Tag Archives: do

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on by
Reply

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others,  a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

  • “Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”
  • “Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A 23% to 34%
R&D 12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients. 

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI, on paper, has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities related to CMEs and others, from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession or any medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It is expected that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials would possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented  and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country. 

Another article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010. 

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country  without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?  

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.

 

 

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

Posted on by
Reply

As the saying goes, “Great people think alike”, many thought leaders of very high credibility across the globe, seem to think almost in similar lines when it comes to improving access to medicines for a large section of the global population.

In this article, I shall briefly focus on two such instances, both revolving around the same centerpiece – one from India and the other from the land of ‘pharmaceutical innovation’ – America.

An interesting article written recently by the well-regarded Indian expert of global stature Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, President, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), reiterates emphatically,  “India must protect access to medicine”.

In a more focused context related to EU-FTA, the author wrote about possible adverse impact of more stringent product patent and regulatory data protection related issues on access to generic medicines in India and other developing countries. Thus, he argued that EU-FTA should be well negotiated by India and cautioned as  follows:

“It must be remembered that India needs to protect its vital interests in any trade agreement, just as other nations strive to. Our interest lies in protecting the lives and safeguarding the health of Indians, without permitting unreasonable restrictions on our ability to produce, use and even export, generic versions of drugs the patents of which have lapsed (or where compulsory licensing has been invoked to protect public health).

India needs to tread carefully while negotiating the FTA with the EU, so that the health of the Indian people is not compromised through provisions that shackle our generic drug industry.”

The debate has assumed a global dimension:

Such raging debates on a critical public health issue, like access to medicines, are also taking place in many other countries, as I write, including America, irrespective of the fact whether these are generic or patented drugs.

Marcia Angell, M.D, a faculty of Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of the world’s leading medical journal ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ wrote an interesting book.

In this book titled “The Truth About the Drug Companies: ‪How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”, she makes many interesting comments on the American pharmaceutical industry on access to medicines and the kind of pharmaceutical innovations that they are involved in.

The world noticed it:

This book arrested global attention and was extensively reviewed. Since, the author wrote more specifically about the American pharmaceutical industry, following are some excerpts quoted from her book reviews in the USA:

New York Times: “A scorching indictment of drug companies and their research and business practices…tough, persuasive and troubling.”

Boston Globe: “A sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of Drug Company power…a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book.”

Washington Post: “Always authoritative…[this book] delivers the message—that drug-company money and power is corrupting American medicine—in a convincing, no-nonsense manner.”

Some key issues raised in the book:

Like the above article of Dr. Reddy, here also the author raises some interesting issues related to the American drug companies. I am penning below some of those issues exactly as expressed by the author (verbatim):

  • “The magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.”
  • “R&D is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.”
  • “The great majority of ‘new’ drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called ‘me-too’ drugs.”
  • “If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?”
  • “Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)”
  • “Now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.”
  • “Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.”
  • “One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong.”
  • “In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they’re worth—and they’re worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.”
  • “The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called ‘marketing and administration – a name that varies slightly from company to company.”
  • “The industry is fighting these efforts—mainly with its legions of lobbyists and lawyers. It fought the state of Maine all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2003 upheld Maine’s right to bargain with drug companies for lower prices, while leaving open the details. But that war has just begun, and it promises to go on for years and get very ugly.”
  • “The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known.”
  • “There are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact.”
  • “Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs.”
  • “While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs. In the meantime, the once-solid foundations of the big pharma colossus are shaking.”
  • “Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers.”
  • “The me-too market would collapse virtually overnight if the FDA made approval of new drugs contingent on their being better in some important way than older drugs already on the market.”
  • “A second important reform would be to require drug companies to open their books. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business.”
  • “But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.”

An opposite view:

On this an article in Forbes Magazine commented as follows:

“The problem with Angell’s arguments is that they are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies. Furthermore, she makes no accounting for changes in the industry that have occurred over the last decade.”

“It is time for those in the medical profession to spur a more truthful and factual discussion about the pharmaceutical industry and its role in the discovery and development of new medicines. The pharmaceutical industry is a key player in the evolution of healthcare and this needs to be recognized if the industry is to operate effectively.”

Conclusion:

One of the key counter arguments that very often comes up in this area, including in India is, the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is the responsibility of the Government concerned at any cost, even if such protective measures severely restrict access to these drugs to a large population of the society across the globe, due to ‘affordability’ considerations.

It is also claimed that, to come out with innovative medicines, large pharmaceutical companies invest a huge amount of money and time towards R&D related activities.

Thus, the global innovator companies, by and large, with a few exceptions though, believe that stricter enforcement of stringent patent laws by the Governments is the only answer to foster innovation within the industry. Such stringent measures, as they argue, will help them keep investing in R&D to meet the ‘unmet needs’ of patients on a continuous basis.

However, as we have seen above, many experts, like Harvard faculty Marcia Angell and Dr. K. Srinath Reddy have strong and quite different view points. It is certain that the debate on access to affordable medicines is not going to die down, at least any time soon.

Despite all these, it is not difficult, I reckon, to identify an emerging but a clear trend indicating, the priority of the Governments to protect public health interest in the longer term, will ultimately prevail in most parts of the world, including India.

Consequently, the world will probably witness more and more new government policies and legal frameworks in this area striking a right balance between improving access to medicines and fostering innovation, as the countries move on.

That said, taking note of the above two paintings, as it were, painted on the same canvas of ‘improving access to medicines for all’, is it not amazing to note a striking similarity in the thought pattern between two highly credible and independent think tanks, belonging to the oldest and largest democracies of the planet earth, to ensure affordable medicines for all?

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.

85% of the patented new drugs have therapeutic equivalents…they do not increase the cost of treatment for the common man: Points…Counterpoints

Posted on by
Reply

Affordability of patented drugs has become a major controversial and at the same time a very sensitive issue in the healthcare space of India, just as in many other parts of the world. The government, the NGOs and other stakeholders, on the one hand, seem to be quite concerned about it. Innovator companies, on the other hand, also have quite robust arguments in their favor.

Meanwhile, the daily newspaper ‘DNA’ published a report on June 15, 2010 with a headline, “NPPA may cap cancer drug prices via Para 10’.

Let us now try to go through the points and counterpoints of this raging debate.

The basic reasons of concern:

The key points for this concern, I reckon, is based on the following two beliefs:

1. All our citizens should have access to all new drugs
2. All these new drugs are essential to treat most of the related disease conditions

Points in favor of free pricing for patented new drugs:

- Price is a function of the value that a patented new drug will offer to the patients. The price of new drugs will, in addition, include components of the cost incurred by the innovators towards research and development, to offer these products to the patients. This is absolutely essential to ensure continuous investment towards R&D by the innovator companies to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

- It has been reported that currently only 2.3% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will represent drugs, which have no therapeutic equivalent. This means over 97% of the IPM constitutes of medicines, which have one or more therapeutic equivalents.

- So far as the patented products are concerned, over 85% of all those will have therapeutic alternatives. Empirical evidence suggests that just around 15% of the patented molecules have significant therapeutic advantages over existing drugs and cannot be replaced.

- Beta-lactam, Cephalosporin and Quinolone group of antibiotics are still relevant today and will remain for many more years. So are the likes of Beta Blockers, Calcium antagonists, Ace inhibitors, Proton Pump inhibitors and Statins.

- Therefore, all patients with any common disease profile will have adequate and a good number of cheaper treatment options with the generic drugs. As all new drugs are not essential to treat all related disease conditions, generic and patented medicines should co-exist to cater to the healthcare needs of patients of all income groups. Those who can afford to pay extra for the incremental value of such patented drugs should also have an option.

The Counter points:

- The opponents of the above argument raise the counter question, “if 85% of the patented drugs will have appropriate therapeutic equivalents, why then the pharmaceutical companies spend such a huge amount of money and other resources towards R&D to invent molecules, which do not add significant and substantial value to the existing ones to treat patients? Rationalization of such avoidable R&D expenditures will help reducing the price of even path-breaking patented molecules for the treatment of many disease conditions of the ailing patients”

- In this context ‘Australian Prescriber (2004; 27:136-7)’ commented:

“The patent system, which assumes that investment in the development of new drugs, is so important that the principles of the free market should be abrogated to reward pharmaceutical companies with a legally enforced period of protection from competition”.

- NGOs with a differing view point ask, “Many patented products are still not available in India, does the medical profession in the country find themselves seriously handicapped for not having access to these drugs?’

- This group puts forth the counter argument, “patent protection is based on the fundamental belief that for continuing investment to invent newer drugs, innovations must be adequately rewarded through appropriate protection of the patents. Thus patent protection should only be given to those innovations for which no therapeutic equivalents are available.”

Conclusion:

A die-hard protagonist for fostering innovation commented, though the exclusivity for a patented drug given to an innovator would last for 20 years, the real commercial benefits will be available for just around 10 years, that too after spending a fortune towards R&D. Whereas, post patent expiry, the commercial benefits to the generic manufacturers (virtually spending nothing towards R&D) for the same molecule will last in perpetuity…for the patients’ sake!

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.

The ‘Climate Change’ and its impact on ‘Public health’: is there anything in it that we can do ourselves?

Posted on by
Reply
The Lancet in its December 5, 12 and 19, 2009 issues published the following interesting studies:A. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy
B. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport
C. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation
D. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture
E. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants
F. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makersThe findings of these studies clearly indicate that climate change is intimately linked to the global public health.

The key highlights:

1. In rural households (particularly in a developing country like India), if low carbon emission cooking stoves are used, the incidence of acute respiratory tract infections, chronic respiratory illnesses and even cardiac disorders can be brought down significantly.

2. For city transportation, increased usage of more fuel efficient or even hybrid vehicle will not be just enough to effectively reduce the greenhouse effect and improve public health. To achieve this some fundamental change in our life style and urban pedestrian infrastructure will be necessary rather than building more and more flyovers. Encouragement of ‘foot- and pedal-powered mobility’ could prove to be more useful for specific public health benefits, which could come in terms of reductions of cardiovascular disease by around 20%, in addition to reduced incidence of depression, dementia and diabetes.

3. The civil society would require putting more efforts to burn less of fossil fuels and increase in production of cleaner energy through solar and wind power to substantially improve the quality of air that we breathe.

4. In areas of agriculture and food production, initiatives like lesser usage of fossil fuel, innovative usage of manure, reduced livestock production and intensive programs of carbon capture could significantly lower the impact of climate change on public health.

“A 30% fall in the adult consumption of saturated fat from animal sources would reduce heart disease in the population by around 15% in the UK and by 16% in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. If the study had used additional health outcomes such as obesity and diet-related cancers, the health gains might have been even more substantial”, the Lancet highlighted.

The studies further indicated, “Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibilities of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.”

India perspective:

‘Climatico national first assessment report’ of March 8, 2009 makes important observations on the general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries like, UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

Key findings of the report are as follows:

1. “A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appears unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs. It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed”.

2. “The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery”.

It has been reported that the above observations have prompted the Government of India to seek global cooperation both in terms of funding and technology to facilitate the capacity building exercise in these areas to effectively address all issues arising out of ‘climate change’.

Conclusion:

It has now been well accepted by the policy makers in India that there is a dire need to effectively address the critical public health issues related to global ‘climate change’. Based on the findings, as published in ‘The Lancet’, the Government of India should take appropriate collaborative measures to neutralize the adverse impact of ‘climate change’ on ‘public health’, sooner the better.

At the same time, let me hasten to add that there are many other measures, as stated earlier, which we all can take ourselves as a civil society in general and a responsible citizen in particular, to prevent this impending crisis.

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.

China has recently unfolded the blueprints of its new healthcare reform measures, when will India do so?

Posted on by
Reply
Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:

China in 1997 took its first reform measure to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product, as it were. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China…but…:

The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicate that out of pocketl spending on healthcare services had doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.

A series of healthcare reforms was effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address this situation.

The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens. This is the pivotal core principle of the new wave healthcare reform process in China where more government funding and supervision will now play a critical role.

The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given for the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:

Chinese government will monitor the effective management and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.

It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.

Drug price regulation and supervision:

The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in its eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Healthcare scenario in India:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s, overall spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend was about 1.5 times of that of the government.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8% on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

Unlike, recent focus on the specific key areas of healthcare in China, in India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the centre and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Health insurance in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just above 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organised health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address both domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country.

Conclusion:

It is an irony that on one side of the spectrum we see a healthcare revolution affecting over 33 percent population of the world. However, just on the other side of it where around 2.4 billion people (about 37 percent of the world population) reside in two most populous countries of the world – India and china, get incredibly lesser public healthcare support and are per forced to go for, more frequently, ‘pay from pocket’ pocket type expensive private healthcare options, which many cannot afford or just have no access to.

In both the countries, expensive ‘pay from pocket’ healthcare service facilities are increasing at a greater pace, whereas public healthcare services are not only inadequately funded, but are not properly managed either. Implementation level of various excellent though much hyped government sponsored healthcare schemes is indeed very poor.

Moreover, despite various similarities, there is a sharp difference between India and China at least in one area of the healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of publicly funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not the same in India, because of various reasons.

Over a period of time, along with significant growth in the respective economies of both the countries, with China being slightly ahead of India for many reasons, life expectancy in both India and China has also increased significantly, which consequently has lead to increase in the elderly population of these countries. The disease pattern also has undergone a shift in both the countries, mainly because of this reason, from infectious to non-infectious chronic illnesses like, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis etc. further increasing the overall burden of disease.

High economic growth in both the countries has also lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.

A recently published report indicates that increasing healthcare expenditure burden is hitting the poor population of both the countries very hard. The report further says that considering ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL) at U.S$ 1.08 per day, out of pocket healthcare expenditure has increased the poverty rate from 31.1 percent to 34.8 percent in India and from 13.7 percent to 16.7 percent in China.

To effectively address this serious situation, the Chinese Government has announced its blueprint for a new healthcare reform measures for the coming decade. How will the Government of India respond to this situation? It will indeed be interesting to watch.

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.

65% of Indians do not have access to affordable modern medical treatment – why?

Posted on by
Reply
India is indeed a country of many paradoxes. Not just peaceful co-existence of luxurious sky scrapers and dilapidated shanties side by side. In the healthcare sector as well, we witness on one side booming medical tourism of foreign nationals to get various types of ailments treated with the best possible medical amenities, just when on the other side common diseases like, malaria and tuberculosis are taking the common man on a rampage. Is India, therefore, ignoring the crying need to strike a balance between extending cost competitive healthcare benefits to the ‘haves’ of the world without neglecting the domestic ‘have nots’?Another paradox, when India caters significantly to the growing needs of the world for low cost generic medicines, 65% of Indian population cannot afford the same and do not have access even to a doctor.In a situation like this, what sort of equitable distribution of healthcare benefits are we then talking about? Isolated attempts of opening low cost generic medicine shops, enforcing rigorous non-transparent price control, attempt to divert the debate on the price of patented medicines which contribute miniscule decimal points on the total pharma market in India, can at best be termed as populist measures, instead of trying to look at the macro picture to address the pressing healthcare issues of the country.

When we talk about affordability, why do we not talk about affordability of medical treatment as a whole and not just affordability of medicine, for one or many ailments that the common man suffers from? Will our government try to address this bigger issue in a holistic way?

What could possibly be the reasons for such inaction? Is it because improper co-ordination, if not lack of co-ordination, between various Government departments, the ultimate victim of which is the common man?

Such a situation reminds me of an old story of three blind men and an elephant. After touching the trunk of the elephant, one blind man describes the elephant as a large Python, touching a leg of the elephant, the other blind man describes it as a pillar. The third blind man while touching the body of the elephant describes it as a strong wall. Unfortunately no one could describe the elephant as it really is and no one in this particular case was helping them to do so, either.

Could it be that various departments of our Governments are acting like these blind men and are not seeing the big picture – the elephant of the above story? It appears that the Pharmaceutical department of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers believes that only the price of medicines is the key issue for an ailing patient while going for a medical treatment and not the cost of total treatment. Thus, they seem to be working full time to drive down only the price of medicines.

The Ministry of Health is also trying to do a little bit of something in some not so known areas. The Ministry possibly believes that they are effectively helping everybody to address the pressing healthcare issues. It does not so appear that the Ministry realizes that majority of our population does not have access to affordable modern treatment for the ailments that they are suffering from. Number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds etc. per 1000 of Indian population is still abysmally low even compared to some developing nations. Cost of getting a disease diagnosed even before any medicine is prescribed is sky rocketing, at a break neck speed. Which Government department is trying to address the cost of disease burden and trying to alleviate it for all of us, in a holistic way?

Here comes another paradox. While the Pharmaceutical Department intends to bring down the price to make the drug affordable, the Finance Ministry keeps the transaction cost of medicines at a high level by levying various taxes to improve its revenue collection, ultimately making the same medicine less affordable.

In the developed nations and also in many emerging markets healthcare financing or health insurance for all strata of the society is being successfully implemented to address the key issue of improving access to affordable modern treatment to a vast majority of the population. Even after 61 years of independence we have not been able to address this critical healthcare financing issue effectively.

Piece meal approach of our Government has not succeeded much to address this important issue of the country. Taking one-off populist measures of various types and creating media hype may not help sorting out this issue, at all.

The way forward, very broadly speaking, is to bring the entire healthcare policy making and implementation functions under one ministry. If that is not possible, the concerned ministries should work in unison, with effective procedural interfaces being put in place for proper co-ordination with a clear goal of improving access to affordable modern treatment to all.

Is it not a shame on us that even today, 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medical treatment?

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.