Tag Archives: Express

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on by
Reply

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment  . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

  • Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
  • If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is   doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

  • The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
  • Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
  • Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

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.

Ringside View Of A Key Pharma Job Missing ‘The X Factor’

Posted on by
Reply

Just the other day, a well known doctor and a long-time friend of mine invited me for a friendly chat over lunch, after a long while. I had no option really but to accept the invite, as the warmth of his voice was overflowing.

Though the eatery, based on the ambiance and the quality of food we like, was mutually decided in his previous call, I called him again to ask whether on the pre-fixed date, about an hour earlier to the scheduled time, I can meet him first in his clinic and from there we can go together for lunch.

With a slight pause, he said, ‘No problem…but I won’t be able to talk to you there much, as I need to see all those patients with pre-scheduled appointments.”

“That’s no issue. We’ll have enough time to chat while eating. But, would you see any Medical Representatives (MRs) during that time?” I asked.

“Though my hectic schedule and other commitments don’t allow me to meet with them as much as I used to earlier…  yes, still I do meet with a few of them only two days in a week,” he took a pause, possibly to refer to his calendar and said, “Tomorrow being one those day…yes… I will… but why are you asking that?”

“I would like to just observe the MRs, while they discuss their products with you”, I literally warmed up while replying to him

“But Tapan, I don’t talk much in these meetings”, he replied somewhat apprehensively.

“Don’t worry, I shall just sit there, incognito, taking a mental note of what’s happening around, nothing more, nothing less,” I closed the call, as he did not ask any further question.

The ‘D-Day’:

On the ‘D-Day’, I entered for the first time into his well equipped and squeaky-clean clinic and saw his secretary sitting outside his office. She buzzed him immediately, as I introduced myself to her. To my utter surprise, my doctor friend came out promptly, despite his jam-packed schedule. Greeting me with his both hands and usual warmth and laughter, he took me inside, as the waiting patients were probably wondering, who is this gate-crasher? Offering a chair to me, the doctor friend smiled and said, “I couldn’t make time to meet any MR today since morning, though have kept a couple of them waiting for you to arrive, as you had desired.”

“That was not really necessary,” I quipped, “but thanks so much, nonetheless.”

The ringside view:

In a little over an hour’s time, I observed with great interest four MRs interacting with their, quite expectedly, one of the very potential customers.

Three of them were about thirtyish or below and one middle aged gentleman. Two of them came with their respective superiors. Three were quite traditional in approach. One was armed with an iPad.

I got an overall impression that the MRs were more in a hurry to conclude the call as compared to my doctor friend. Most of the interactions were more of reminder types than full detailing of any product, though all four of them had some very specialized products. I was under the impression that, at least, in presence of the supervisors, in-clinic proceedings take place with far more detail.

My doctor friend seem to be rather impatient and not quite enthused with the ongoing proceedings, but I was curious, very curious, especially when the young MR took out his iPad. I expected to see something novel on the innovative application of technology in medical communication. Probably for that reason, I was disappointed, when the young man handled the gizmo rather clumsily and used it merely to highlight some recent references on his specialized product stored in the archive.

Young looking accompanying managers of the two MRs did not appear to be live-wires, either. The participation of one of them was restricted to just handing over some medicine samples to the doctor, which the MR was passing on to him from his bag and the other just requested for prescription support for a product, as he was getting up from his chair.

While I was engrossed in the ringside view and my related thoughts, my doctor friend seemingly woke up wearing a smile, as a middle-aged confidant looking MR entered into the room. That gentleman came alone. He started his interaction recalling some events related to a trip abroad, which his boss had briefed him and conveyed to my friend how positive was the audience feedback after his speech. Informing that after the event his company has analyzed the key questions raised on the concerned product, he sought permission of the doctor to discuss top three of those questions very briefly, and he did. The doctor shifted his position in the chair several times rather awkwardly; probably because he was being so frequently referred to by the MR with lavish eulogy and that too in my presence. Though the content of the MR’s talk was not anything earthshaking, the environment that he created putting my friend on the pedestal, albeit with plain flattery, appeared to be working. He used no detailing aids, neither did he give any gift, but applied just impromptu traditional salesmanship.

This was the last MR call for us. My friend looked at me and asked, “Liked?” looking at each other both of us laughed loudly. I then stopped to ask him, “Do you prescribe the products they thanked you for prescribing?”

I am not very sure about others, but the gentleman who came last? … Yes, I do prescribe at least two of his products,” my friend replied with a disarming smile as he was standing up, looking at his watch.

He then put his hand on my shoulder and with a mild squeeze said, “Let’s step out now, rest we shall catch up on the run.”

A quick analysis:

According to my assessment, barring the last MR, none of the other three calls appeared to have interested my friend in any way, as he kept referring to his calendar, diary and other things very often, while those MRs were talking.

No wonder, my friend could not even remember prescribing any of their products. This probably means, at least three out of the four calls, made by MRs of very well reputed companies, did not leave much impact, if at all. Interestingly, two out of the four calls were from the MNCs.

Is the professional standard of MRs declining in India?

As we know, pharma industry in India is highly fragmented, with over 10,000 companies in the organized sectors and around 60,000 brands. In an environment of cutthroat competition like this, pharma players are exploring all possible means to carve out for themselves a decent share of the respective product categories, incurring average sales and marketing expenditure of around 20 to 22 percent of the total sales.

Like many other countries of the world, in India too, MRs are the most important link between the medical profession and the pharma companies. Thus, the cost of MRs takes quite a significant chunk of total sales and marketing budget of the pharma companies. There remains a huge scope for improvement though, in the realm of per MR productivity, which varies widely between the companies. For example, according to a recent report, a Sun Pharma MR on an average generated around Rs 90 lakh of business in the full year ended on March 31 2014, as compared to Rs 55 lakh of Ranbaxy, during the same period.

According to a survey conducted among both specialists and General Practitioners (GP), published in Express Pharma some years ago, out of total 30 doctors interviewed, 23 reported that quality of medical representatives visiting them has deteriorated. Only three doctors reported that the quality has not really changed, while four reported quality has improved. It was claimed by the authors that this survey result is statistically significant both on ‘t test and z test’.

The study concluded that pharma companies are responsible for this decline, as majority of them are focusing just on the end results without bothering much about the means to the end. This indicates, disproportionately more weightage is being given on the total quantum of sales rather than its quality, during performance measurement.

My above personal experience on the subject, though very short, is not much different from the above survey results, either.

The tradition continues over decades:

It appeared to me, besides new application of state-of-art technology to modernize the communication process, to ensure rapid access to all related information and to improve efficiency of tech based command and control sales & marketing management systems; basically nothing noteworthy has changed, just yet.

Interestingly, many readily available third party training programs for the MRs in the peripheral areas are springing up in large numbers with fancy claims, leaving one of the most critical issues virtually unaddressed.

I shall try to deliberate on that area now, as I see it.

‘The X Factor’:

In my view, just as the doctors are well recognized professional experts in medical care for treating patients based on evidence based science, MRs are also, supposedly, experts and a valuable source of knowledge for the medicines that their respective companies deal with, but unfortunately not regarded that way in India, generally. This is predominantly because, the doctors have accreditation for their profession that is absolutely a pre-requisite for their medical care business. Whereas, MRs do not have any such accreditation, which could formally recognize them as professionals in the knowledge-based drug/medicine business and related areas. Thus, there is somewhere a basic disconnect between the professions of the doctors and the MRs.

‘The X Factor’, in my view, is the process that facilitates requisite professional connects between the doctors and MRs, cemented by mutual professional respect, sans any kind of vested interests or needs of allurements, generally speaking.

Only with ‘The X Factor’ induced professional connects, I reckon, MRs could establish themselves as high quality source of knowledge for the drugs and disease areas that they deal with, of course, backed by regular training to hone their knowledge and skills.

This ‘X Factor’ could well be embedded into the organizational sales/marketing systems by putting in place a formal process to recognize medical representation as a respected profession.

The process of accreditation:

A structured process for Accreditation of MRs, most desirably, by involving the Government, can help achieving this goal sooner. If the Government participation is not possible for various reasons, the accreditation to MRs should come from some highly credible source, as would be accepted by the medical profession.

The process of Accreditation of MRs involves, in brief, documentation of the candidate’s basic pharma related knowledge, comprehension ability and domain specific skill sets, together with the ability of successful application of all those, while interacting with the medical profession to achieve the business goals.

The key task in the process of Accreditation is to develop modern technology based self-learning programs for the MRs that would provide basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology together with a range of common treatments. Overall knowledge of communication and selling skills would also form an integral part of this process.

The Accreditation would ensure that the MR aspirants attain reasonable high standards for the profession that they are aspiring for. Later on, the pharmaceutical companies, who would hire them, could mold and sharpen their knowledge and skills according to company specific requirements.

Accreditation of MRs would, therefore, be a formal way to ensure that requisite high standards of the MR profession are met. Consequently, while meeting accredited MRs, the doctors would also know that they are meeting well trained and groomed, competent and credible disease area specific drug consultants. This, in turn, would help establishing requisite professional connects between the two professions based on a bond of mutual trust and respect, resulting in a win-win outcome for both.

How would the doctors recognize accredited MRs?

On successful completion of the examination for Accreditation, the individual would earn the privilege of being called an ‘Accredited Medical Representative (AMR)’, and acquire the right to put ‘AMR’ symbol next to his or her name in the business card and to wear a nice looking ‘AMR Pin’, while meeting the doctors.

Nothing much visible in this direction:

That said, not much has been effectively done, as yet, either to arrest the declining image of the MRs in the eyes of the medical profession or to make the MR profession a respectable one, except giving some extrinsic fancy job titles to them, devoid of any intrinsic value.

I am aware of some highly credible organizations, which are capable enough to give a formal shape to ‘MR Accreditation Program’ in India.

Thus the following key question arises in search of ‘The X-Factor’:

Should MRs need to have Accreditation from a credible and recognized authority in India, formally recognizing them as ‘Drugs/Medicine professionals’ and adding significant value and greater respect to the profession that they belong to?

In an earlier blog post titled “A National Regulatory Standard is necessary for MRs of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”, I had flagged this issue, though on a different perspective

Epilogue:

Now I get back to where I started from, in this article:

In about an hour, we were done with the lunch. However, while my doctor friend and I were eating, in track two of my brain, all those that I mentioned above were flashing by, though not in an orderly manner.

While we were in the portico of the hotel requesting the doorman to page our drivers, I thanked my doctor friend for buying me a sumptuous lunch and casually commented, “You remember the last MR?… He seems to have been really flabbergasted by your awesome speech in their conference abroad. My compliments! You have always been an excellent speaker!”

“Well…”, he quipped somewhat embarrassingly.

“Why have you reduced the frequency of meeting with the MRs?” I was curious, as those calls were a great learning experience for me, after a long while.

“Time…that’s a great constraint for me. Moreover, these meetings are like going through just motions”, he replied, while looking for his car.

Our cars arrived.

Before, I got into my car, I turned back to ask again, “Did you enjoy your foreign sojourn as a speaker for that pharma company?”

By that time the doctor friend was already in his car. Before closing the door, he looked at me again, widely smiled…somewhat naughtily, lunged forward, lowered his voice and haltingly replied, “Well…You know that…Bye for now.”

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.

Is The Indian Patent Regime Weak?

Posted on by
Reply

“India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” US Senator Orrin Hatch commented while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30.

The reasons for this low score, especially true in the case of the pharma sector, are the US view that India’s patentability requirements are in violations of Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, the non-availability of regulatory data protection, non-availability of patent term restoration and the use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Given this, one could, erroneously though, assume that the Indian Patent Act is weak and not TRIPS-compliant….

To read more of this article, along with another interesting expert view, please click on The Financial Express March 4, 2014.

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.