Tag Archives: development

India: Tops The GDP Growth, Remains At The Bottom On Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

On February 9, 2015, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported, “India’s statistics ministry surprised economists when it unveiled the new numbers for the growth of India’s gross domestic product. It ratcheted up India’s GDP growth figures using a new methodology that pegs expansion in Asia’s third-largest economy at 7.5 percent last quarter and 8.2 percent the quarter before that. Economists and the ministry, using the old methodology, had originally said growth was closer to 5.5 percent during those quarters. This recalculation indicates that India has already dethroned China as the world’s fastest-growing big economy, though China’s economy is still four times the size of India’s.”

For Indians in particular, this has indeed been a significant ‘feel good factor’.

However, keeping this ascending GDP growth rate in perspective, when we study the current health care related data of India as compared to BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) or even OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, India features at the rock bottom.

In this article, I shall quickly compare some critical health care parameters of India, against the same for other BRICS countries.

At the rock-bottom on healthcare:

This becomes absolutely clear when we look at the recent data on ‘Health Status’ of BRICS Nations, as follows:

Health Status of BRICS Nations (2013*)

Life Expectancy at Birth  Infant Mortality per 1,000 Live Births Child Mortality under 5 per 1,000 Live Births  Maternal mortality ratio (per 100 000 live births) 
Russia Federation 71 9 10 24
Brazil 74 12 14 69
South Africa 59 33 44 140
China 75 11 13 32
India 66 41 53 190

* Life expectancy at birth data is of 2012; maternal mortality ratio is of 2010; all the others are of 2013. Source: Health and Health Care in BRICS Nations by Victor G. Rodwin, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, 

The legacy factor:

This has not happened overnight, public health care has been getting neglected in India over a long period of time. However, the process of slowing down in this area has become more pronounced in the recent years, as we shall discuss below.

The following table based on relatively recent data on ‘Health Expenditure’ in BRICS Nations, well captures the abject lack of focus in this area, which is so vital for sustainable economic progress of India:

Health Expenditure in BRICS Nations (2012*)

GDP Per capita (PPP)  Public Expenses on Health        (% GDP)  Private Expenses on Health  (%GDP)  Total Expenses on Health (%GDP)  Out-of pocket Health Expenses (% of Total Healthcare Expenditure) 1
Russia Federation  24,805 3.8 2.4 6.3 33.52
Brazil 16,096 4.3 5.0 9.3 31.08
South Africa 13,046 4.2 4.6 8.8 7.21
China 12,880 3.0 2.4 5.4 34.67
India 5,855  1.3 2.7 4.0 58.05

* GDP per capita in PPP is of 2014; Human Development Index is of 2013; the rest of the data is of 2012. 1. Calculated based on private expenditure on health (% of GDP), total expenditure on health (% of GDP), out-of-pocket health expenditure (% of private health care expenditure). Source: Health and Health Care in BRICS Nations by Victor G. Rodwin, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University.

Lowest Human Development Index:

Human Development Index (HDI) is broadly defined as a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. Net outcomes of both education and health care play critical roles in the statistical calculations of HDI.

Among the BRICS nations, India registers the lowest HDI at 0.586, as compared to 0.658 of South Africa, 0.719 of China, 0.744 of Brazil and 0.778 of Russia.

Source: Health and Health Care in BRICS Nations by Victor G. Rodwin, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University.

High economic costs of neglect to health care:

An April 30, 2015 article of Reuters stated that over 60 percent of deaths in India are due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, which are responsible for about 70 percent of spending on healthcare. They also make serious adverse impact on the economic health of the country, with NCDs and mental illness expected to cost India US$ 4.58 trillion between 2012 and 2030.

This, by all means, creates a high priority situation, which needs to be addressed with commensurate well thought-out policy measures backed by adequate budgetary support.

The condition assumes even greater significance, as healthy and well-productive workforces contribute immensely to high and sustainable economic growth aspiration of a nation, always.

Healthcare budget gets further axed:

To meet the expectations of many, when the incumbent government is trying to floor the gas pedal for accelerated economic growth of the country, requisite budgetary allocation for quality and affordable healthcare in India, continues to lag behind.

On the contrary, in December 2014, just prior to the Union Budget Proposal 2015-16, the new Government reportedly ordered more than Rs 6,000 Crore or US$948 million cut (20 percent) from its own healthcare budget allocation of around US $5 billion for the financial year ending March 31, 2015, due to financial constraints.

In 2014-15, the finance ministry also ordered a spending cut of around 30 percent to US$ 205.4 million on India’s HIV/AIDS program.

Then came the Union Budget proposal 2015-16. Interestingly, even after several well publicized announcements by the Government on the ‘National Health Assurance Mission’, with generous promises on rejuvenation of public health care services sooner, the budget ignored all these – lock, stock, and barrel.

For 2015-16, the health care budget allocation was kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15. There has been no indication either for any comprehensive and integrated focus on healthcare, adequately backed by commensurate budgetary allocation, any time soon.

Could crimp efforts to control the spread of diseases:

Just around this time, a report from Reuters, quoting one of the health ministry officials, stated that this budget cut could crimp efforts to control the spread of diseases.

Interestingly, more newborns die in India than in poorer neighbors such as Bangladesh, and preventable illnesses such as diarrhea kill more than a million children every year.

This issue becomes even more glaring, when India contributing to 21 percent of the global disease burden, accounts for just a fraction of global spending on health.

What the Government promised, but did not deliver:

Before the Union Budget proposal of 2015-16, another article of Reuters dated October 30, 2014, quoting an Government announcement, reported that under the National Health Assurance Mission, Narendra Modi government would provide all citizens with free drugs and diagnostic treatment, in addition to insurance cover to treat serious ailments.

The proposed plan was to be rolled out in phases from April 2015 and was to cover the entire population by March 2019. The project would reportedly cost an estimated US$11.4 billion annually, when the entire population of the country comes under it.

National Health Assurance Mission was reportedly to focus, among others, on the following:

  • Improving preventive healthcare services by ensuring adequate availability of medical practitioners in rural areas.
  • Creating new infrastructure under existing welfare programs.
  • Providing tertiary care services through an insurance-based model with the government offering more than 50 drugs free to all the citizens.
  • Offering in the package, along with the drugs, about 12-15 diagnostic treatments.
  • Encouraging the State Governments to enter into outsourcing agreements for the provision of treatment.

All admirers of the new dispensation felt greatly obliged for this announcement. It was to some extent fulfillment of a long awaited expectation for a just and efficient healthcare system in India.

Adding strength to the Government’s promise, it was also reported that the World Bank along with UK’s health cost-effectiveness agency NICE are assisting India in this regard, providing technical assistance and advice on treatments the government should offer in its health care package.

However, at the end of the day nothing got translated into reality, at least not just yet.

Patients are compelled to turn to expensive private sector providers:

At around 1.3 percent of GDP, India’s public health expenditure is already among the lowest in the world, even as compared to 1.4 percent of Bangladesh, 1.6 percent of Sri Lanka and 2.9 percent of Thailand.

It is noteworthy that the public sector is the main source of health funding in nearly all OECD countries. However, in India, only 33 percent of health spending was funded by public sources in 2012, a much lower share than the average of 72 percent in OECD countries.

Moreover, health accounted for only 4.8 percent of total government spending in 2012, significantly lower than the 14.4 percent across OECD countries.

A January 2015 paper titled, “Improving Health Outcomes And Health Care In India”, published by the OECD reconfirms that with India’s low life expectancy largely reflecting deaths from preventable diseases, the most significant gains in health would come from population-wide preventive measures.

The paper highlights that except a small number of states, overall access to public health care services in India is rather poor even today, resulting in many people turning to more expensive private-sector providers, who mainly serve those who can pay.

A quick comparison between public and private health care expenditure:

For a quick comparison between public and private health care expenditure, I shall refer to a very recent Government survey report.

This survey titled, “Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India Health” was conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation of the Government of India from January to June 2014 period and was published in June 2015.

The following table prepared from the above NSSO survey, is an example that would highlight the extent of difference in the average medical expenditure per hospitalization between a public and a private sector hospital.

Average Medical Expenditure Per Hospitalization/Case in Public And Private Hospitals

Broad ailment category Public (Rs.) Private (Rs.)
Infections 3007  8134 
Cancers 24526  78050 
Cardio-vascular 11549  43262 
Respiratory 4811  18705 
Gastro-intestinal 5281 23933
Genito-urinary 9295 29608
Obstetric and neonatal 2651 21626
Psychiatric & neurological 7482 34561
Blood diseases (including anemia) 4752 17607
Endocrine, metabolic & nutrition 4625 19206

Need to garner resources to implement ‘National Health Assurance Mission’:

The High Level Expert Group (HLEG), constituted by the erstwhile Planning Commission in January 2011, under the chairmanship of Dr K. Srinath Reddy, produced a comprehensive report on ‘Universal Health Care (UHC) in India’ in November 2011.

On health financing, HLEG made 10 recommendations, where from I would quote just two as follows:

  • Government (Central government and states combined) should increase public expenditures on health from the current level of 1.3 percent of GDP to at least 2.5 percent in the first 5 years and to at least 3 percent of GDP by the next 5-year period.
  • Use general taxation as the principal source of health care financing – complemented by additional mandatory deductions for health care from salaried individuals and taxpayers, either as a proportion of taxable income or as a proportion of salary.

I reckon, to meet the budgetary needs for ‘National Health Assurance Mission’ both direct and indirect taxes require to be levied if possible, at least in the next budget, along with adequate incentives to the State Governments to do the same.

Conclusion:

Over a period of time, economic aspirations of India have grown by manifold and very rightly so. To achieve these aspirations, alongside, at least two critical social needs such as ‘Education’ and ‘Health Care’ must be focused on simultaneously. I underscore ‘simultaneously’. There does not seem to be any alternative either, if we want to ensure that Indian aspirations do not remain just a pipe dream, for long.

It does not give any pride to many when one witnesses India topping the league table of GDP Growth percentage, while continuing to remain at the rock bottom so far as the health care is concerned.

Education and health care are universally considered as the bulwark for sustainable progress and growth of any nation. Even all BRICS countries have realized and implemented that, being well ahead of India in those fronts, unquestionably.

Let’s believe and hope, India would not continue to neglect these two critical growth catalysts of any nation, for long, while trying to build a robust economy. Otherwise, pushing hard only for economic growth as a percentage of GDP, could well be akin to chasing a rainbow, if not creating an unsustainable bubble with disastrous consequences, in the long run.

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.

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on by
Reply

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China: 

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets: 

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs: 

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon: 

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator Product Indication Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Rheumatoid arthritis Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech Herceptin, Rituxan Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis Pfizer
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Novartis
Johnson & Johnson Remicade Rheumatoid arthritis Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America: 

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
  • Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead. 

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US  will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪   Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪   Cost containment measures of various governments

▪   Aging population

▪   Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company

Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in 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.

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on by
Reply

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

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

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

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.  Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

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

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

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

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

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

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

An opposite view:

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

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

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

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

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

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.

Tracking MDG 6 in India – not a mean achievement to combat the dreaded disease

Posted on by
Reply

At the turn of the new millennium, in 2000, 189 nations of the world under the banner of United Nations Development Program took a pledge to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations.

This global pledge for humanity on eight key areas was termed as the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDG)’, which the global community should achieve by 2015. Again in September 2010, the world reiterated its pledge to hasten progress towards achieving these goals within the same pre-scheduled time period.

Combating HIV/AIDS is the sixth of the eight MDGs that India, along with other 188 nations, is expected to achieve by 2015.

Looking Back:

Way back in late 1986, the first incidence HIV in India was diagnosed among the sex workers in Chennai. The origin of the infection was reported to be from the foreign visitors.

The National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) was constituted in the following year and by end 1987, around 135 persons were diagnosed as HIV positive and 14 were suffering from AIDS. Almost around the same time, a rapid spread of HIV was reported from within the ‘Injecting Drug Users (IDU)’ in Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland. Incidentally, all these states have a common border with Myanmar.

According to the first joint survey conducted by UNAIDS and NACO in 2007, the number of people living with HIV in India was estimated between 2 million and 3.1 million. In 2009 this estimated number declined to 2.4 million.

As per the Government of India (March 1, 2011), there has been an overall reduction in adult HIV prevalence and HIV incidence (new infections) in the country. The estimated number of new annual HIV infections has declined by more than 50% over the last decade, from estimated 2.7 lakhs in 2000 to approximately 1.2 lakhs in 2009. Adult HIV prevalence at national level has declined from 0.41% in 2000 to 0.31% in 2009, although variations exist across the states.

Some actionable areas:

As reported by the National Aids Control Organization (NACO), ‘Injecting Drug Use (IDU)’ and sexual intercourse through homosexual route by some section of the male population have still remained the routes of transmission of HIV in different parts of India, which need to be addressed with a much greater detail.

In the North Eastern States, besides IDU, HIV prevalence among the Female Sex Workers (FSW) is increasing. This suggests a two-prong spread of the pandemic infection in the country.

Moreover, HIV prevalence within the women attending Ante Natal Clinics (ANCs) in North Indian states also needs to be addressed with utmost care.

HIV/AIDS and Drug Prices:

Pricing of HIV/AIDS drugs are globally a very sensitive issue. Currently, because of the availability of many generic drugs, intense competition between them and direct price negotiation for newer brands, there has been a declining price trend for many HIV/AIDS medicines in the developing countries, like India.

This situation has enabled about 5.25 million HIV positive persons from the developing countries to undergo treatment for the acquired infection.

In India, people living with HIV/AIDS have access to Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs, free of cost, through 292 ART Therapy centers and 550 Link ART Centers spread across the country.

As per the Ministry of Health (February 22, 2011), there is no gap between demand and supply of drugs for the HIV/AIDS patients in the country. About 3, 87,205 patients are on ART therapy through the above centers (2010).

Recently product patents for two key HIV/AIDS medicines namely, Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Atazanavir bisulphate were not granted by the Indian Patent Office giving reasons of ‘lacked inventive ingenuity’. Though, this is a patent law related legal issue, it has been hyped up as a ‘major victory for public health and access to affordable treatment’.

I hasten to add, despite this situation, all drugs used for the treatment of HIV/ AIDS are still not available at an affordable price to the poor, across the world.

Funding for HIV/AIDS treatment in India:

The Finance Minister of India in his Union Budget proposal for 2011-12 allocated a sum of Rs. 1700 Crore (around US$ 380 million ) as against an outlay of Rs.1435 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2010-11 for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

Market Size of HIV/AIDS Drugs:

Current market size of HIV drugs is around Rs. 151 Crores  (around US$ 36 million) growing at 11% over the previous year. As per reported data, around 10 HIV drugs are now being marketed in India with 162 different brand names by over 30 companies including, Cipla, FDC, Torrent, Hetero, Sun Pharma, Lupin, Ranbaxy, Zydus Cadila, Natco, Alkem and GSK.

Globally Gilead, Abbott, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and BMS are among the key manufacturers of HIV drugs.

The world market size for HIV Drugs is estimated to exceed US $15.5 billion by 2015. The key growth driver is still increasing disease prevalence in some countries of the world. Treatment of HIV/AIDS with cheaper Anti-retroviral (ART) drugs has transformed the treatment of this dreaded disease into a manageable proportion.

Unique initiative of UNITAIDS:

For diseases like HIV/AIDS, one school of thought leaders feel that the way forward to resolve such pricing issue is by putting in place an alternative system of ‘remuneration and reward’ to further R&D initiatives in the key areas of public health interest, globally.

Towards this direction, in 2009 UNITAID, an international institution against AIDS, TB and malaria, proposed the ‘Patent Pools’ concept. This system of ‘pool’ will hold licenses on various patented HIV/AIDS drugs, which the generic manufacturers will be allowed to produce at a much lesser price for the least developing countries of the world.

National Institute of Health (NIH) of USA has now become the first patent holder to license a HIV/AIDS drug Darunavir to the patent pool. It appears, the ‘Patent Pool’ initiative to be successful, voluntary participation of larger global pharmaceutical companies is absolutely critical, though many innovator companies may not find any significant commercial benefit within this system.

Will HIV Vaccine be the ultimate answer?

Still with so many newly infected people with HIV every day in various corners of the world, a suitable vaccine to prevent the infection would indeed be indispensable to effectively control this disease. An affordable HIV vaccine could thus be an appropriate answer to fight against HIV/AIDS across the world.

Early In March 2011, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and the Translational Health Sciences and Technology Institute (THSTI), of the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India announced together to fund an HIV vaccine design program in India. This HIV vaccine initiative is estimated to cost around Rs.50 Crore (around US$ 12 million) over a five year period.

Recent Developments:

Early this year, UNAIDS/WHO/UNDP launched a new policy brief urging countries to use IP flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement.

The brief includes flexibilities like, compulsory licensing, parallel imports exemption of ‘Bolar Provision’ and highlights the success achieved in reducing prices in Brazil through the threat of compulsory licensing. The brief also highlights India’s 3(d) provision.

Conclusion:

In India, although the overall progress of MDG initiatives is not satisfactory just yet, ongoing intense efforts to control and treat HIV/AIDS seem to be paying good dividends.

It is interesting to note, UNAIDS ‘Outlook Report 2010’ highlights, “Up to 80% of the cost of treatment isn’t for the medication but for the systems to get it to a person and to keep him or her on it. Globally, only one third of people who need treatment are on it.” I reckon, the situation is no different in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Progress of the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’ in India: a little to cheer, more to ponder

Posted on by
Reply

The world has just five more years to achieve the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’. To accelerate progress of this unique United Nation’s initiative the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20-22 September 2010. Under this back-drop let us deliberate on the progress made by India on this global project.

The ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’:

These are eight time-bound comprehensive developmental goals, both global and country-specific, adopted by the world leaders in the year 2000, with clearly defined benchmarks and targets to achieve by the year 2015, encompassing even the healthcare space. The key purpose of the MDGs is to address multi-dimensional issues and manifestations of extreme poverty prevailing in the world. The eight MDGs, which have been clearly divided into 18 quantifiable targets and evaluated by 48 indicators, are as follows.

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2: Achieve universal primary education
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
4: Reduce child mortality
5: Improve maternal health
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

What happens, if these goals are achieved?

MDGs provide a unique platform to the civil society across the nations to work in unison with common objectives to ensure equitable distribution of the outcome of human development in all countries of the world. If the MDGs are achieved by all the nations, it is believed, ‘world poverty will be cut by half, tens of millions of lives will be saved, and billions more people will have the opportunity to benefit from the global economy’.

UNDP score card and forecast:

The first India country-report on the MDGs for the year 2005 was released by the Government of India on February 13, 2006 in Delhi. Now with just five more years to go, let me take you through the following broad and major findings from an assessment report prepared by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 2009 on the same:

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger:

Set objective: India must reduce the number of people below the poverty line from around 37,5% in 1990 to around 18.75% in 2015.

Progress:

• Absolute number of poor has declined from 320 million (36% of population) in 1993-94 to 301 million (27.6% of total population) in 2004-05. At this rate, the country will still have 279 million people (22.1%) living below the poverty line in 2015.

• India is slow in eliminating the effects of malnutrition, going by the proportion of underweight children below three years of age. This proportion has declined only marginally from about 47 in 1998-99 to about 46 percent in 2005-06. At this rate, 40% of children will still remain underweight by 2015.

2: Achieve universal primary education:

Set objective: India should increase the primary school enrolment rate to 100% and wipe out the drop-outs by 2015 against 41.96% in 1991-92.

Progress: Going at the rate by which youth literacy increased between 1991 and 2001, from 61.9% to 76.4%, India is expected to have 100 percent youth literacy by the end of 2012.

3: Promote gender equality and empower women:

Set objective: India will promote female participation at all levels to reach a female: male proportion of equal levels by 2015.

Progress: Gender parity in primary and secondary education is likely to be achieved, though not in tertiary education. But the share of women in wage employment in the non-farm sector can at best be expected to reach a level of about 24% by 2015, far short of parity.

4: Reduce child mortality:

Set objective: India will reduce under- five mortality rate (U5MR) from 125 deaths per thousand live births in 1988-92 to 42 in 2015.

Progress: Prevalence of child mortality is down from 125 per thousand live births in 1990 to 74.6 per thousand live births in 2005-06. At this rate, the level is expected to reach 70 per thousand by 2015, short of the target of 42 per thousand live births by 2015.

5: Improve maternal health:

Set objective: India should reduce maternal mortality rate (MMR) from 437 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 109 by 2015.

Progress: The national MMR level has come down from 398 per 100,000 live births in 1997‐98 to 254 per 100,000 live births in 2004‐06, a 36% decline over a span of seven years as compared to a 25% decline in the preceding eight years from 1990‐1997. Given to achieve an MMR of 109 per 100,000 live births by 2015, India tends to fall short by about 26 points as it tends to reach MMR of about 135 per 100,000 live births in 2015.

6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases:

Set objective: India has a low prevalence of HIV among pregnant women as compared to other developing countries, yet the prevalence rate has increased from 0.74 per thousand pregnant women in 2002 to 0.86 in 2003. The increasing trend needs to be reversed by 2015.

Progress:

• Spread of HIV/AIDS in the country shows a downward trend: from 2.73 million (0.45%) people living with HIV/AIDS in 2002, the number has declined to 2.31 million (0.34%) by 2007.

• With 1.9 million tuberculosis cases estimated in 2008, India has a fifth of the world’s total. But India made the most notable progress in providing treatment across the country. In 2008, over 1.5 million patients were enrolled for treatment.

7: Ensure environmental sustainability:

Set objectives:

• Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources.

• Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation

Progress:

• During the past decade, India’s forest cover has increased by 728 sq. km, access to water is up from 68.2% in 1992-93 to 84.4% in 2007-08 and in urban areas it is 95%.

• 2015 Target (83%) for proportion of households without access to safe drinking water sources has already been attained by 2007‐08 (84%).

• At the current rate of decline, India is likely to have the proportion of households without any sanitation reduced to about 46% by 2015 against the target of 38%.

8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development:

Set objective: Co-operation with the private sector and making available the benefits of new technologies.

Progress: Overall tele-density has remarkably increased from 0.67 per 100 population in 1991 to 36.98 per 100 population in March 2009.

Conclusion:

Though in some areas of MDGs like, achieving universal primary education, combating HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development, India has something to cheer about. However, in other areas the progress made by the country, as on date, is far from satisfactory, as there are more key issues to ponder. The main reasons of inadequacy in these areas being low public spend of around 1.1% of GDP on health and 4.1% on education.

Moreover, the awareness, contribution and involvement of other stakeholders like Corporates, NGOs and the Civil Society at large in most of the states of India, if not all, in this commendable global initiative is dismal, to say the least.

If India wants to come out with flying colors by end 2015 in its efforts to effectively address multi-dimensional issues and manifestations of extreme poverty and hunger prevailing in the country, the Country assessment report prepared by the UNDP in 2009 on MDGs, should be taken as the ‘wake-up’ call to make good the lost time– as the saying goes ‘better late than never’.

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.