Tag Archives: drugs

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

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

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

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company

Location

Biosimilar mAbs

Development Status
BioXpress

Switzerland

16

Preclinical
Gene Techno Science

Japan

6

Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla

India

5

Preclinical
PlantForm

Canada

3

Preclinical
BioCad

Russia

3

Preclinical
Celltrion

South Korea

2

Phase 3
LG Life Sciences

South Korea

2

Preclinical
Gedeon Richter

Hungary

2

Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma

Switzerland

1

Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical

South Korea

1

Preclinical
PharmaPraxis

Brazil

1

Preclinical
Probiomed

Mexico

1

Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics

South Korea

1

Preclinical
Novartis

Switzerland

1

Phase 2
Teva

Israel

1

Phase 2
Zenotech

India

1

Phase 3
Spectrum

US

1

Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan

India/US

1

Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

  • Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
  • Cost containment measures of various governments
  • Aging population
  • Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
  • Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

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

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

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab  in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology  by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin  signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs  in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and  has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

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

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

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

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

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.

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on by
Reply

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

Company Brand
1 Forest Laboratories Lexapro
2 Takeda Pharmaceuticals Actos
3 Bristol-Myers Squibb Plavix
4 AstraZeneca Seroquel
5 Eli Lilly Zyprexa
6 Pfizer Lipitor*
7 Merck Singulair
8 Novartis Diovan
9 Teva Pharmaceuticals Provigil
10 Abbott Laboratories TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand,  has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company

Target company

The deal: $billion

Products
Roche Genentech 47 Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis Genzyme 20 Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca MedImmune 15.6 Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck Serono 13.5 Biologics
Takeda Millennium 8.8 Velcade, Oncology
Lilly ImClone 6.0 Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis Chiron 5.8 Vaccines
Teva Cephalon 6.2 Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis American BioScience 4.2 Oncology
Astellas OSI Pharma 4.0 Tarceva, oncology
Eisai MGI Pharma 3.9 Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene Pharmion 2.9 Oncology
Celgene Abraxis 2.9 Oncology
Gilead Myogen 2.5 Biotechnology
BMS Medarex 2.4 Monoclonal antibodies
J&J Crucell 2.3 Vaccines
Amgen Abgenix 2.2 Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim MacroGenics 2.1 Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead CV Terapeutics 1.4 Cardiovascular
Genzyme Osiris 1.4 Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK ID Biomed 1.3 Biologics
AstraZeneca Cambridge Antibody Technology 1.3 Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck Sirna 1.1 RNAi
Amgen BioVex 1 OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

  1. Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
  2. More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
  3. A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
  4. Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
  5. A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

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.

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that the government has accepted the submission of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ made to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommending prescription of medicines by their generic names.

It has now been reported that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has already considered the proposal to amend the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India for approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient only in the generic names by the State Licensing Authorities. The proposal to publish the draft rules has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for necessary approval. The Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) will be kept out of the purview of this amendment.

This recommendation of the  ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’  appears to be based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, includes ‘very high sales and marketing expenditure’, which  can easily be eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

The generics and the branded-generic drugs and their value proposition: As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to a chemical name in their value proposition.

Some other countries are also taking similar steps:

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government recently enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Quality standards of both generic and branded generic drugs are no different:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic or branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance. Thus when a generic drug is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically accept that it has met the required standards with respect to identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during manufacturing process for both branded generic and generic drugs and for that matter it is applicable to all drugs. However, all formulations of both types of these drugs manufactured by different manufacturers do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, all formulations of both generic and branded drugs must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will be the same.

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21)2514-2526]‘.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78%  of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Points to ponder and resolve in the current Indian situation:

While the intention of the Government is indeed good, some practical issues must be considered before its implementation, which are as follows:

1. Increased chances of error while dispensing:

Chemical names of medicines are complex. In case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. There could be differences even within single ingredient formulations:

Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Price differences between branded generics and generic generics may not exist:

It is intriguing to fathom, just for a switch over from the brand name to the generic name how will the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a single ingredient formulation, bearing only the generic name, come down. Currently, MRPs printed on the product packs of generic formulations without any brand name, as available in the retail outlets, are similar to comparable branded generic formulations. In that case, what benefits that Government will expect a patient to get out of this well hyped change?

4. Manufacturers may switch from single ingredient formulations to FDCs:

There is a theoretical possibility that to retain brand names, the pharmaceutical companies may be encouraged to change their formulations from single ingredient to FDCs. In that situation, single ingredient formulations may not be available and comparable FDCs could cost more to the patients.

5. The key decision will shift from physicians to retail chemists:

The major issue with prescriptions by the chemical/generic names is that retail chemists will then be the sole decision makers to choose the prescribed product from within a whole lot of over 30 to 40 manufacturers for a particular product.

What then will prompt the retailers to buy, store and sell different generic formulations of various companies and what could possibly be the key selection criteria for such drugs by them?

I reckon, there could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select only those which will give them highest margin of profits.

In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists. This could make the situation far worse for the patients.

In interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks and ensure that patients are not adversely impacted in any way.

Conclusion: Viewing purely from the Indian perspective, while the generic drugs per se are not bad for the patients, weighing all the above issues and possible risk factors against expected benefits, I reckon, without effectively addressing the above issues to start with, if the prescriptions of single ingredient formulations are made mandatory only in generic names, it could seriously jeopardize patients’ safety and interest.

In any case, when single ingredient formulations contribute just around 30% of the total prescriptions in India, how could then prescriptions of all single ingredient formulations only in generic names address the stated concern of the government, in a holistic way?

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

The domestic API players are fast losing their dominance in the Indian API market

Posted on by
Reply

There are two broad categories of markets for the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) across the world namely, highly regulated and semi regulated markets. Countries like, USA, Europe and Japan will fall under highly regulated category with high entry barriers for the global API players like, robust Intellectual Property (IP) regime and stringent regulatory requirements to meet their product quality standards. Such an environment prompts a premium price for the APIs. On the other hand, the semi regulated markets, which offer low entry barriers with not so stringent IP and regulatory requirements, attract more number of API players engaging in cut throat price competition.

The top three markets for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) are the US, Europe and Asia Pacific. According to ‘Business Wire (July 13, 2011), the API market in the Asia-Pacific is expected to grow from 6.7% between 2005 and 2010 to 9.6% between 2010 and 2016.

Currently a perceptible shift in API manufacturing is being noticed from the western markets to the emerging markets like, India and China. In the Asia Pacific region Japan and China enjoy the highest market share for API with 42.8% and 20.8%, respectively. India accounts for 10.3%, while South Korea holds an 8.1% share of the market. To avoid price erosions now seen in the US, Indian manufacturers have started exporting more APIs to Japan.

In 2010, contribution of generic API from the Asia-Pacific market was at 71.5%, with patented APIs contributing for the rest, where Japan enjoys a larger share than India and China. While this is the current scenario, many experts in this field contemplates that important players from the regulated markets will soon start making significant inroads in India.

Current API Market in India:
In 2007 the API output value in India was around US $4.1 billion registering a 5 year CAGR of around 19% and ranking fourth in the world API output. According to the Tata Strategic Management Group, Indian API export value is expected to increase to US $12.75 billion in 2012.

Currently in India about 400 different types of APIs are manufactured in around 3000 plants, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin, Shasun Pharmaceuticals, Orchid Chemicals, Aurobindo Pharma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Ipca Laboratories and USV being the top API manufacturers of the country. Indian domestic companies source almost 50 percent of their API requirements from China, because of lower cost in that country.

In terms of global ranking, India is now the third largest API producers of the world just after China and Italy and by end 2011 is expected to be the second largest producer after China. However, in Drug Master File (DMF) filings India is currently ahead of China.

In addition, India scores over China in ‘documentation’ and ‘Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)’ compliance. All these have contributed to India having around 125 US-FDA approved world class manufacturing facilities, which is considered the largest outside the USA.
Indian API manufacturers are facing a cut throat competition from their Chinese counterparts mainly because of lower costs in China. Considerably higher economies of scale and various types of support that the Chinese API manufacturers receive from their Government are the main reasons for such cost differential.
Growing competition from the regulated markets:
We now observe a new trend within the API space in India. Many of the global innovators and generic companies are keen to enter into the API space of India.

It is known that API manufacturers from the regulated markets are already selling their products in India. However, at present, the numbers of Indian registrations for API applied by some of the large global companies, as reported by ‘Thomson Reuters Newport Horizon Premium’, are quite significant, which are as follows:

1. Novartis, Switzerland: 20 2. Pfizer, USA: 16 3. Sanofi-Aventis, France: 26 4. Teva, Israel: 45 5. MSD, USA: 39 6. BASF: 37 7. DSM: 26 8. EON AG: 16 9. Kyowa Hakko: 23

All these companies, who are entering into the API business space in India, I reckon, have worked out a grand design to compete not only with the low cost domestic API manufacturers, but also with the cheaper imports, particularly from China.

China an emerging global force to reckon with in the API market:

An economy of scale leading to cost leadership is fast establishing China in the global API market as a force to reckon with. Dominant presence of China even in the bulk intermediate category with high level of technical expertise, especially in the fermentation technology, strong manufacturing base, supported by increasing standard of regulatory compliance and better IP protection, as perceived by the global pharmaceutical community, are helping the API manufacturers of China to gradually increase their presence even in the highly regulated markets of the world.

In this emerging scenario, when China throws a tough competition to the API producers of India,  developing and manufacturing niche APIs will be the key differentiating factors for the Indian players to maintain their global presence in future, especially with APIs involving non-fermentation technology.

What will then be the competitive edge of these companies in India?
It appears that each of these companies has weighed very carefully the existing strategic opportunities in the API sectors of India, both in terms of technology as well as domestic demand.

Strategic gap in API manufacturing technology:
India, undeniably, is one of the key global hubs in the API space, with competitive edge mainly in ‘non-fermentation technology’ product areas. This leaves a wide and perceptible technological gap in the areas of products requiring ‘fermentation technology‘.

Significant demand from domestic formulations manufacturing:
India is much ahead of China in pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing, especially in the area of exports to the regulated markets like, the USA and EU. Over 25 domestic Indian companies are currently catering to exports demand of the U.S market. However, it is interesting to note that the global manufacturers like Sandoz, Eisai, Watson, Mylan have already set up their formulations manufacturing facilities in India and some more are expected to follow suit over a period of time. Hence, fast growing domestic demand for APIs, especially for exports, will drive the business plan of the global API players for India.

Is the cost arbitrage of India sustainable?
Indian API manufacturers although currently have a cost advantage compared to their counterparts in the regulated market, this advantage is not sustainable over a period of time because of various reasons. The key reason being sharp increase in cost related to more stringent environmental and regulatory compliance, besides spiraling manpower and other overhead costs.

Indian regulatory requirements for the global API players:
To sell their APIs into India, global companies are now required to obtain the following regulatory approvals from the Indian authorities:

1. Foreign manufacturing sites for the concerned products

2. APIs which will be imported in the country

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has stipulated a fee of U.S$1,500 to register the manufacturing premises and U.S$1,000 to register each individual API. Since January 2003, around 1,200 registration certificates have been issued in India. Large number of Indian registrations is attributed by many to the strategic technology gap in India, as stated above, demand of high-quality API for finished formulations required by the regulated markets like the U.S and EU, and relatively cheaper product registration process.

As we see above Teva has gone for maximum number of Indian registrations, so far and most probably selling the APIs to their contract formulations manufacturers in India. Similarly, Schering-Plough and Sanofi, if not Pfizer are perhaps catering to the API demand of their respective formulations manufacturing plants in the country.

Apprehension of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets:

Growing apprehensions of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets like, India and China must also be addressed expeditiously by all concerned.

‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported that APIs from India, China and elsewhere now constitute 80% of the active ingredients in US drugs. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, some key global players mainly China, as mentioned above, are now exporting APIs at a much larger scale to India and in that process have started curving out a niche for themselves in the Indian API market. Impressive growth of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing market fueled by increasing domestic consumption and exports to the regulated markets, coupled with gradual improvement in the regulatory environment of the country and some global collaboration for the pharmaceutical formulations sourcing from India, are expected to drive the growth of API business of the global players in India. However, the moot question still remains: will the Indian API players be able to thrive or even survive the tough competition from the global players, especially China?

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: The Roadblocks and the Road Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical based drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologic drugs are developed from living cells and using very complex processes. These groups of drugs could range from simpler insulin to therapy for treating complex ailments like, cancer and almost invariably attract a high price tag, which could run even in thousands of dollars.

It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise. These drugs are usually much less expensive than the original ones and called ‘Biosimilar Drugs’. It is expected that ‘biosimilar drugs’ will have lesser market competition than the conventional ‘small molecule’ generic drugs, mainly because of complexity and costs involved in their developmental process.

Future growth potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, ‘Biosimilar drugs’ are considered to be a threat to the fast growing global biotech industry. At the same time, it is widely believed that in the rapidly evolving global concern for cheaper and more affordable medicines for patients across the world, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Novartis (Sandoz) – first to launch a ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for some time in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA. The CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”. Despite this event, none at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country.

Merck’s entry was through an acquisition:

Merck announced its entry into the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. Rich pipeline of follow-on biologics of Insmed is expected to help Merck to hasten its entry into global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ markets.

Other recent global initiatives:

  • Merck paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Novartis (Sandoz), Teva and Pfizer are expected to be strong players in the biosimilar market.
  • Reliance Life Science though has faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its copy of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now, is also a potential player in the biosimilar market.

Many other developments are also now taking place in the space of ‘Biosimilar drugs’, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, India has started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

Current status in the US:

President Barak Obama administration of the US has been expressing for quite some time a strong intent to pave the way for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the US. To facilitate this process, a new draft legislation titled, “Promoting Innovation and Access to Life Saving Medicine Act” was introduced by the legislators of the country. This legislation came into force with the announcement by US-FDA the outline of how biopharmaceutical players can submit their application for marketing approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country. Many industry players have since then been gearing up, across the world, to have a share of the potentially large ‘biosimilar drugs’ market in the US.

Challenging clinical data requirements in the US:

According to ‘Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act)’, which was enacted in the US on March 23, 2010, any biological substance to be “biosimilar” will require to be “highly similar to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components”. BPCI also specifies that there should be “no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product”. It is interesting to note that the Act emphasizes on ‘clinical similarity’ rather than ‘biological or structural similarity’ between the original and ‘biosimilar drugs’.

The New England Journal of Medicine dated August 4, 2011 reported that US-FDA is in the process of establishing very challenging clinical requirements from the makers of ‘biosimilar drugs’ for obtaining marketing approval in the country. Such stringent regulatory requirements are expected to push up the cost of development of ‘biosimilar drugs’ significantly, seriously limiting the number of players in the market.

12 years Exclusivity in the US:

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

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

However, the key point to note here is, if the FDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the 12 year period, the innovator companies in that case, will effectively get, at least, one more year of exclusivity over and above  the 12 years period, when the applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ will keep waiting for marketing approval from the FDA.

The market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for ‘biosimilars drugs’ is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of ‘biosimilar drugs’ will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent.

The Indian biotech players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the west is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-Alfa, which are not only being marketed in India but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the Global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations.

Funding by the Government of India:

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for ‘biosimilar drugs’ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same. Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$200 million annually towards biotechnology related initiatives.

Key success factors for rapid acceptance in the developed markets:

According to a new research finding from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new drugs is how quickly the specialists will accept them. So far as biosimilar drugs are concerned they noted a high level of concern, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications.

Conclusion:

With increasing global cost-containment pressures within the healthcare space, the emergence of a lucrative global ‘biosimilar drugs’ market now appears to be inevitable.

In the fast evolving scenario, major research based global bio-pharma and even the pure pharmaceutical companies will have two clear choices. The first choice is the conventional one of competing with ‘biosimilar drugs’ in all important markets of the world. However, the second choice of jumping into the fray, keeping undiluted focus on R&D, appears to be more prudent and perhaps will also make a shrewd horse sense. Only future will tell us, which of these two business senses will prevail, in the run up to success, for the global biotech companies.

With the above background, the report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlighting the fact, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India.

With around 40% cost arbitrage, as indicated above and  without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players  should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for ‘biosimilar drugs’.

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing  high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

In addition to cost efficiency, available skill sets in developing ‘biosimilar drugs’, will offer another critical advantage to the domestic players in reaching out to the international ‘biosimilar drugs’ markets either by themselves or with appropriate collaborative arrangements, just as we have recently witnessed in case of Biocon’s strategic collaboration with Pfizer in this rapidly evolving sector of the world.

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.

State funded ‘Universal Healthcare’ in India: A laudable initiative of the Government

Posted on by
Reply

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’, in the article authored by Prof. K. Srinath Reddy et al titled, “Towards achievement of universal health care in India by 2020: a call to action”, proposed creation of an Integrated National Health System in India through provision of universal health insurance, establishment of autonomous organizations to enable accountable and evidence-based good-quality health-care practices and at the same time reduce the high out-of-pocket expenditure on health care through a well regulated integration of the private sector within the national health-care system of India, by 2020.

About six months later, in its August 16, 2011 issue ‘The Times of India’ reported that the Planning Commission of India is currently framing up the blue print for a universal health insurance scheme which would provide a minimum cover to everyone in the country. It is expected that a surcharge will be levied for this Universal Health Care (UHC) initiative.

Though UHC is indeed a very commendably initiative for India as a nation,  some dubious and self-styled ‘healthcare crusaders’ have already started raising the bogey of ‘the inadequacy’ of the scheme as a diversionary measure to misguide the easily vulnerable common man of the country.

Efforts being made to sensationalize the current status of the Indian healthcare system:

Even in the backdrop of UHC initiative, the following sensational headlines could be fallacious at times, which more often than not are being misused by the vested interests:

  • “About 1.8 million children under age of 5 die in India every year; 68,000 mothers die due to maternal causes, and 52 million children in the country are stunted”.
  • “With 70% people living in more than 600,000 villages across rural India, not more than an estimated 30% have access to modern medicine”.

It is unfortunate that many key stakeholders, interested in improved healthcare system, are continuously engaged in an eternal blame game of ‘it is not my monkey’. At the same time, taking advantage of this confused situation, some other groups plan to facilitate their vested interests by projecting a ‘weaker India’ with contentious planted reports both overtly and covertly.

In this prevailing scenario, which has been continuing since the last several decades, there is no dearth of people who would attempt to hijack the health interest of the nation to harvest mega commercial benefits.

While all concerned should keep a vigil on such sinister design, let me now try to place some hard facts before you on the current healthcare scenario in India in the context of UHC.

The facts on access to ‘round the year’ healthcare facilities in India:

As reported by the Government of India in 2004, access to healthcare infrastructure and services for the rural villages in terms of percentages were as follows (Source: India Health Report 2010) :

  1. Primary Health Centers:  68.3
  2. Sub-Centers:   43.2
  3. Government Dispensaries:  67.9
  4. Government hospitals in urban areas:  79
  5. Private Clinics:  62.7
  6. Private Hospitals:  76.7

I reckon, after implementation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and National Urban Health Mission (NRUM), this situation prevailing in 2004 has improved. However, the scope for further improvement in all these areas still remains very high. UHC could be a key facilitator.

In any case, the shrill voice highlighting around 65% of population of India does not have access to healthcare or medicines seem to be highly misplaced.

‘Access to Modern Medicines’ is improving in India, slowly but surely:

Contrary to the above propaganda, in the real life situation the access to modern medicines by the common man in the country even in the rural India is steadily increasing.

This is evidenced by the facts, CAGR (volume) of the pharmaceutical industry since the last ten years has been around 13%, leaving aside another robust growth factor being contributed through the introduction of newer brands, every year. Encouraging growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, certainly signals towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines in India.

IPM maintained a scorching pace of 16.5% growth in 2010. A recent forecast of IMS highlights near similar growth trend in 2011, as well.

In addition, extension of focus of the Indian pharmaceutical Industry, in general, to the fast growing rural markets, which are currently growing at a much faster pace than ever before, clearly supports the argument of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even in rural India. The improvement in access may not exactly be commensurate to the volume growth of the industry during this period, but a major part of the industry growth could certainly be attributed towards increase in access to modern medicines in India.

For arguments sake, out of this rapid growth of the IPM, year after year consistently, if I attribute just 5% growth per year, for even the last nine years over the base year of 1998 (as reported in 2004 by WHO) to improved access to medicines, it will indicate, at least, 57% of the population of India currently has access to modern medicines and NOT just 35%, as I wrote in my blog earlier, quoting the numbers from the above WHO report of 2004.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend. Official communications of the government still quote the outdated statistics, which states that 65% of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today. No wonder, why many of us still prefer to live on to our past.

Be that as it may, around 43% of the population will perhaps still not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can be resolved with a holistic approach. UHC initiative together with improvement of healthcare infrastructure and delivery systems are the needs of the hour.

So called ‘Diseases of the Poor’ are no longer the ‘Leading Causes of Death’ in India:

As stated above, the disproportionate diversionary focus on the diseases of the poor by the vested interests, being the leading causes of death in India, should be re-validated with the data available with the office of the Registrar General of India (2009). This report highlights a totally different scenario, where the top five leading causes of death in terms of percentage, have been reported as follows:

  1. Cardiovascular diseases:  24.8
  2. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): 10.2
  3. Tuberculosis: 10.1
  4. Cancer: 9.4
  5. Ill-defined conditions: 5.3

Thus the diseases of the developed world, like cardiovascular diseases, COPD and Cancer cause over 45% of the total deaths in India, whereas Tuberculosis, Malaria, Diarrhea and digestive diseases cause around 23% deaths in the country. I reckon, UHC will take care of this emerging disease pattern in India.

The key reasons for not seeking medical treatment are not always poor ‘Access to Healthcare’:

While promoting the UHC, the government should take note of the key reasons for not seeking medical treatment, across socioeconomic milieu in the country. These reasons are not predominantly due to ‘Poor Access to Healthcare ‘. The following data will vindicate this point:

Reason

Rural Poorest 20%

Rural Richest 20%

Urban Poorest 20%

Urban Richest 20%
Financial Reasons

39.7

21.2

37.2

2.3
Ailments not considered serious

27.2

45.6

44.3

84.4
No Medical facilities

12.8

10.0

1.6

_
Others

20.3

23.2

16.9

13.3

Total

100

100

100

100

(Source: India Health Report 2010)

All these are happening probably because we do not have, as yet, any ‘well-structured healthcare financing system’ for all section of the society. The UHC initiative could well be a very significant part to the solution of this long standing problem together with other specific important measures, some of which I have already deliberated above.

While addressing the healthcare financing issue of India, January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented:

“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”

I reiterate in this context, UHC initiative brings a breadth of fresh air to the prevailing rather gloomy healthcare financing scenario in India.

A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure:

Look at it from, any angle, the general population of India is most burdened with high’ out of pocket healthcare expenses’ compared to even all of our neighboring countries:

1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%

(Source: The Lancet)

This factor itself, in case of just one or couple of serious illnesses, could make a middle class household of India poor and a poor could be pushed even Below the Poverty Line (BPL). UHC initiative of the Government is expected to change this scenario significantly in the years ahead.

The key unresolved issue of ‘affordability’ will get partially unresolved with UHC:

The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also pointed out that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively, are financed by loans and sell off assets.

This critical issue of ‘affordability’ of modern medicines is expected to get, at least partially resolved with the UHC scheme of the Government.

Around 32% of Indian BPL population can’t afford to spend on medicines:

While framing the UHC scheme, the government should keep in mind that a population of around 32% in India, still lives below the poverty line (BPL) and will not be able to afford any expenditure, however minor it may be, towards medicines. Proper implementation of the RSBY scheme with military precision, will be the right approach to this marginalized section of the society.

National Health Entitlement Card:

According to the Planning Commission, to enable the citizens availing the facilities provided by the ‘Universal Healthcare,’ the government will issue a ‘National Health Entitlement Card’, which will guarantee free access to  relevant healthcare packages designed for the primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare for all. This scheme will be fully funded by the Central Government and cover both inpatient and outpatient services.

Conclusion:

Thus in the current scenario, the initiative of ‘Universal healthcare’ to provide access to healthcare to all citizens of India by addressing the critical issue of high incidence of ‘out of pocket’ expenses towards health care, is indeed a laudable initiative and ushers in a breadth of fresh air, despite all motivated comments against it.

We need also to keep in mind, although the ‘Universal healthcare’ is a fascinating mega initiative by the Planning Commission of India, this may not resolve all health related maladies of the country in one stroke.

Even in the changed scenario, a large section of the population both rich and poor and from both urban as well as rural India, may continue to not seek medical treatment assuming initially many of their ailments are not serious enough. Such a situation will definitely not materially improve the healthcare scenario of India, quite adversely affecting the economic progress of the country.

Such a situation, if continues, will necessitate continuous disease awareness campaigns with active participation of all stakeholders, including the civil society across the country, sooner than later, in tandem with all other measures as may deem necessary from time to time.

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.

NRHM of India: Yet to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’

Posted on by
Reply

‘National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)’, one of the largest and a very ambitious healthcare initiative for the rural population of India, was launched by the Government of India on April 12, 2005.

The primary purpose of NRHM, as announced by the Government, was to ensure universal access to affordable and quality healthcare for the rural poor of 18 states of India, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, to start with.
During the launch of NRHM, the then Health Minister of India announced that the nation would see the results of these efforts in three years’ time.

The key objectives of NRHM:

• Decrease the infant and maternal mortality rate • Provide access to public health services for every citizen • Prevent and control communicable and non-communicable diseases • Control population as well as ensure gender and demographic balance • Encourage a healthy lifestyle and alternative systems of medicine through AYUSH

As announced by the government NRHM envisages achieving its objective by strengthening “Panchayati Raj Institutions” and promoting access to improved healthcare through the “Accredited Social Health Activist” (ASHA). It also plans on strengthening existing Primary Health Centers, Community Health Centers and District Health Missions, in addition to making maximum use of Non-Governmental Organizations.

NRHM was to improve access to healthcare by 20 to 25% in 3 years’ time:
To many the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has made a significant difference to the rural health care system in India. It now appears that many more state governments are envisaging to come out with innovative ideas to attract and retain public healthcare professionals in rural areas.
On January 11, 2010, the Health Minister of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, while inaugurating the FDA headquarters of the Western Zone located in Mumbai, clearly articulated that the NRHM initiative will help improving access to affordable healthcare and modern medicines by around 20 to 25 percent during the next three years. This means that during this period access to modern medicines will increase from the current 35 percent to 60 percent of the population.
If this good intention of the minister ultimately gets translated into reality, India will make tremendous progress in the space of healthcare, confirming the remarks made by Professor Sir Andrew Haines, Director, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as quoted above.

The Achievements:

More than five years are over now. Let us have a look at the key achievements of this ambitious health scheme as on January 2010, as available from the Ministry of Health:

  • 71.6% (10.86 million) institutional deliveries across India as compared to only 41%
  • 78.8% (19.82 million) children across the country fully immunized
  • A total of 23,458 primary health centers (PHC) have been set up against NRHM goals of 27,000 during the same period.
  • 5,907 community health centers were upgraded against 7,000 as was planned under the NRHM.
  • 462,000 Associated Social Health Activists were trained
  • 177,924 villages have sanitation committees functional
  • 323 district hospitals have been taken for up gradation

Free Care to Mothers and Children: A new initiative

In the recent publication of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) titled, ‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’, the ministry has highlighted another commendable initiative to provide free care to the mothers and children, which includes as follows:

Provision of free drugs,

  • Free Consumables and Diagnostics,
  • Free Diet during stay and
  • Free transport to health facility and drop back home. 

Still to ‘Tick all the Right Boxes’:

Despite all these, a recent study done by ‘Chronic Care Foundation’ indicates that in India about 86% of highly populated rural districts still do not have provisions for basic diagnostic tests for chronic ailments.

The study also highlights that in rural areas, as a percentage of total healthcare expenses, out of pocket costs are more than the urban areas, with hospitalization expenses contributing the most to the total costs. In many rural areas the healthcare costs have been reported to be as high as around 80% of the total expenses. Such a high out of pocket expenses have mainly been attributed to the lack of facilities in these rural areas, requiring patients to travel to distant areas for medical treatment. It was also reported that even in rural areas due to inefficient and inadequate services at the Government healthcare units there has been a very high dependence on more expensive private healthcare facilities.

Obvious questions:

Thus even after over five years from the inception of NRHM, the current status of rural public healthcare system, poses the following obvious questions:
• How is the huge money allocated for NRHM being utilized? • Who all are accountable for the current state of affairs of this great scheme?
Even our Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh has admitted recently that “the shortage of human resources was becoming an impediment in strengthening the public health delivery system through the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)”.

Economic Survey 2010 did raise a flag:

The Economic Survey 2010 highlighted that ‘several glitches in the flagship NRHM needed to be ironed out to improve health infrastructure’, some of these are the following:

  • Shortage of over 6,800 more hospitals in rural areas to provide basic health facilities to people
  • Shortage of 4,477 primary healthcare centers and 2,337 community healthcare centers as per the 2001 population norms.
  • Almost 29% of the existing health infrastructure is in rented buildings.
  • Poor upkeep and maintenance, and high absenteeism of manpower in the rural areas are the main problems in the health delivery system.
  • Basic facilities are still absent in many Primary Health Centers (PHCs) and Community Health Centers (CHCs) to provide guaranteed services such as in-patient care, operation theatres, labor rooms, pathological tests, X-ray facilities and emergency care.

The Economic Survey further highlighted that “An assessment of the health related indicators would suggest that significant gains have been made over the years. However, India fares poorly in most of the indicators in comparison to the developing countries like China and Sri Lanka. The progress in health has been quite uneven, across regions, gender, as well as space.”

It now appears that this great initiative of the government of India called the NRHM, has made, if at all, only marginal impact on the healthcare needs and systems of the nation.

Leveraging capacity of the Private Healthcare sector is critical:

Though the private sector contributes over 70% in healthcare space, unfortunately NRHM has not yet been successful to leverage this key strength.  Participation of the private healthcare players through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives could be one of the key determinants of success of NRHM of India. Electronic Media outreach program, though quite sporadic, has started creating some awareness about this project within the general population.

Role of the State Governments:

In the federal governance structure of India, health being a state subject, respective state governments should play more creative and proactive role with requisite allocation of fund, freedom of operation and accountability to make NRHM successful across the country.

Who will bell the cat?

To make NRHM deliver desired results the Government should at the very outset significantly increase in health expenditure to around 3% to 5% of GDP and simultaneously outline, decide and announce the key measurable success parameters for performance evaluation of the scheme. This is to be done by uploading for public scrutiny in the respective Health Ministry websites of both the Central and State Governments the names and designations of the responsible senior Government officials who will be held accountable for the success or failure to deliver the deliverables for NRHM. All these details should be updated at least half yearly.

With tax-payers money being utilized for this important and critical public health arena, no non-performance should escape attention and go unpunished.
Moreover, with the help of experts, the Government should decide which elements of each identified success parameters the Government will be able to deliver better with its own internal resources and what are those areas where the Government should outsource from the private players.
Such an approach when worked out in great details will be able to ensure whether through NHRM the country is making progress to improve access to affordable and quality healthcare for a vast majority of its rural population. Otherwise this scheme may well be treated just as one of those which failed to deliver and over a period of time vanished in the oblivion.

Conclusion:

Thus, in my view, despite publication of all the details done for NRHM by the MoHFW in its latest publication titled, ‘‘Two years (2009-2011): Achievements & New Initiatives’ and witnessing some sporadic flashes of brilliance here or there, I reckon, the overall implementation of this excellent healthcare project called NRHM has failed to tick many of the important boxes as was eagerly expected by the common man of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

e-healthcare: A new vista to improve access to quality and affordable healthcare in India

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of e-healthcare started germinating in India since 1999, when the ‘Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)’ initiated its pioneering step towards telemedicine in the country by deploying a SATCOM-based telemedicine network. This network is currently playing a key role in the evolution and development of e-healthcare in the country. ISRO, with its fine blending of application of world class satellite communication technology with modern medical science and information technology (IT), has engaged itself very seriously to ensure availability of quality and affordable specialty healthcare services right at the doorsteps of a vast majority of population living even in the distant and remote places of the rural India.

However, despite telemedicine gaining slow momentum in India, there is no law in place for ethical, affordable and patient friendly use of e-healthcare facilities in the country.  Considering its vast scope of improving access to healthcare, cost effectiveness and a convenient ways to deliver e-healthcare services to a very large number of patients, especially, located in the distant locations of the country, the law makers should urgently ensure that this important healthcare service is not misused or abused by unscrupulous elements, in any way.

Very recently, taking into consideration this critical legal requirement the Medical Council of India (MCI) has decided to soon forming a panel to address the ethical issues related to e-healthcare in India.

Delivery of e-healthcare through telemedicine:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined telemedicine as follows: “The delivery of healthcare services, where distance is a critical factor, by all healthcare professionals using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and injuries, research and evaluation, and for continuing education of healthcare providers, all in the interests of advancing the health of individuals and their communities.”

As stated above, telemedicine is gradually gaining popularity in India, like in many other countries of the world. This emerging e- healthcare service has the potential to meet the unmet needs of the patients located in the far flung areas, by providing access to medical specialists for treatment of even tertiary level of their ailments, without requiring traveling outside their villages or small towns where they reside.

The key objectives of e-healthcare:

1. To provide affordable quality healthcare services even to those places where these are not available due to lack of basic healthcare infrastructure and delivery issues.

2. Speedy electronic transmission of clinical information of both synchronous and asynchronous types, involving voice and data transfer of patients to distantly located experts and get their treatment advice online.

3. To effectively train the medics and the paramedics located in distant places and proper management of healthcare delivery/service systems.

4. Disaster management.

The Process:

The process can be: – ‘Real time’ or synchronous when through a telecommunication link real time interaction between the patients and doctors/experts can take place. This technology can be used even for tele-robotic surgery. – ‘Non-real time’ or asynchronous type when through a telecommunication link, stored diagnostics/medical data and other details of the patients are transmitted to the specialists for off-line assessment and advice at a time of convenience of the specialists.

These processes facilitate access to specialists’ healthcare services by the rural patients and the medical practitioners alike by reducing avoidable travel time and related expenses. At the same time, such interaction would help upgrading the knowledge of rural medical practitioners and paramedics to hone their skill sets.

The Promise:

e-healthcare is capable of taking modern healthcare to remote rural areas using Information Technology (IT), as specialists are mostly located in the cities. As majority of the diseases do not require surgery, e-healthcare would prove to be very conducive to such patients and economical too.

Relevance of e-healthcare in India:

With its over 1.2 billion population and equally huge disease burden, spreading across distant semi-urban and rural areas, where over 70 per cent of the population of the country lives, India should focus on e-healthcare to meet unmet healthcare needs of the common man, at least, located in far-flung areas. e-healthcare, therefore, is very relevant for the country, as it faces a scarcity of both hospitals and medical specialists. In India for every 10,000 of the population just 0.6 doctors are available.

According to the Planning Commission, India is short of 600,000 doctors, 1 million nurses and 200,000 dental surgeons. It is interesting to note that 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent of dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals, are situated in urban India.

Progress of e-healthcare in India:

Equitable access to healthcare is the overriding goal of the National Health Policy 2002. e-healthcare has a great potential to ensure that the inequities in the access to healthcare services are adequately addressed by the country.

Very encouragingly, a good number of even super-specialty hospitals like, Apollo Group of Hospitals have unfolded the launch plan of ‘Healthcare India Pharmaceutical Registry (HIPAAR)’, which is an electronic drug database for reference by the doctors and patients.  Apollo Group feels that HIPAAR module will enable the patients to know whether right medications have been used or not to treat the ailment that the concerned patient is suffering from along with the information of possible adverse effects of the medicines prescribed to them.

Currently, in the dedicated e-healthcare centers of ‘Narayana Hrudayalaya group’ pioneered by Dr Devi Shetty, patients from far-flung areas can have consultations with doctors in Bangalore.

Similarly, Asia Heart Foundation (Kolkata) and Regional Institute of Medical Science (Imphal, Manipur) are currently providing multi-specialty e-healthcare through telemedicine to 10 district hospitals, which will be extended to 75 District Hospitals, shortly. At the same time, some Government hospitals also have started extending e-healthcare through telemedicine facilities, which among others will handle e-transfer of medical data of patients like, X-ray, CT scan and MRI for not only diagnosing the disease, but also for treatment and medical consultation. Department of telemedicine of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital of New Delhi is one such example.

Well reputed cancer hospital of India, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) of Mumbai is now well connected with B.Barooah Cancer Institute of Guwahati, Assam and K.L Walawalkar Cancer Center of Chiplun, Maharashtra. Over a short period of time TMH plans to connect with 19 such regional cancer institutes.

Today the Center for Health Market Innovations (CHMI), a global network of partners that seeks to improve the functioning of health markets in developing countries to deliver better results for the poor, profiles more than 55 telemedicine programs globally including 24 in India.

Public Private Partnership:

As the Ministry of Health and Family welfare has now constituted a ‘National Telemedicine Taskforce’, some private healthcare institutions, as mentioned above, and various State Governments like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal have started taking admirable initiatives to translate the concept of e-healthcare into reality, especially for the rural India. Subsequently, private e-healthcare solution providers have also started coming-up, though in a sporadic manner.  Active participation of the civil society and meaningful Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are essential not only to get engaged in creating awareness for e-healthcare within India, but also to ensure that required blend of a high quality technical and medical manpower that the country currently possesses are effectively utilized to establish India as a pioneering nation and a model to emulate, in the field of e-healthcare.

The market of e-healthcare in India:

Frost & Sullivan (2007) estimated the e-healthcare (telemedicine) market of India at US$3.4 million is expected to record a CAGR of over 21 percent between 2007 and 2014.

More fund required for e-healthcare:

e-healthcare shows an immense potential within the fragile brick and mortar public healthcare infrastructure of India to catapult rural healthcare services, especially secondary and tertiary healthcare, to a different level altogether. Current data indicate that over 278 hospitals in India have already been provided with telemedicine facilities. 235 small hospitals including those in rural areas are now connected to 43 specialty hospitals. ISRO provides the hospitals with telemedicine systems including software, hardware, communication equipment and even satellite bandwidth. The state governments and private hospitals are now required to allocate adequate funds to further develop and improve penetration of Telemedicine facilities in India.

Issues with e-healthcare in India:

– Telemedicine will not be immune to various complicated legal, social, technical and consumer related issues.

- Some government doctors could feel that for e-healthcare they need to work extra hours without commensurate monetary compensation

- The myth created that setting up and running any e-healthcare facility is expensive, needs to be broken, as all the related costs can be easily recovered by a hospital through nominal charges to a large number of patients, who will be willing to avail e-healthcare facilities, especially from distant parts of India.

- Inadequate and uninterrupted availability of power supply could limit proper functioning of the e-healthcare centers.

- High quality of telemedicine related voice and data transfer is of utmost importance. Any compromise in this area could have a significant impact on the treatment outcome of a patient.

- Lack of trained manpower for e-healthcare services needs to be addressed quickly by making it a part of regular medical college curriculum, just as the University of Queensland in Australia has it for their Graduate Certificate in e-Healthcare (GCeH). A pool of competent professionals for e-healthcare services in the country will be a step in the right direction.

- Reimbursement procedure of e-healthcare treatment costs by the medical insurance companies needs to be effectively addressed.

Conclusion:

For an integrated and sustainable healthcare delivery model covering the entire population of the country, a robust e-healthcare strategy is absolutely essential.  Three critical success factors for e-Healthcare initiatives may be considered as follows:

  1. A comprehensive government policy
  2. Increasing level of literacy
  3. Power and telecommunications infrastructure

Unlike common perception, for greater effectiveness and better acceptance of any sustainable e-healthcare service project, the focus should be the same or rather a little more on non-technological areas like consumer mindset and competent healthcare providers than technological factors such as biomedical engineering or information technology.

A very large rural population of India living in remote areas could get access to affordable and quality health related services through e-healthcare facilities, which, I reckon, should be made to play a very special and critical role to address the healthcare needs of the common man. With its gradually increasing coverage, it is imperative that required regulatory standards and guidelines for e-healthcare are put in place across the country, sooner. Technological expertise to make e-healthcare successful is already available in India. The pioneering role that ISRO has been playing in this field is still not known to many.

Thus, to make e-healthcare successful, the country needs to create an appropriate groundswell for the same. All powerful and effective ‘Fourth Estate’ of the country should demonstrate greater interest to initiate a healthy discussion on e-healthcare by all stakeholders and play the role of a facilitator to ensure access to quality and affordable healthcare to all the people of India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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