Tag Archives: Drug

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on by
Reply

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer” 

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked: 

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too. 

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general. 

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” 

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives. 

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.                                         

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies. 

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be. 

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical: 

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach.  In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples. 

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012.  It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC): 

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

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.

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.       

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject. 

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification: 

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data: 

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study: 

  • The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”
  • The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged. 
  • Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.
  • Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.
  • In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.
  • The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children. 
  • The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.
  • One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.
High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in  JAMA Oncology, throwing  a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014. 

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:            

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”              

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows: 

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.” 

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades. 

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog. 

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

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.

 

PE Investment In Pharma: The Changing Need Of Due Diligence

Posted on by
Reply

From an international perspective, a Bain & Company report of April 2016 highlighted setting a new healthcare M&A record in the year 2015. During this year the total deal value was over 2.5 times higher than the average annual deal value of the previous decade. The report also mentioned that the Asia-Pacific Region grew in the same year by about 40 percent, fuelled by a number of activities in India and China. 

Commenting on India, the Bain report specifically mentioned that during the year, the Private Equity (PE) investors prioritized their investments in the country, not just targeting the global demand for pharmaceuticals, but also based on rapid domestic demand growth.

More popular targets in India were tertiary care, specialty care and laboratories. This is vindicated by TPG’s investment of US$146 million for a minority stake in Manipal Health, which operates multi-specialty and teaching hospitals in the country. Similarly, The Carlyle Group made a minority investment in the pathology lab chain – Metropolis Healthcare. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years and would in all probability include pharma companies of various sizes, with high performance or with high future potential.

In this article, I shall focus only on generic pharma companies in India.

A changing need of due diligence:

Despite some major uncertainties in the generally thriving domestic generic pharma market, this sector has the potential and possibility to come under the radar of many PE investors during the coming years.

However, in this scenario, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow, before suitable pharma companies are appropriately targeted. Conventional pharma due diligence, however stringent it is, may not capture appropriately the high-impact, up and down sides of long term business sustainability for the desired return on investments.

The rationale:

Consideration of significant cost savings in the pharma value chain won’t be just enough, any longer, to tide over any unforeseen rapid downturn in many pharma company’s business performances in the country.

This is largely because, many pharma companies in India have been thriving, so far, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, including clinical trial; ethical marketing strategy and practices; overall generic product portfolio selection; new generic product developments; besides many others.

The need of a changing format of pharma due diligence in India is largely prompted by this prevailing scenario, even in the midst of stellar success of some companies, and plenty of lush green shoots, as they appear to many. 

The process of tightening the loose knots has commenced:

All these loose knots are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later. In fact, while watching the intent of the Government and from some of its recent actions, it appears that the process has just commenced. Public and judicial pressure in these areas would also increasingly mount, with several related and major Public Interest Litigations (PIL) still remaining pending before the Supreme Court of India.

A few examples in this critical area: 

Thus, for any successful PE investments, especially for relatively long term, alongside conventional areas of due diligence, several non-conventional, but high business impact areas, need to be effectively covered for the Indian generic pharma companies, in general. Following are just a few examples in this critical area:

  • Business practices that the promoters personally believe in and practice
  • Belief and practices of key company personnel
  • Quality of regulatory approval
  • Product portfolio scrutiny
  • Marketing demand generation process and its long-term sustainability
  • Ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings
  • Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes
  • Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

I shall now very briefly try to illustrate each of the above points.

I. Business practices that the promoters personally believe in:

A large number of successful generic pharma companies are directly or indirectly driven, or in all practical purposes managed, and in several cases even micromanaged by the company promoters. Many experts have opined, though a craftily worded handbook of ‘corporate governance’ may exist in many of these companies, on the ground, promoters’ thoughts, belief, ethical standards, business practices and work priorities may easily supersede all those. 

The practice of good governance on the ground, rigid compliance with all rules, laws and regulations may quite often go for a toss. The employees implementing promoter’s decisions, may try their level best to record everything perfectly and as required. Nevertheless, sometimes regulators do succeed to ferret out the fact, which leaves an adverse impact on the business, in multiple ways.

Recent reports of the US-FDA on ‘data fudging’ in the drug manufacturing process, product quality standards and also in Clinical Trials, would illustrate this point. According to a 2015 EY Report on data integrity, ‘Import Alerts issued against Indian plants in 2013 accounted for 49 percent of the total 43 imports alerts issued by the US FDA worldwide.’

In some successful generic pharma company’s repetition of such incidences has also been reported. In my view, for recurrence of ‘data fudging’, no promoter of the concerned companies can possibly wash his/her hands off, putting all the blame on concerned employees, and the system.

A situation like this necessitates personal due diligence for promoters. It will help ascertain the persons’ business integrity, alongside the company performance as a whole. Accordingly, the PE investors would be able to flag those critical soft areas, which are key determinants for long-term sustainability of any pharma generic business in the country. 

II. Belief and practices of key company personnel:

The findings of the above EY Report also suggest, while most of the generic pharma company professionals are aware of the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) guidelines, more than 30 percent had still received ‘Inspectional Observations’ from the regulators in the last three years.

This fact calls for due diligence on another critical issue, and that is on the belief and practices of the key company personnel in the new product development, manufacturing, drug quality, marketing, supply chain management, and also covering their interaction with key regulatory and other Government personnel. These are soft issues, but with potential to make the whole business topsy-turvy, virtually overnight.

Conventional due diligence based on the company records may not always reflect the real situation within the organization.

III. Quality of regulatory approval: 

To illustrate this point, let me give the example of a launch of a ‘new drug’ in India. 

A ‘new drug’ has been defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts in India, as any new drug substance which is being introduced for the first time in India, including any off-patent generic molecule, with the permission of only the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI). A ‘new drug’ shall continue to be considered as ‘new drug’ for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

Thus, for even for any generic pharma product, be it a single ingredient or a ‘Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)’, if a marketing license is granted by any State Drug Controller, whatever may be the reason, despite the product being a licensed one, it will deem to be unauthorized as the DCGI’s approval was not obtained during the valid period of the 4 years, as per the Act.

Hence, a proper due diligence on the ‘quality of regulatory approval’ to detect presence of any such successful products in the product portfolio, would enable the PE investors in India to flag a possible risk of a future ban, inviting adverse business impact.

IV. Product portfolio scrutiny:

This scrutiny may not be restricted to some conventional areas, such as, to find out the ratio between the price control and decontrol products, leaving future scope to improve the margin. It may also focus on many other important India-specific areas.

One such area could even be the non-standard FDCs in the product portfolio. Some of these FDCs could also be approved by the state drug controllers earlier, scrupulously following the drug laws and rules. However, if the medical rationale of any of these successful products can’t be credibly established, following the global standards, the risk of a future ban of such products would loom large.

Another area could be the percentage of those products in the product portfolio, where the medical claims are anecdotal, and not based on scientific data, generated through credible clinical trials. 

One may draw a relevant example from the Nutraceutical product category. Although, these products are high margin and currently do not come under price control, the stringent regulatory demands for this category of products have already started coming. Strict conformance to the emerging regulatory requirements of both the DCGI of FSSAI may be cost intensive, squeeze the margin, could also pose a great challenge in the conventional demand generating process. I hasten to add that such decision would possibly be dictated by the time scale of PE investment, and the risk-appetite of the investors.                                                            

Yet another example prompts the need to check the quality of generic brands in the product portfolio. According to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, some of these brands would merit to be categorized as drugs. In practice, the company concerned could well be surreptitiously classifying those as nutritional supplements, or Nutraceuticals, with the support of some State Drug Controllers and promoted accordingly, simultaneously avoiding any risk of drug price control. 

V. Marketing demand generation process and long-term sustainability:

This assumes critical importance in the pharma industry, especially when the Government is mulling to give the current voluntary ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ legal teeth, by making it mandatory for all. As I understand, besides other penal action, in serious cases of gross violations of the code, even the marketing license of the offender may get suspended, or cancelled. Thus, compliance to UCPMP would be critical to business performance. Thus, the level of compliance of a company in this regard could well be a part of the due diligence process of the PE investors.

It is also important to understand, whether the pharma generic target asset is predominantly buying doctors’ prescriptions through various dubious means to increase its brand off-takes, or the prescription demand generation process primarily stands on robust pillars of a differentiated value delivery system. The latter is believed to be more desirable for sustainable long term business success.

It is also important to understand, whether the strategic marketing process adopted by the company can withstand robust ethical, legal and regulatory scrutiny, or it is just an outward impressive looking structure, unknowingly built as ‘House of Cards, waiting to be collapsed anytime, sooner or later.

I would now give just a couple of other examples in this area, out of so many – say, a health product, which has been categorized as a drug by the drug authority, is freely advertised in the media, at times even with top celebrity endorsements. This strategy is short term, may eventually not fly, and is certainly not sustainable in the longer term, avoiding regulatory scrutiny. Another example, big brands of Nutraceuticals are being promoted with off-label strong therapeutic claims, and have become immensely successful because of that reason.

VI. Ability to introduce formulations with high-tech value offerings:

India is basically a branded generic market with huge brand proliferations of each molecule, or their FDCs. Just like any other brand, for business success and to overcome the pricing barrier, differentiated value offerings are essential for long term success of any branded generic too. This differentiation may be both tangible and intangible. However, if such differentiation is based on high-technology platforms, it could provide a cutting edge to effectively fight any cut throat competition. Thus, appropriate due diligence to ascertain the robustness of the ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings, would be an added advantage.

VII. Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes: 

This is not much new. Many PE investors would possibly look at it, in any case. Just like formulations, ascertaining similar ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes to improve margin would also be very useful, especially for long term investments.

VIII. Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

If the target company has ‘Independent Directors’ in its Board, as a mandatory legal requirement or even otherwise, there is a need to dispassionately evaluate how independent these directors are, and what value they have added to the company or capable of providing in the future, according to their legal status in the Board.

True independence, given to the high caliber ‘Independent Directors’ in the Board of promoter driven pharma companies, could usher in a catalytic change in the overall business environment of the company. It would, consequently, bring in a breath of fresh air in the organization with their independent thoughts, strategic inputs and involvement in the key peoples’ decisions.

As it is much known, that a large number of ‘Independent Directors’ are primarily hand-picked, based on their unqualified support to the Indian promoters. Many board resolutions, in various critical business impact areas, are passed as desired by the powerful promoters, may be for short term interest and fire fighting. In that process, what is right for the organization for sustainability of business performance, and in the long term interest of all the company stakeholders, may get sacrificed.

When this happens in any target company, mainly for short term business success, taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and inherent weaknesses in the system, a flag needs to be raised by the PE investors for further detailed analysis in the concerned areas.

Conclusion:

Going forward, it appears to me that PE investors would continue to look for attractive pharma investment opportunities in India, though with increasing level of competition. These investors would include both global and local PE firms. Some of them may like to stay invested for longer terms with lesser regulatory and other associated risks and a modest return, unlike a few other high risk takers, sniffing for commensurate windfall returns. 

In India – today’s land of seemingly unparalleled economic opportunities, the PE players should also take into consideration the prevailing complexities of the domestic pharma industry seriously and try to analyze the same properly, for appropriate target asset identification. Many successful local generic players may outwardly project sophisticated, and high standard of business practices. However, these need to be ascertained only through a structured format of India-specific due diligence process.

Corporate governance processes, regulatory compliance, marketing practices and financial reporting systems of many of these companies, may not pass the acid test of stringent expert scrutiny, for long term sustainability of business.

This mainly because, a number of generic pharma companies in India have been thriving, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, marketing practices, overall product portfolio selection and new generic product development areas, besides many others.

These successful domestic drug companies have indeed the potential and overall attractiveness to come under the radar of many PE investors, who, in turn, should also realize that all the loose knots, fully being exploited by many such companies, are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later.

Keeping this possibility in perspective, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow by the PE investors for right valuation, and much before any pharma generic company is identified by them.

That done, the Indian generic pharma market could soon emerge as an Eldorado, especially for those PE investors, who are looking for a relatively long term attractive return on investments.

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.

 

‘Indian Drug Control World’s Weakest: Pharma Trade Bodies Working At Cross Purposes’

Posted on by
Reply

“In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened,” said the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016. 

In his speech, the Secretary also singled out the pharma industry associations for working in opposite directions, adding that “if we take one decision, it is appreciated by one but the other one criticizes us”.

This is indeed an irony. Such scathing comments from an important and a top Government official indeed stand out. This is primarily because, in the midst of the prevailing scenario, where a large section of the Government is saying ‘we are the best’ or ‘best among the worst’ or, at least, ‘fast improving’, a seemingly helpless key decision maker for the pharma industry was constrained to publicly say, what he had said, as above.

Nonetheless, public expressions, such as these, coming from a top Government official well-captures the sad and pathetic scenario of the systemic failure of pharma industry regulators to bring order in the midst of continuing chaos. Virtually free-for-all business practices, blatantly ignoring the patients’ health and safety interest in the country, continue to thrive in a self-created divisive environment.

Unsparing remarks in two critical areas:

As reported by the ‘Press Trust of India (PTI)’, the DoP Secretary, with his unsparing remarks, publicly expressed his anguish for the delay in taking remedial measures, at least in the two critical areas of the pharma industry in India, as follows:

  • Questionable quality of drugs
  • Questionable pharma marketing practices 

He also highlighted, how just not some Government Departments, but the pharma trade associations, which are formed and fully funded by the pharma players, both global and local, are working at cross-purposes to perpetuate the inordinate delay in setting a number of things right, to satisfy the healthcare needs of most patients.

I briefly dwelled on this critical conflict in my article in this blog of March 28, 2016 titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”

A. Questionable quality of drugs:

There wasn’t enough debate in the country on the questionable drug quality in India. It began when the US-FDA started banning imports of a number of medicines in the United States from several drug manufacturing facilities in India. These pharma plants are of all sizes and scales of operations – large, medium, small and micro.

Almost on a regular basis, we now get to know, both from the national and international media, one or the other pharma manufacturing facility in the country, has received the ‘warning letter’ from the US-FDA on its ‘import ban’.

Dual drug manufacturing quality standards?                                            

The spate of ‘Warning Letters’ from the US-FDA have brought to the fore the existence of two different quality standards of drug manufacturing in India:

  • High quality plants dedicated to exports in the well-regulated markets of the world, such as, the United States, following the US-FDA regulations.
  • Other plants, with not so stringent quality standards of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), cater to the needs of the Indian population and other developing non-regulated markets. 

In this situation, when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly faltering to meet the USFDA quality standards, the following two critical questions come up:

  • Are the US-FDA manufacturing requirements so stringent that requires a different compliance mindset, high-technology support, greater domain expertise and more financial resources to comply with, basically for protection of health and safety of the American patients?
  • If so, do the Indian and other patients from not so regulated markets of the world, also deserve to consume drugs conforming to the same quality standards and for the same reason? 

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital for all of us.

Pharma associations working at cross-purposes? 

Considering this from the patients’ perspective, there lies a huge scope for the pharma associations, though with different kind of primary business priorities, to help the Government unitedly in resolving this issue.

It appears from the deliberation of the DoP Secretary that the health ministry is already seized of the matter. The concerned departments are also apparently batting for quality, and trying to strengthen some specific capacity building areas, such as, increasing the number of inspectors and other drug control staff.

Reports also keep coming on the poor quality clinical trial data in India, including data fudging, as was recently detected by the foreign drug regulators. Intriguingly, nothing seems to be changing on the ground. In these areas too, the industry can unitedly try to protect the innocent patients from the wrongdoers, demonstrating enough credible and publicly visible real action.

From the anguish of the DoP Secretary on the critical quality related issue, it appears, there is a huge task cut out for the Indian drug regulators to ensure uniform and high drug quality standards for health and safety of all Indian patients’, just as their counterparts in America.

It is unfortunate to note from his observation that pharma industry associations are not visibly working in unison on many such issues in India.

B. The UCPMP:

The Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics of Harvard University, while deliberating on “The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and Public Health” dwelled on the legal, financial, and organizational arrangements within which the pharmaceutical industry operates. It said, this situation sometimes creates incentives for drug firms and their employees, that conflict with the development of knowledge, drug safety, the promotion of public health, and innovation. More importantly, they also make the public depend inappropriately on pharmaceutical firms to perform certain activities and this leads to institutional corruption.

Illustrating from Professor Marc Rodwin’s project, the article said pharma players provide substantial discretionary funding for important medical activities, such as, continuing medical education, medical research, medical journals, and professional medical societies, which can encourage unwanted and undesirable compromise and bias in favor of their interests.

The same sentiment was also well-captured in an editorial of the well-reputed international medical journal BMJ of June 25, 2014. It unambiguously articulated, “Patients everywhere are harmed when money is diverted to the doctors’ pockets and away from priority services. Yet this complex challenge is one that medical professionals have failed to deal with, either by choosing to enrich themselves, turning a blind eye, or considering it too difficult.”

The editorial underscored the point that success in tackling corruption in healthcare is possible, even if it is initially limited, as anti-corruption bodies in the United Kingdom and US have shown to a great extent. With this, BMJ planned to launch a campaign against ‘Corruption in Medicine’, with a focus on India.

The DoP initiative:

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

Not a panacea:

It is worth noting, since the last three and a half decades, ‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, prepared by various global pharma trade associations and most of the large global pharma companies individually, have come into existence purported for strictest voluntary adherence. These are being relentlessly propagated by them and their trade associations, as panacea for all marketing malpractices in the drug industry. Squeaky clean ‘pharma marketing codes’ for voluntary practices can be seen well placed in the websites of almost all large global pharma players and their trade associations.

The concept of a pharma marketing code and its intent are both commendable. However, the key question that follows: are all those working in practice? If the answer is yes, why then mind boggling sums in billions of dollars are being paid as settlement fees by a large number of global pharma companies for alleged colossal marketing malpractices in different countries of the world?

Mandatory UCPMP:

As happens with any other voluntary pharma marketing code of a global drug company or their trade associations, however mighty they are, similar non-compliance was detected by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP.  This gross disregard on the code, apparently prompted the DoP making the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses. 

A move in this direction, obviously necessitated meaningful discussion of the DoP with all stakeholders, especially the pharma trade associations. According to the Secretary, the discussions got unduly protracted, crippling his decision making process to put the mandatory UCPMP in place, soon.

Divergent views of pharma associations?

Thus, it is now quite clear that one of the reasons for the delay in making the UCPMP mandatory is the divergent views of various pharma trade associations.

In the Secretary’s own words, “To take an example of uniform marketing code, we thought we could arrive at a common solution. But even after 7-8 meetings, we failed to come to a conclusion. It’s only now that we have arrived at a code.” 

However, the bottom-line is, as on date, we don’t know when would the mandatory UCPMP come into force in India.

Conclusion:

The reverberation of virtual helplessness in the recent utterances of the Secretary of the DoP, has naturally become a cause of great concern, especially for the patients. There is still no sign of early resolution of the critical issue of dubious quality, both in the drug manufacturing and clinical trials in India.

The concerned ministries would require to demonstrate unwavering will and unflagging zeal for good governance with accountability, to set things right, without any further delay. When US-FDA can, why can’t the DCGI succeed in doing so? The Government is expected to ensure that justice prevails in this area, for the patients’ sake, soon enough.

Similarly, wrong doings in pharma marketing practices also need to be addressed by the DoP, initially making the UCPMP mandatory having strong legal teeth, to start with, notwithstanding the fact that the trade associations mostly work at cross-purposes, in this area too.

As I hear from the grapevine, especially the MNC trade associations, both inside and outside the country, are trying hard to take, especially, the owners of the large Indian pharma companies on board, in several ways, basically to further their crusade on various self serving issues, such as dilution of Indian Patents Act.

That said, taking serious note of the observation of the DoP Secretary that the Indian drug control is the “weakest in the world”, together with the challenges that he is facing in containing pharma marketing malpractices, I hope, the honorable Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) may wish to intervene soon, in order to promptly contain these snowballing public health menace.

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.

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on by
Reply

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool: 

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

  • whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
  • which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people 

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types: 

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:     

  • Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.
  • Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.
  • Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others. 
  • Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions. 

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

  • Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.
  • Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.
  • At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.
  • Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed. 

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

  • Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
  • Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
  • Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines. 

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT. 

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. 

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested. 

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets. 

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards. 

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

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.

Nutraceuticals: Make The Fragile Regulatory Space Robust, Soon

Posted on by
Reply

In the space between drugs and nutrition, there is an intriguing ‘gray area’ with significant business relevance, especially in India.

In a related publication, A.T. Kearney – a leading global management consulting firm has elaborated it as below:

“At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. On the other – more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

Falling in the middle of the spectrum, a large number of Nutraceuticals clearly blur the line between food and drugs, in many cases. In India, there is no clearly defined legal and regulatory status for such Nutraceuticals, just yet.

Why a robust regulation required for Nutraceuticals? 

The scholarly article of S.H. Zeisel (Professor of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Nutrition) titled, “Regulation of Nutraceuticals,” Science 5435, 1853–1855 (1999) highlighted that in many cases when the dosages of food supplements exceed those of a normal diet, there could well be a drug-like bioactivity of a nutrient.

An example of the nutrient tryptophan may suffice to illustrate this point briefly. At higher dosage tryptophan can exhibit drug-like activity, as it is the precursor of serotonin, which is extensively used to treat insomnia. Many of such points are yet to draw the regulators’ attention in India as much as it should, as yet.

Marketing drugs as ‘food supplements’?

Marketing drugs as food supplements to evade Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) by some pharma players, of all sizes and scale of operation, is not an uncommon practice in India. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), reportedly, pointed it out sometime around 2009.

Not just for pricing reason, but more importantly for consumers’ health and safety, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) should address this issue now with a greater sense of urgency, as the market for Nutraceuticals and health supplements is reportedly growing at a brisk pace today. According to a Frost & Sullivan report, the total Indian Nutraceuticals market in 2015 was expected around US $ 5 billion. 

In the absence of any clear and robust regulatory guidelines, most Nutraceutical products, with a spectrum of therapeutic claims, are virtually self-categorized as food supplements, which are not covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts in India.

Currently in the country, Nutraceuticals and functional foods are covered under the definition of ‘food’ as per Section 22 of Food Safety & Standards Act (FSSA), 2006. These food products have been categorized as Non-Standardized/Special Food Products. Accordingly, Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) of India have described Nutraceuticals as:

“Naturally occurring chemical compound having a physiological benefit or provide protection against chronic disease, isolated and purified from food or non-food source.”

Though categorized as nutritional supplement, the product packs of such Nutraceuticals usually do not carry any “FSSAI’ logo, which signifies conformance to the food safety standards of India, for the benefit of consumers.

Recommendations are many, but no comprehensive action yet:  

To give an example, many Nutraceuticals contain vitamins in varying quantity. However, most of these products seem to carefully avoid Schedule V guidelines for vitamin content to avoid being categorized as drugs, and thereby coming under strict regulatory requirements. Self-categorizing these products as ‘food supplement’, helps bypassing this issue, as on date.

Such ongoing practices related to Nutraceuticals need to be viewed keeping in perspective, some of the recent key recommendations made by the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) of the CDSCO, on Schedule V related formulations.

The minutes of the 70th. meeting of the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) held on August 18, 2015, recorded the acceptance of the report of its sub-committee on vitamins, which recommended, among others, some of the following guidelines:

  • Ingredients which are covered under the range as prescribed under schedule “V” of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules for Tablets, capsules, granules are 18 classified as a drug, while those powders like Farex, Oats and Cereal fortified vitamins are exempted from the provisions of chapter IV under schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.
  • Ingredients which fall below the range as prescribed under schedule “V” shall be classified as food. However, if there is a claim for treatment, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or disorder, then it will be classified as a drug. 
  • Ingredients which are within Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) levels, but fall under the range as prescribed under schedule V Drugs and Cosmetics Rules shall be classified under drug as it is already mentioned in the rules. 
  • Products containing ingredients which are neither covered under Schedule V nor fall within RDA, these can be classified as unprovable products under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, unless otherwise specifically permitted by the Licensing Authorities of drugs based on major purpose of the item (like food/drug).
  • Whenever there are additional ingredients than those given in schedule V, including some of herbal ingredients, a separate and conscious view has to be taken about the safety and efficacy of the drug
  • Any product containing herbal ingredients shall be dealt with by the food or drug authority based on the above principles. 

The same subcommittee, on June 12, 2015, after discussing each of some specified products, with a claim of falling in non-drug category, as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, recommended categorization of some of the well-known brands brands, such as, Revital (Ranbaxy) and A to Z capsules (Alkem) as drugs. The sub-committee report was then uploaded in the CDSCO website for stakeholders’ comment.

Could there be ‘irrational FDC ban’ like an issue with Nutraceuticals?

The answer to this question is anybody’s guess at this point of time. However, such a possibility can be just wished away either.

This lurking fear stems from the recent notification of FSSAI dated March 30, 2016, which states as follows:

“It has been decided that till the standards of Nutraceuticals, food supplements and health supplements are finally notified, the enforcement activities against such food business operators may be restricted to testing of these products with respect to requirements given in the draft notification on such products of September 9, 2015″.

However, it clarifies that the companies will get an exemption, if such products were available in the market before the Food Safety and Standards Act came into effect in 2011, or if product approval was pending on August 19, 2015.

The key objective of the above September 9, 2015, FSSAI draft notification was to ensure that Nutraceuticals, health and food supplements and other such products are not sold as medicines with therapeutic claims. Thus, asking the industry players to send their suggestions and objections to the proposal, this draft notification indicates, among others, that all such products should: 

  • Adhere to the proposed permissible limits of various minerals, vitamins, plant or botanical-based ingredients, among others.
  • Adhere to the proposed list of food additives used in all these categories of products, besides labelling norms, every package must carry the words “Food” or “Health Supplement” and prominently display “Not for Medicinal Use” on the label. 
  • Give a disclaimer on the package that the food or health supplement should not be used as a substitute for a varied diet.
  • Clearly indicate on the label that “this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”, besides information on recommended dosages, among others.

As this notification is expected to cover all products, which are marketed as food supplements, many Nutraceuticals manufacturers, reportedly, fear that it could effectively mean a ban on virtually all those brands, self-categorized as food or nutritional supplement, and launched post 2011.

If it happens, the saga of ban of a large number of irrational Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDCs) of drugs, that includes some top-selling pharma brands and is now sub judice, could get extended to the Nutraceuticals sector too. 

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is that a robust mechanism to effectively regulate and monitor Nutraceuticals in India, is yet to see the light of the day. 

Crazy marketing of Nutraceuticals: 

Despite regulatory and marketing restrictions to the therapeutic claims for this category of drugs, Nutraceuticals are mostly promoted to the doctors, just as any other ethical pharma products in India.

Consequently, these are widely prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements, but also for the treatment of disease conditions, ranging from obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, anti-lipid, gastrointestinal conditions, dementia, age-related muscle loss, pain management and even for fertility. All these are generally based on off-label therapeutic claims of the respective manufacturers.

Being advertised in the mass media too:

To illustrate this point, I would give an example of a well known brand in India. As I see from the Government records, i.e. from the minutes of the 68th meeting of the DTAB sub-committee held on June 12, 2015 that it had recommended Revital’s (Ranbaxy) categorization under drug.

As we all know that, as per drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, drugs cannot be advertised in the mass media, except Schedule K drugs, such as Aspirin and paracetamol. In that sense, I find it difficult to fathom, how is Revital then, which highlights a naturally occurring substance fortified with vitamins and minerals, advertised even on the Television, along with a top celebrity endorsement?

A recent notification on phytochemicals:

As I mentioned in my article in this Blog on December 21, 2015, titled “Nutraceuticals: A Major regulatory Step That Was Long Overdue”, partly responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.

This regulatory action followed the rapidly growing use of these drugs in India, which includes purified and standardized fraction with defined minimum four bio-active or phytochemical compounds.

On the ground, this significant regulatory measure would require the pharma players to submit the specified data on phytopharmaceutical drugs, along with necessary applications for conduct clinical trial or import or manufacture of these products in the country. 

However, this is no more than half-measure in this direction. Hopefully, this will be followed by final action on the DTAB recommendations on vitamins, and final notification of FSSAI on standards of Nutraceuticals, food and health supplements. A well-integrated action of the CDSCO and FSSAI, would possibly help to contain the unregulated proliferation of various types of Nutraceutical products coming into the Indian market, prescribed by the doctors and consumed by the people, sans any scientific evidence based efficacy, safety and quality standards.

Manufacturers’ business interest also can’t just be ignored:

While there is a pressing need to enforce regulatory discipline for claimed efficacy, safety and high quality standards for the Nutraceuticals to protect consumers’ health interest, commercial interest of such drug manufacturers can’t also just be ignored. If that happens, it will be unfair.

Thus, one of the ways to encourage the manufacturers to expand this market, I reckon, could well be categorizing the Nutraceuticals offering health benefits, under a separate category altogether, which will be kept out of any form of drug price control.

Conclusion:

The manufacturers of Nutraceuticals still keep charting in a very relaxed regulatory space. Currently, there is no robust and transparent process in place to standardize and scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy of these products on an ongoing basis. This scenario should not be allowed to continue, any longer.

Appropriate control of standardized Nutraceutical manufacturing, regular monitoring of the same and scientific evidence-based marketing approval process of all such products, therefore, require to be well-well regulated. The requirement for stringent conformance to the set cGMP standards would ensure desired safety, efficacy and high quality of nutraceutical products for the consumers.

The recent decisions of the Union ministry of Ayush for setting up a structured regulatory framework, within the CDSCO, for all Ayush drugs and to allow marketing of any new Ayurvedic medicine only after successful completion of clinical trials to ensure its safety and efficacy, are indeed encouraging.

Just as Ayurvedic products, all Nutraceuticals, not being essential medicines, should always be kept outside price control in any form. It should happen in tandem with the Government’s taking a bold step to make the prevailing fragile regulatory space for the Nutraceuticals a robust one, creating a win-win situation 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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same attitude continues:

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

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

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

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

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

Some possible remedial measures:

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

Why does India need CDA?

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

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

B.  Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision: 

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

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

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

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

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

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

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

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

The report castigated the health ministry:

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

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

How will it pan out now?

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

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

Healthcare: Unwrapping The Union Budget (2016-17)

Posted on by
Reply

February 29, 2016 was the day of high expectations for many, especially to get to know the focus areas of public resource allocations of the incumbent governments in its third year of office. Healthcare sector too awaited eager to see something substantial in the resource allocation, that would make a fundamental difference in the public health systems and services in India.

The general expectation was high, as its main ruling party had promised to deliver a robust healthcare reform in its Election Manifesto 2014, when it will be voted to power. Some of those critical promises are as follows:

  • “India needs a holistic health care system that is universally accessible, affordable and effective and drastically reduces the out of pocket spending on health.
  • NRHM has failed to meet the objectives and will be radically reformed.
  • The Party accords high priority to health sector, which is crucial for securing the economy.
  • The overarching goal of healthcare 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 healthcare system with regards to national healthcare programs and delivery, medical education and training and financing of healthcare.”
  • The manifesto then went into the details of each reform areas, after stating, “the last healthcare policy dates back to 2002; India now needs a comprehensive healthcare policy to address the complex healthcare challenges, keeping in view the developments in the healthcare sector and the changing demographics. The party will initiate the New Health Policy.”

Over three years have passed since then, unfortunately even the new and comprehensive healthcare policy is not in place, just yet.

In that backdrop, we all witnessed in the budget presentation, a well-wrapped package for healthcare in India. The ‘attractive’ packaging label, listing each element of its broad content, was outwardly impressive and attracted almost instant eulogy from a number of industry commentators.

In this article, I shall first present before you, the healthcare measures announced by the Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely in his Budget speech (2016-17), and then would unwrap the package to discuss briefly the implications of each of these three key elements, and the possible impact.

Union Budgetary Proposals on healthcare:

While proposing his Union Budget Proposal (2016-17), the Minister mostly covered ‘healthcare’ in points 52, 53, 54 and 55 of his speech, as follows:

A. Improving access to healthcare: 

While proposing a key measure to improve access to healthcare, the Minister acknowledged before the Parliament:

  • Catastrophic health events are the single most important cause of unforeseen out-of-pocket expenditure which pushes lakhs of households below the poverty line every year. 
  • Serious illnesses of family members cause severe stress on the financial circumstances of poor and economically weak families, shaking the foundation of their economic security.

In the above backdrop, the Minister proposed that, in order to help such families, 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.

B. Availability of quality medicines at affordable prices:

Acknowledging the fact that making quality medicines available at affordable prices has been a key challenge for the country, the Minister reiterated that the Government will reinvigorate the supply of generic drugs. Moving towards this direction, 3,000 Stores under Prime Minister’s Jan Aushadhi Yojana will be opened during 2016-17. 

C. Addressing an important need of end-stage renal disease patients:

The Minister informed the Parliament that around 2.2 lakh new patients of End Stage Renal Disease gets added in India every year, resulting in additional demand for 3.4 crore dialysis sessions. With approximately 4,950 dialysis centers in India, largely in the private sector and concentrated in the major towns, the demand is only half met. Every dialysis session costs about Rs. 2,000 – an annual expenditure of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Besides, most families have to undertake frequent trips, often over long distances, to access dialysis services, incurring heavy travel costs and loss of wages.

To address this situation, the FM proposed to start a ‘National Dialysis Services Program’. Funds will be made available through PPP mode under the National Health Mission, to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals. To reduce the cost, he proposed to exempt certain parts of dialysis equipment from basic customs duty, excise/CVD and SAD.

Unwrapping the healthcare budget proposal: 

Let me hasten to add at this stage that I have not seen the fine prints of each of these proposals, as yet. My analysis is solely based on the budget speech. 

A. Improving access to healthcare:

At Rs. 19,037 crores, the budgetary allocation for the ‘National Health Mission (NHM)’ remains almost the same as the previous year. Overall investments to improve healthcare infrastructure still remaining absolutely meager, the ad hoc strategy of the Government to improve access to healthcare is an insurance-centered, rather than universal, free and cashless health services, as was earlier suggested by the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ constituted earlier by the Government. 

According to the analysis of National Sample Survey (NSS) data for 2014, published in the Economic&PoliticalWeekly dated August 15, 2015, only 13.1 percent of rural and 12 percent of urban residents are covered by government-funded insurance schemes, though the official data states 25 percent coverage. The NSS data also shows an increase in the out-of-pocket expenditure in these areas.

This has happened, even after the promotion of the Governments own insurance-based schemes, such as, the RSBY by the Central Government and also similar schemes by the State Governments, such as, Arogyasri in Andhra Pradesh, over a decade.

Additionally, there are many other reports, which clearly highlight that just pushing for increased insurance coverage, does neither help the poorest of the poor of society, nor does it ensure better and more efficient financial protection.  

A paper of October 9, 2013 titled, “Universal Health Coverage – Why health insurance schemes are leaving the poor behind” reiterates that funding through progressive taxation is the key to achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage’. Even the poorest countries can raise more revenue for health through taxes. Oxfam estimates that improving tax collection in 52 developing countries could raise an additional US$269 billion, which is enough to double health budgets in these countries.

The world over, and mostly in the OECD countries, serious doubts are still being expressed about the effectiveness of targeted insurance-based health schemes, instead of public funded focus on ‘Universal Health Care’. 

Looking in isolation, while the measure of incremental health insurance coverage, as proposed by the Minister, seems to be a good intent to improve access to healthcare to some people, but is devoid of a clearly charted holistic pathway, based on the lessons learnt from the past. Just the announcement of intent may, therefore, not be effective on the ground. 

Currently, India has the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), launched by the Labor and Employment Ministry on April 1, 2008, to provide health insurance coverage to ‘Below Poverty Line (BPL)’ families. RSBY coverage extends to five members of a family-head of the household, spouse and up to three dependents, who are entitled to hospitalization coverage of up to Rs 30,000 for most diseases. In this insurance scheme, the beneficiaries require to pay only Rs 30 as registration fee, while Central and state governments pay premium to the insurer.

It is still not clear to me, whether, the newly announced insurance coverage is a separate scheme all together with details to be announced later or a part of RSBY initiative.

Besides all these, the fundamental question, however, that would still keep haunting, how would the existing mostly rickety rural brick and mortar healthcare infrastructure; non-availability of right medicines at the right time and at the right places; acute shortages of medics and paramedics, satisfactorily address the incremental needs, thus created? 

B. ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’: 

This does not seem to be a new initiative, at all. Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses. Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs. 

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India. If the initiative becomes successful, depending on the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional.

More recently, according to a June 02, 2015 report, “under the new business plan approved in August 2013, a target of opening 3,000 Jan Aushadhi stores during the 12th plan period i.e. from 2013-14 to 2016-17 was fixed. As per the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers report in March 2015, till date only 170 Jan Aushadhi stores have been opened, of which only 99 are functional.” 

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

  • A lackluster approach of State governments
  • Poor adherence to prescription of generic drugs by doctors,
  • Managerial/ implementation failures of CPSU/ BPPI.
  • Only 85 medicines spread across 11 therapeutic categories were supplied to the stores and the mean availability of these drugs was found to be 33.45 percent, with wide variations across therapeutic categories.

With all the available information, it appears that the same old and unsuccessful scheme, even during the tenure of the present Government, since the last 3 years, has been repackaged and announced with a new name “Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Scheme” in the Union Budget 2016-17. 

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time, but will it start working now, all of a sudden, despite sustained failure?

Besides strong support required from the State Governments, and other factors as enlisted above, making the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names would be a critical factor to make the “Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi scheme’ a success and primarily to extend desirable benefits to a sizeable section of both the urban and rural poor. The question, thus, remains, how would the Government ensure that the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names?  

C. National Dialysis Services Program: 

The proposal for the ‘National Dialysis Services Program’ to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals, especially, due to a staggering number of around 2.2 lakh patients of ‘End Stage Renal Disease’ in India every year, is yet another laudable intent in isolation, though it emerges just as an ad hoc measure in the healthcare space of the country, sans the new National Health Policy.

Conclusion:

In my article last week titled, “Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?”, I wrote, as the new ‘National Health Policy’ is still not in place, we may, at best see in the Union Budget Proposals (2016-17), some ad hoc measures for healthcare.

While unwrapping this budget speech of the, it appears that on a broader perspective the measures proposed in the budget have turned out exactly that way.

Nonetheless, the proposal of the Finance Minister for a special patent regime with a 10 percent rate of tax on income from worldwide commercialization of patents, which are developed and registered in India, is an excellent one, by any standard, for the innovators.

With frugal public health expenditure of just around 1 percent of GDP, as compared to 3.5 percent of China and 5 percent of Brazil, with larger GDP base, successive Governments of India has been blatantly neglecting public healthcare, for far too long, which continues even today.

At a time, when the Government is mulling making health a fundamental right for Indian citizens, similar to education, and making denial of health an offense, besides its earlier other promises, these budgetary measures are disappointing to many.

Overall, the Union Budget Proposals, made by the Finance Minister for 2016-17, falls far too short of reasonable expectations of any deserving citizen of the country. Neither does any such healthcare measure appear holistic to me, besides being sustainable, as I unwrap the Minister’s healthcare package and take a closer look at it.

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.