Tag Archives: direction

Union Budget 2017-18: ‘Modicare’ Remains A Pie In The Sky

Posted on by
Reply

Universal Health Care (UHC), as narrated in the National Health Policy (NHP) 2015 (NHP 2015 Draft) of Narendra Modi Government, making health a ‘Fundamental Right’ for Indian citizens, was considered a profound step by many, both in its both content and intent.

Being enormously enthused with this development, in my article of April 06, 2015 in this blog, titled “Would Affordable ‘Modicare’ Remain Just A Pipe Dream In India?”, I also termed this new draft health policy as ‘Modicare’, just as a few others did. If implemented both in its letter and in spirit, NHP 2015 has the potential to overshadow even the ‘Obamacare’ of the United States, almost hands down. Although it’s an altogether different story that under the new President Donald Trump’s administration, this Act faces a real threat of extinction, at least, in its current Avatar.

Is health care also a serious political issue?

Prompted by what has been happening in the oldest democracy in the world, the above fundamental question does surface. Its answer could be both, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, depending on the voters’ awareness on the subject, and the importance attached to it for individual well-being, including work productivity.

However, in this article, to impress upon how important are the promises on health care to the common citizens in the oldest democracy, I shall draw two back to back examples of pre-election campaign promises related to universal health care in the Unites states, where the answer to the above question has been an emphatic ‘yes’. Thereafter, I would explore what is happening in India in this area to fathom what could its answer possibly be in the largest democracy of the world.

The United States:

On November 4, 2008, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois was elected as the president of the United States. Just in a year’s time ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, was passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. It was signed into law by President Obama on March 23rd, 2010 and upheld in the supreme court on June 28, 2012.

By enacting this historic health care reform legislation, President Obama fulfilled his election campaign pledge to provide healthcare to all in the United States of America, almost immediately after coming to power.

Similarly, during his 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump pledged to repeal the ‘Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)’, if elected, calling it a “total disaster.” Accordingly, on January 20, 2017 – the same day of becoming the 45th president of the United States, in his first executive order, President Trump, told government agencies to scale back aspects of the Affordable Care Act – fulfilling his pledge to undo Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law that made medical services accessible to millions of Americans.

Whether, it is a good or bad decision may not be a point of discussion in this article, but so far as the pre-election pledge on health care reform is concerned, both the Presidents – Obama and Trump indeed ‘walked the talk’.

India:

Besides the above two examples, the general expectation of the stakeholders in India was that in the priority agenda of the new Government health care will feature much higher than ever before. This was because the main ruling party of the Government in power now had promised to deliver a robust healthcare reform in its Election Manifesto 2014, if it is voted to power. Let me just reproduce below some of those critical promises:

  • India needs a holistic health care system that is universally accessible, affordable, effective and drastically reduces the out of pocket spending on health.
  • The Party accords high priority to the health sector, which is crucial for securing the economy.
  • As NRHM has failed to meet the objectives, it will be radically reformed.
  • The overarching goal of health care would be to provide, ‘Health Assurance to all Indians and to reduce the out of pocket spending on health care’, with the help of state governments.
  • The current situation calls for radical reforms in the health care system with regards to national health care programs and delivery, medical education and training and financing of health care.

The manifesto then goes into the details of each reform areas, after stating, “the last health care policy dates back to 2002; India now needs a comprehensive health care policy to address the complex health care challenges, keeping in view the developments in the health care sector and the changing demographics. The party will initiate the New Health Policy.”

This expectation flickered yet again:

This expectation flickered yet again, when just on the eve of the 2017-18 Union Budget Session, no less than the President of India, honorable Pranab Mukherjee on the last Tuesday reportedly reiterated that his Government assures ‘Health care for all’.

It’s about three years since the new Government is firmly placed on the saddle, after being voted to power. Regrettably, much promised, the new and comprehensive health care policy of India is still not in place. Could it mean, unlike in the US, pre-election political pledges on health care is still not considered a top priority area for quick implementation either by the Indian voters or the winning political parties, post-election? Probably, it doesn’t also sound as vote catching as a plethora of other ‘developmental activities’, ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’ and ‘GDP growth’ do, for winning a national election in our soil.

In India, most of the population think or feel about medical treatment and prevention of diseases mostly when we ourselves, or our near and dear ones suffer from serious morbidity, or are almost in a dying condition from serious ailments. At that moment of truth, most of us face almost an insurmountable barrier to treatment access due to individual ‘affordability’ condition. In the absence of enough decent public health facilities, one is compelled to go for private medical services that cost a bomb, most of which being out of pocket. At other times, it does not seem to matter much to many, or becomes an integral part of a burning social, political or economic agenda. It has thus far remained a dormant need, which needs to be brought to open by creating greater awareness in ambitious India, even during and after bringing a Government to power.

The fastest growing nation incurs lowest public health expenditure:

Even post ‘Demonetization’ exercise in the country, India would continue to remain the fastest growing large country in the world. However, the Government allocates just around one percent of GDP on public healthcare expenditure, ranking among the lowest in the world, in this area. Regrettably, there does not seem to be an adequate realization both among the public, corporate head honchos, including a large section of the country’s highly partisan media that sans sharp focus on health care, this immaculate growth story can get adversely impacted, in the long run.

Incoherent union health budgets sans any report card on achievements:

Be that as it may, in this article, I shall present before you a snapshot of the health care budgetary measures announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech both in 2016-17 vis-a-vis in 2017-18. Thereafter, I would try to explore how incoherent these are, and without any comprehensive status report on time-bound set goals. This is important, as taxpayers hard earned money was spent on those ‘goodies’, probably to give an impression that health care has not been totally left out by the Government during its annual budgetary allocation.

To demonstrate how incoherent and ad hoc these health budgets are, let me place before you what were the key areas of Union Budgetary allocations in 2016-17. If I may refer to my article of March 07, 2016 in this Blog titled, “Healthcare: Unwrapping The Union Budget (2016-17)”, we shall find that the key features were as follows:

The previous Union Budget of 2016-17:

  • The Government will launch a new health protection scheme, which will provide health cover up to Rs. One lakh (Rs. 100,000) per family. For senior citizens, age 60 years and above, belonging to this category, an additional top-up package up to Rs. 30,000 will be provided.
  • To reinvigorate the supply of generic drugs 3,000 stores under Prime Minister’s Jan Aushadhi Yojana will be opened during 2016-17.
  • Starting a ‘National Dialysis Services Program’ to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals. The funds were to be made available through PPP mode under the National Health Mission. To reduce the cost, the budget proposed exemption of certain parts of dialysis equipment from basic customs duty, excise/CVD and SAD.

I am not sure how many stakeholders, if any, are aware of the exact status report on those proposals of the last year’s Union Budget allocation for health care. If that’s the prevailing situation, we now get another small bundle of different sets of ‘goodies’ in the Union Budget 2017-18, as follows:

Current Union Budget of 2017-18:

Even in the absence of a comprehensive National Health Policy, there are many other health related critical issues that may eventually impede the GDP growth rate of the country. A few examples of which are as follows:

  • The estimated premature deaths caused by cardiac ailments, stroke and diabetes, reportedly, will result in a loss of national income of over US$ 250 billion in the coming decade,
  • Mental health becoming a silent epidemic, affecting around 13 percent of the population and just 10 percent of them getting treatment,
  • Millions of families are unable to get access to secondary and tertiary care services for diagnosis and treatment of serious diseases, such as cancer, as they cannot afford private facilities, which gets compounded as India records one of the highest out-of-pocket health expenditure in the world, higher than even many lower income, lower-middle income, as well as the middle-income countries.

Nevertheless, the Union Finance Minister in his 2017-18 budget proposal announced a strong resolve for elimination of:

  • Kala-azar or Leishmaniasis and filaria by 2017
  • Leprosy by 2018
  • Measles by 2020
  • Tuberculosis by 2025

Unquestionably, these are grossly inadequate, especially, in young and ambitious India. Moreover, very people industry watchers would know whether the deadline set for each is achievable, and a periodic report card on the same will be made public or not.

Similarly, the government’s determination to reduce Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) to 28 by 2019 (39 in 2014) and Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) to 100 in 2020 (167 in 2011-13) is also praiseworthy. However, both these, including tuberculosis prevention, diagnosis and treatment interventions, were a part of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for India. These are an ongoing exercise set out in the Millennium Declaration in 2000. Moreover, why annual budgetary allocation only for those two now, out of 8 MDG goals?

A few other equally ad hoc health care measures, probably picked up at random, and announced by the Union Finance Minister in his February 01, 2017 budget speech were the following:

  • Rs 6,000 financial aid for pregnant women to cover hospital admission, vaccination and nutritional food.
  • Two new All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) at Jharkhand and Gujarat.
  • 1.5 lakh health sub centers to be converted to Health Wellness Centers
  • Amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules to ensure availability of drugs at reasonable prices and promote the use of generic medicines
  • New rules for regulating medical devices to be formulated, which will be internationally harmonized and attract investment into this sector
  • Structural reforms in the medical practice and education.
  • For senior citizens, Aadhar based Smart Cards containing their health details. A beginning will be made through a pilot in 15 districts during 2017-18.

By all these, the government has proposed 27.7 percent increase in allocation for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to Rs.47, 352.51 Crore in the latest budget from Rs 37,061.55 Crore in 2016-17, on the current abysmally low base of around 1 percent of GDP. A sizeable chunk of this budget is expected to go towards setting up of two new AIIMS and for conversion of 1.5 lakh health sub centers to Health Wellness Centers. The National Health Mission (NHM) for the entire nation, which the Government earlier said is not working, receives an increase of Rs. 3,000 Crore. According to media reports, the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) also considers this budget allocation as a frugal one.

Besides the general expectation for the beginning of a Universal Health Care (UHC) regime in India, pharma industry had generally expected the following immediate term relief, which also found no mention in the budget:

  • Corporate tax cut
  • Extension of time line for weighted deductions of R&D expenditure and adding filing fees and clinical trial expenses under the exemption.
  • Rationalization in excise duty for APIs to bring it on par with formulations.
  • Changes to excise duty due to impending implementation of goods and service tax (GST) Withdrawal of service tax on health insurance
  • Exemption of input service tax on support services

Conclusion:

The reason why I brought ‘Modicare’ in my budget discussion is that it needs well-articulated budgetary allocation, even for just the beginning of its implementation, besides having a robust policy in place. Even on the eve of the 2017-18 Union Budget Session, no less than the President of India had reiterated that his Government assures ‘health care for all’ – further rekindling this hope.

In the absence of a well-charted pathway for public health care in India, no wonder that this budget, in my opinion, demonstrates a clear lack of direction, incoherent and inconsistent, just as the previous ones.

I hasten to add that the Government’s focus on rural infrastructure and development, providing financial benefit to farmers, help building affordable houses, creating new jobs, ensuring ease of doing business, putting more disposable income in the hands of the people are well appreciated. However, none can possibly refute the dictum, especially in the young and highly ambitious India that: “It takes a healthy nation to build a wealthy nation”.

The bottom line, therefore, is, the fastest growing nation of the world continues to feel wise and smart with its lowest expenditure on public health. It also leaves a general impression that the Government has removed from its list of priority all the pledges made on health care, before, during and after having a firm grip on the leash of power. Consequently, this has made ‘Modicare’ no more than a pie in the sky, as it were, for many, even after years of sustenance of an indomitable hope of it coming to fruition.

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.

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

  • New therapeutic options
  • Changing therapeutic needs
  • The need to ensure drug quality
  • The need for continued development of better medicines
  • Medicines for emerging diseases
  • Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

  • 1 percent of drugs for anemia
  • 5 percent of respiratory drugs
  • 7 percent of antidepressants
  • 15 percent of drugs for diabetes
  • 18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
  • 13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
  • 23 percent of cardiac drugs
  • 35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

  • Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011
  • Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered
  • Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered
  • Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011
  • Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011
  • Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin
  • Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011
  • When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list
  • Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011
  • While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines
  • A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out
  • Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM
  • Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
  • Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane: 

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.”  This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress of 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.

“Meeting Unmet Needs of Patients”: A New Direction

Posted on by
Reply

The much-hyped phrase of the global pharma majors – ‘meeting unmet needs of patients’, is very often used to create an aura around newer patented drugs of all kinds, from original to banal, including evergreen varieties such as:

Evergreen Drug/Brand Medical Condition Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

I do not have any terrible issue with this usage, as many stakeholders, including various governments, have already started differentiating between the ‘Chalk’ and the ‘Cheese’ kinds of patented products and contemplating future course of action, accordingly. The recent development in South Africa is one such example.

That said, there is now a greater need to ponder over the much bigger picture in the same context and direction, which would improve predictability of treatment outcomes by manifold. Simultaneously, such R&D initiatives would help reducing the overall cost, especially for dreaded diseases like cancer, mainly through highly targeted drugs and consequently avoiding the risk and associated wastage, as often happens with the prevailing ‘trial and error’ therapy approach, thereby benefitting the patients immensely. This is mainly because no drug is 100 percent effective with inconsequential side-effects for all patients of any disease type.

Genetics and Genomics Science made it possible:

With already acquired knowledge in genetics, genomics and genome sequencing capability, it is now possible to precisely predict a person’s susceptibility to various disease types and proactively working out measures to help either avoiding ailments, such as, non-infectious life threatening and chronic diseases altogether, if not, making their treatment more predictable and less expensive, as stated above.

If organized efforts are made to extend the application and benefits of this science to a larger section of population, those R&D initiatives can really be construed, unquestionably, as ‘meeting unmet needs of the patients’, just as ‘first in kind’ category of innovative drugs are recognized by the scientific community and the civil society as a whole.

A treatment revolution in the offing:

Expectations are rapidly building up that evolving genetics and genomics science based technological know-how would ultimately revolutionize the practice of medicine ushering-in the pathway of personalized medicine for a large number of patients.

Definition: 

A report from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development defines personalized medicine as “Tailoring of medical treatment and delivery of health care to individual characteristics of each patient, including their genetic, molecular, imaging and other personal determinants. Using this approach has the potential to speed accurate diagnosis, decrease side effects, and increase the likelihood that a medicine will work for an individual patient.”

The aim: 

The aim of personalized medicine is, therefore, to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient. It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, shortly.

To give a very quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin – a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are now being done by some oncologists to determine which patients will be benefited most; say with Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

Thus, with personalized medicine the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc. instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomics tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to drugs.

Disease prevention: 

In addition, such medicines would help identifying individuals prone to serious ailments such as, metabolic, cardiac, endocrine, auto-immune, psychosomatic, including cancer of various types; enabling physicians to take appropriate preventive measures much before disease manifestations and in that process would help containing the overall treatment cost.

Cost of genome sequencing:

Sir John Bell, Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, reportedly said in early December 2012 that personalized medicine for all could soon be a clear possibility, as everybody will be able to have their entire DNA make-up mapped for as little as £100 (Rs.10, 000 approx.).

This estimate seems to be realistic, as the price of genome sequencing has fallen by 100,000-fold in 10 years. This cost is expected to further decline, as genome of any person essentially remains unchanged over time. Thus, this information might become a part of an individual’s medical record allowing the doctors to use it as necessary.

Summary of key advantages: 

To summarize, the expected benefits from personalized medicine, besides very early diagnosis as stated above, are the following:

1. More Accurate Dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Healthcare: personalized medicine would enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’ without any trial or error approach, resulting in much better overall healthcare.

Current use:

Though these are still the early days, initial usage of personalized medicine is now being reported in many areas, such as:

Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.

Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.

Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.

In addition, this approach would also help clinicians to determine which particular therapy is most likely to succeed on which patient.

Present outlook: 

A September 2013 article published in Forbes Magazine titled, “Personalized Medicine May Be Good For Patients But Bad For Drug Companies’ Bottom Line” says, although personalized medicine offers tremendous potential for patients, because of the dual burdens of expensive clinical trials and diminished revenue potential, the concept may become unsustainable in the long term, the attitude of regulators will be critical to drug companies’ willingness to embrace personalized medicine, and to its wider application.

In my view, for greater interest of patients to ‘meet their unmet needs’ global pharma, majors, academics, respective governments and the drug regulators should find a way out in this new direction, sooner.

Indian initiatives:

Some companies, both well known and lesser known, are making collaborative progress, keeping low profile, in the genome sequencing area in India, which will ultimately make expensive treatments, such as cancer, more predictable and simultaneously affordable to many.

The concerns:

While the progress in the field of personalized medicine is quite heartening, some experts have reportedly been sounding a note of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

The key argument being, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by the opponents, could “wipe out privacy” with a significant impact on the society.

A paper published in ‘Scientific American’ dated January 2014, titled “What Fetal Genome Screening Could Mean for Babies and Parents” deliberated that today doctors are closer than ever before to routinely glimpsing the full genetic blueprints of a fetus just months after sperm meets egg. That genomic reconstruction would reveal future disease risk and genetic traits even as early as the first trimester of pregnancy – raising another ethical issue that could hugely impact parents’ decision threshold for deciding to terminate a pregnancy or influencing how they rear their child.

Thus, all these ethical and social issues in the development and usage of personalized medicine must be appropriately addressed under a well deliberated ethical, social, legal and regulatory framework of each country.

Conclusion:

Though in Europe and to some extent in the United States, treatments based on personalized medicine have already been initiated, we are still in a nascent stage for this novel concept to get translated into reality for the benefit of a much wider population across the world.

Lot of grounds may still need to be covered, especially in the realm of medical research and also to work out the regulatory pathways for personalized medicine in healthcare by the pioneers of this great concept and more importantly by effectively addressing the ethical concerns raised on this subject.

If collaborative initiatives are taken jointly by academia, R&D based global pharma majors and medical diagnostic players towards this new direction with a clearer focus and  supported by the law makers, a huge unmet needs of patients will truly be met, giving yet again a fresh impetus to the much hyped phrase “Meeting Unmet Needs of Patients”, though in a refreshingly new direction.

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.

Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony

Posted on by
Reply

Indian Healthcare space is by and large an arena, where perceptions prevail over the changing reality in many important areas. Consequently, fierce discourse in those areas mostly gives rise to a cacophony of ‘Your Perceptions Against Mine’.

It is intriguing, why even in some well-hyped research studies of recent times, multiple interpretations are made not based on specific analytics-based numbers, but around critical data gaps and then the vital ‘conclusion’ is craftily packaged in a particular way to reinforce a set of perceptions and view points.

Serious discourse on ‘Access to Medicine’ in India often falls in these data crevasses, resulting nothing more than abject cynicism and expert sermons sans accountability from all quarters. Suggestions for precise quantification of magnitude of the problem, so far as ‘Access to Medicine’ is concerned, and then measuring the same periodically for sustainable corrective measures, obviously fade away in the din of multiple shrill voices, heavily loaded with self-perceptions attempting to score favorable brownie points.

A quantifiable number on overall ‘access to medicines’ remains illusive:

A quantifiable recent number on overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, which could well form the base to measure progress of the country in this critical area subsequently, still remains illusive.

It is an irony, no one seems to know today what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, in real term.

A recent study too goes around it, but NOT into it:

A 2012 industry sponsored study carried out by IMS Consulting, instead of giving just one number for overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, went around it by reiterating the obvious that ‘access’ has 4 dimensions such as, Physical Reach, Availability/Capacity, Quality/Functionality and Affordability.

That is fine. No issue. However, the much sought after number of overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ still remained illusory in this study too. Interestingly, there are no numbers available to public for each of the above 4 important dimensions either. Thus the cacophony got shriller.

Clutching on to ‘Dinosaurian data’ in modern times:

Against the above backdrop, like many others, both local and global, even the honorable President of India on January 16, 2013, while addressing the ASSOCHAM 10th Knowledge Millennium Summit, quoted the ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’, the base year of which is reportedly 1999. This study indicated, ‘only 35% of the population of India, against 53% in Africa and 85% in China has access to modern medicines’.

Thus in the absence of any recently updated number, the ‘Dinosaurian data’ of 1999 (published in 2004) is being considered relevant by many even in 2013, including the esteemed industry body that probably provided those irrelevant data to the president of India’s office for his speech, at the beginning of this year.

Importance of capturing today’s ‘Access’ data to provide ‘Healthcare to all’:

There should not be even an iota of doubt that the above reported scenario has changed quite significantly, at least, during the last decade in India, making the 1999 (published in 2004) ‘Access to Medicines’ numbers irrelevant, having no sense whatsoever in 2013.

To drive home this point, I shall now focus on just three sets of parameters, besides many others, to vindicate my comment on ‘dinosaurian data’. These parameters are as follows:

  1. Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per-capita expenditure on healthcare from 2006-11
  2. Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the domestic pharmaceutical industry in this period
  3. Quantum of increase in use of public healthcare facilities

1. Per capita Healthcare expenditure from 2006-11:

Year US $
1999 18.2
2004 28.7
2006 33.0
2007 39.9
2008 42.7
2009 43.6
2010 51.4
2011 59.1

(Source WHO Data)

The above table vey clearly highlights that in 1999, the base year of the above study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004, when that study was published. The number reached to US $ 59.1 in 2011. This reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011.

No doubt, this number is still much less than many other countries. Nevertheless, in 2013, per capita healthcare expenditure in India will be even more, indicating significant increase in ‘Access’ as compared to 2004.

2. Growth of domestic pharmaceutical market: 

According to the PwC – CII report titled “India Pharma Inc.: Gearing up for the next level of growth”, the domestic drug market has been clocking a CAGR of more than 15 percent over the last five years. Thus, high growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, would certainly signal towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines. Moreover, fast growing rural and semi-urban markets would also clearly support the argument in favor of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India.

A back of the envelope calculation:

Improvement in access as compared to what ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’ had highlighted, may not have a linear relationship to the volume growth of the industry during this period. However, a large part of this growth could indeed be attributed to increase in overall consumption of drugs, leading to improvement in access to medicines in India.

For example, out of the reported 15 percent CAGR of the IPM, if one attributes just 8 percent volume growth/year to increased access to drugs, a back of the envelope calculation would indicate that during last nine years over the base year of 2004, the access to medicines has improved at least to 70 percent of the population, if not more, and has NOT remained just at 35 percent, as many tend to establish a point or two by quoting the above dated report.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend, as evidenced in the honorable President of India’s speech in 2013, as quoted above. Official communications of the government also keep quoting the outdated statistics stating that 65 percent of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today.

Be that as it may, around 30 percent of Indian population would still perhaps not have ‘Access to Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can possibly be achieved through effective implementation of a holistic public health policy model like, ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’.

3. Increase in use of public healthcare facilities:

According to a study done by the IMS Consulting Group in 2012, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for Out Patient (OP) care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). This increase will have significant impact in reducing ‘Out of pocket (OoP)’ healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Overall impact on some key health indicators: 

The same 2012 study of IMS Consulting highlights that an objective and comprehensive assessment of healthcare access in India was last undertaken in 2004, through a survey performed by the National Survey Sample Organization (NSSO). 
The survey reported on multiple parameters related to healthcare, including morbidity in broad age groups, immunization status, episodes of outpatient/ inpatient treatment across geography/ income segments together with expenditure on treatment. These measures, the study indicates, were taken collectively to indicate the status of healthcare access.

According to this report, the Government of India had undertaken multiple programs to improve healthcare access. These programs have addressed numerous issues, in varying proportion, that are linked to healthcare access, including lack of infrastructure, high cost of treatment, and the quality and availability of treatment. Some of these programs have been enormously successful: for example, India is a polio-free country today, the study reinforces.

The study also highlights significant progress in some basic healthcare indicators. The examples cited are as follows:

  • Maternal mortality rate has decreased by ~50 percent, and was reported at 200 deaths per 100,000 live births in the year 2010 as compared to 390 a decade ago. A few states such as Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Kerala have already achieved the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of a maternal mortality ratio less than 109 maternal death per 100,000 live births, with multiple other states close to achieving this target.
  • Infant mortality rate has decreased by greater than 25 percent over the period 2000–2009, and was reported at 50 deaths per 1,000 live births. Correspondingly, the under-5 child mortality rate (U5MR) has decreased by similar percentage levels, and was reported at 64 deaths per 1,000 live births. While U5MR for urban India has achieved the MDG target of 42 the same for rural of 71 is significantly lagging the target level.
  • Immunization coverage has increased significantly, for example diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization among 1 year olds has increased from 60% to 70%, and the Hepatitis B coverage has increased from 68% in 2005 to 91% in 2010.
  • National programs have successfully improved detection and cure rates for tuberculosis and leprosy.

No direct relationship established between healthcare spend and outcomes:

Though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been lowest among the usually compared BRIC countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that the healthcare outcomes do not have a linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend either:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country US $ World Rank Physician/1000 people Hospital/1000 people Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil 1120.56   41 1.76 2.3 73.4
Russia 806.7   55 4.31 9.6 69.0
India 59.1 152 0.65 0.9 67.08
China 278.02   99 1.82 3.8 73.5 

(Source: WHO data)

Thus, taking a cue from these numbers, India should decide at what percapita spend the country would possibly be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for 100 percent of its population. Mere, comparison of percapita spend of each country, I reckon, may thus not mean much.

Conclusion:

The moot point, I reckon, is that, to measure progress in any sphere of activity, one will need to have a robust well-derived base point. Thereafter, progress needs to be monitored and quantified periodically from one point to the next.

So far as the access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular are concerned, it becomes difficult to fathom why is this basic approach still not being considered to measure progress in ‘Access’ and its rate in India.

As a result, discussions among the stakeholders do not take place around those updated numbers, either. Instead, what we hear is a high decibel cacophony of perceptions, at times groping around various dimensions of ‘Access’ and that too without quantification of each, as stated above.  This makes the task all the more complicated in pursuit of providing ‘Healthcare to All’ in India.

That said, the question to ponder now:

Does any one know what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ number in India and at what rate the progress is being made in that direction to achieve ‘Health for All’ objective 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.

Changing pharmaceutical marketing environment demands a change in mindset for a new strategic direction.

Posted on by
Reply
Will the Tsunami of change hit India too?
In the matured markets of the global pharmaceutical industry, individual doctors are no longer the prime target customers. Healthcare providers, patient advocacy groups, pharmacy benefit managers, clinical assessment authorities etc have already emerged as key decision makers for use of various branded or generic medicines and other kind of healthcare facilities/ support for the patients.In India even today individual doctors are the prime target customers for the pharmaceutical companies as, by and large, they are the key decision makers for usage of medicines and other healthcare facilities for the patients.

However, a distinct change, albeit slowly though, is now noticeable within healthcare financing system in India. Slow but gradual emergence of healthcare providers with medical insurance and other related products, patient advocacy groups, standard treatment guidelines etc, are expected to bring in a radical change the way current pharmaceutical marketing strategy is formulated, which continue to revolve round the doctors, mainly. The small ripples of change, blessed by adequate dose of the Government’s financial policy reform measures, may soon get converted into a Tsunami of change, destroying the current pharmaceutical business strategy directions of majority of the companies. Rapid increase in the number of healthcare providers and other related stakeholders with attractive schemes for various strata of the civil society, will herald the emergence of very powerful groups of negotiators for products’ price and other healthcare related services. These groups will be capable to very strongly and significantly influence doctors’ products and other treatment choices.

Marketing will be a ‘composite value delivery system’:

In addition, during the coming years of post product patent regime in the country, pipelines of the domestic Indian companies for new ‘copycat’ versions of patented products are expected to completely dry up, making the price competition in the market place even more ‘cut throat’. In such type of environment Indian pharmaceutical companies will be under tremendous pressure to provide additional composite value, not just the physical products, as differential offerings to the patients, doctors, healthcare providers and other stakeholders, in and around the related disease areas. Ability to deliver such composite differential value along with the product will enable a company to acquire the competitive cutting edge.

Required leadership and managerial skill sets will be quite different:

In the new environment required skill sets of both the leaders and the managers of the Indian pharmaceutical companies will be quite different from what it is today. This will not happen overnight though, but surely gradually.

Skill requirements:

Leaders and managers with only individual functional expertise like, R&D, manufacturing, marketing, regulatory, finance etc will no longer be successful in the new paradigm. To handle new types and groups of customers, the leaders and managers will need to ensure:

• Multi-functional expertise by rotating right people across the key functional areas

• Knowledge of ‘Pharmaco-economics’ and/or ‘health technology assessment’ (HTA)

• Ability to interpret patients’ clinical benefits against cost incurred by the payors to achieve the targeted clinical outcome, especially in the areas of new products

• Insight about the thought pattern of the healthcare providers and other customers or influencers groups

• Speed in decision making and more importantly ability to take ‘first time right’ on the spot decision, which can make or mar a commercial deal.

Managing the phase of transition:

During the ensuing phase of transition in India, pharmaceutical companies should:

• Clearly identify, acquire and hone the new skill sets, which would drive the changing scenario

• Get strategically engaged with the existing public/private healthcare providers and health insurance companies like, Mediclaim, ICICI Lombard, large corporate hospital chains, retail chain chemists and others, proactively

• Drive the change, instead of waiting for the change to take place

• Ensure that appropriate balance is maintained in both types of marketing strategies, in innovative ways.

Conclusion:

Indian pharmaceutical industry has been trapped in a difficult to explain ‘strategic inertia’, as it were, since long. It is high time now to come out of it and face the change upfront boldly and squarely to translate this challenge into a possible growth opportunity. Global pharmaceutical companies are now gaining expertise in the new ball game in the developed markets of the world. If majority of the Indian pharmaceutical companies, who are not yet used to handling such change, are caught unaware of this possible future trend, the tsunami of change could spell a commercial disaster to them. However, I strongly hope that this new and yet another challenge of change will be met with a clear and well thought out strategic initiatives to give a further boost to the growth engine of the industry.

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.