’s realization that research and development is the bed rock for the progress of pharmaceutical industry in any country in the long run, as this industry, unlike many other industries, relies quite heavily on product patents.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry to build on its acquired strength:

Reverse engineering with high calibre skills in process chemistry emerged as one of the key strengths of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry since 1970. The industry has to build on this strength and move towards ‘incremental innovation model’ of R&D, which is less expensive and more cost effective starting with a known substance, to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The product patent regime has given a boost to pharmaceutical R&D in India:

Many medium to large Indian pharmaceutical companies, like Ranbaxy, Dr Reddy’s Lab (DRL) and Glenmark etc. have already started shifting their focus on R&D. The large number of patent applications filed by these companies to the Indian patent offices will vindicate this point. As a result of the new focus, one observes business initiatives like, spinning off the R&D units into a separate company and many R&D driven mergers and acquisitions by these domestic Indian companies.

R&D investments are also being made in traditional chemistry based screening. Moreover, companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, and Bharat Biotech etc. have engaged themselves in the space of biotechnology research.

Increasing opportunity to collaborate with the global companies:

Increasingly more and more Indian companies have started collaborating with the global companies in collaborative research and cost efficient process development to leverage their human capital and infrastructural facilities. The collaborative arrangement towards this direction between GSK and Ranbaxy provides a good example.

Contract research and manufacturing:

Some other domestic companies like Divi’s Lab, Suven Pharma, Dishman Pharma, Piramal Healthcare, Shasun Chemicals, Jubilant Organosys etc. are moving into the space of contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS) establishing world class facilities and collaborating with the global players like, GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis etc.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in R&D:

Initiatives by the Indian companies in collaborative research with government research institutes like CSIR and NIPER have already commenced, though much lesser in number. Some companies like, Shasun have already derived benefits in the field of biotechnology out of such collaborative research under PPP. It is expected that more such projects will see the light of the day in not too distant future.

Some concerns in the new regime:

Some serious concerns are being raised as the country is in the process of settling down in the new paradigm. The key concern is about the affordability of patented products by those who are currently having access to other modern medicines.

To address such concerns related to public health issues in general, there are already provisions in the TRIPS agreement for price control of patented products.

At the same time, one finds, the government has exempted those patented products from price control, which are domestically produced with indigenous R&D. Many feel that these differential measures will not help improving affordability and access to such patented medicines by the common man.

Keeping prices of essential medicines under the lens of price regulator is more important:

Even over last sixty years of independence, the access to modern medicines in India is meager 35 percent. 65 percent of the nation’s population does not have any access even to off patent essential drugs. In a country like India where there is no adequate social security cover towards healthcare, it will be important to keep the prices of essential medicines for treating common diseases under the close vigil of the drug price regulator.

Will the prices of medicines spiral in the product patent regime of India?

While addressing this question one will need to keep in mind that around 98 percent of drugs, which are generic or branded generic, manufactured in India and costs cheaper than their equivalents available even in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, will continue to remain unaffected. Hence, it is very unlikely that prices of such medicines will go up significantly because of the new product patent regime in India.

Conclusion:

The key concerns raised in the new product patent regime are that it will further deteriorate the current poor access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population.

It is undeniable that one of the key reasons for poor access to essential medicines in India is lack of buying power of a large number of both rural and urban poor. This problem gets compounded by the poor public health infrastructure, delivery system and financing system, despite sporadic initiatives taken by the government towards this direction.

To be successful in the new regime by improving access to modern medicines to those who do not have means to satisfy such basic needs, the country should take a rational and holistic approach in this matter. It is high time for all the stakeholders to ponder and flesh-out the real factors, which have been responsible for such a dismal rate of access to modern medicines to a huge 65 percent of the country’s population over decades, even when the product patent law was not in place in the country.

By Tapan Ray

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