Tag Archives: Failure

Impact of The Cost of Pharma Marketing Failure On Patients

Posted on by
Reply

‘About half of all products launched over the past 15 years have underperformed pre-launch consensus forecasts by more than 20%.’ It’s one of the findings of a recent study by L.E.K. Consulting, going back to 2004. This number is besides the cost of failure while discovering a successful New Molecular Entity.

Adding this to the cost of the product innovation and development, clinical trials and other regulatory expenses, the wasteful expenditure becomes mind boggling – for any unsatisfactory launch performance. In such a situation, the probability of creating newer blockbuster therapies is not getting any easier.

As is believed by many – and vindicated by several studies, new drug marketing cost is more than its R&D cost. Which is why, ensuring success of a new drug launch is critical to fund new drug innovation – on an ongoing basis. Consequently, leadership focus on high ‘launch success’ rate is so important – as the good old saying goes – ‘well begun half done.’

In addition, prudent optimization of the success rate of new products may also help the company avoid irresponsible pricing, while improving the profit margin. In this article, I shall deliberate on the impact of the cost of marketing failure on patients, in general. Alongside, the avoidable ‘soft ground’ that marketers may wish to avoid while delivering unmet value to patients.

Big Pharma’s Sales and Marketing spend is more than R&D:

According to another recent study of October 27, 2021, ‘in most cases, more of the dollars spent by drug manufacturers go toward selling and marketing costs than toward research and development (R&D) for new treatments, cures, or expanded indications and uses of existing drugs.’ For example, as the paper highlights:

  • AbbVie, which manufactures branded drugs like Humira, spent $11 billion in sales and marketing in 2020, compared with $8 billion on R&D.
  • Bayer, which manufactures branded drugs like Xarelto (codeveloped with Johnson & Johnson) and Eylea, spent $18 billion in sales and marketing, compared to $8 billion on R&D.
  • Johnson & Johnson, which manufactures branded drugs like Xarelto (codeveloped with Bayer) and Stelara, spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, compared to $12 billion on research and development.

Therefore, just as R&D expenses have to be made more productive, so are the sales & marketing expenses, where the expenditure towards new product launches is a critical component.

Why a successful new product launch is important:

An analysis by Deloitte in this area, published on March 26, 2020, found that most new drugs continue with the revenue trajectory set at launch. It said, about 70 percent of products that miss expectations at launch continue doing so in subsequent years, and around 80 percent of products that meet or beat expectations continue to do so afterward. Thus, launch success of a new product is very important, both for the organizations and the patients.

A successful new product launch helps both the company and patients:

Correctly assessing and leveraging full commercial potential of a new product through its effective launch helps both the patients and the company. This subject was discussed in a recent article, published in the Fierce Pharma on October 25, 2021, in the context of many drug launch disasters. The areas of benefits, I reckon, include the following:

  • Patients’ unmet needs are met at a reasonable price
  • Manufacturer can recoup its research and development costs.
  • Fund future drug discoveries.
  • Satisfy investors with handsome returns.
  • Creating a sound brand performance base – as a strong launch is arguably the most critical step in a new drug’s lifecycle.

New product launch failure is across the disease areas – from Big Pharma to Startups:

As the above December 18, 2020, study by L.E.K. Consulting points out that new products’ launch failure is taking place across the disease areas. These include,  Oncology, immunology, infectious disease, ophthalmology, blood disorders, brain diseases, and cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Similarly, the companies responsible for such failure span across global pharma majors to biotech startups.

Why many companies are failing in this process:

To help ascertain the depth of this issue, let me start with the key objective of a new product launch, which is effectively delivering the holistic value of the brand which consumers would appreciate. Several papers also acknowledge, to succeed in this area, pharma players need to prepare their data-based launch plan with cerebral power and ensure that the strategy is working and is being executed flawlessly.

A large number of studies find, ‘many companies fail in this process, due to a combination of factors.’ Some of these are uncontrollable, but many of which are very much within a marketer’s control.

Examples of uncontrollable and controllable variables:

Uncontrollable factors include post marketing approval drug safety issues. Reports indicate, ‘One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval.’ This is being reported even in recent times, like, ‘new safety signals that cropped up after the approvals of Novartis’ eye drug Beovu  and Sanofi’s dengue vaccine Dengvaxia.’

Whereas, controllable factors include, poor product differentiation and other management missteps, besides ‘limited market access, poor understanding of market needs or misjudgment of competitive threats.’ For example, poor product differentiation and other management missteps were, reportedly, ‘the cause of trouble for Clovis Oncology’s Rubraca in the PARP inhibitor space, and Merck & Co. and Pfizer’s Steglatro in the SGLT2 field.

Key success ingredients to focus on:

Since long, various research, including one by Bain & Co dated October 2017, has highlighted that over 50% of new product launches are underperforming. This situation can’t, in any way, be accepted as a ‘thumb rule’ by pharma marketers, any longer.  Mainly because: ‘When a drug misses its launch projections, there’s a high likelihood that it will never recover that revenue,’ as their study findings underscore. From this perspective, listed below are some of the basic areas to focus on for greater launch success, as I have experienced:

  • Early launch planning – well before the regulatory approval for new products.
  • Data-based and well-tested target-audience identification, the target markets’ selection and key opinion leaders need to be selected for greater focus in effective stakeholder engagement.
  • Creating differentiated value-propositions that addresses targeted patients’ unmet needs, and, in tandem, offers scope for commensurate premium pricing, are vital.
  • Product pricing should be based on quality of value delivery to patients that they can perceive and would acknowledge. Misvaluing a brand, and just focusing on those who can pay, may attract negative publicity, creating a key barrier to success.
  • Current competition, their ongoing counter strategy, new market competitors and other launch challenges need to be carefully mapped, for strategic fine tuning or course correction, in time, wherever and whenever needed.
  • Execution of the launch plan must be accomplished with military precision, as it were.

Conclusion:

As the above Bain & Co paper articulated, ‘The most consistently undervalued factor contributing to a successful launch is the way leadership teams organize and the manage the launch process.’

It’s again not too difficult to understand that the net accountability of the cost of marketing failure, which is a major contributing factor to stifle the R&D funding, in many cases, squarely falls on pharma leadership.

Instead of taking corrective action in this critical area, most of them choose the easy path – increase new product pricing to achieve targeted revenue from a smaller unit sale of the brand. The net impact of which is on patients due to access barrier caused by high prices.

Such products, without clearly differentiated value propositions that patients would recognize, would further increase sales and marketing costs, and could even result in marketing malpractices. Under this backdrop, serious and thoughtful attempt in making all new product launches successful money spinners, as respective brands will merit, may help the pharma leadership to create a win-win situation for both the company and patients.

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.

 

What Pays More: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’?

Posted on by
Reply

More innovative a drug is, the better is its business success rate. This was the general perception of around 92 percent pharma professionals in the past three years. Whereas the fact is: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore’. This was established by a research study of the ‘Bain & Company’ - covering multiple therapeutic areas, and was published on October 14, 2019.

It showed, when physicians prescribe a drug – its efficacy, safety and side-effect profile initially account for only 50 percent to 60 percent of the physician’s choice, with a declining trend over time. Interestingly, the other 40 percent to 50 percent of it, is based on a range of ‘physician and patient experience factors’, which pharma players need to target in innovative ways to differentiate their brands.

Many pharma companies are now experiencing the harsh reality that more innovative drugs, backed by traditional sales and marketing support are not yielding desirable financial returns. Head scratching has already started among astute pharma professionals to understand its reason for remedial measures. Thus, the number of executives who agreed with the above ‘Bain & Co’ study that: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore,’ increased to almost fourfold – from 8 percent to 28 percent in the next three years.

Thus, in this article, I shall explore whether innovation in creating a ‘unique patient experience’ during a disease treatment process, is as important, if not more than a ‘new drug innovation’. Curiously, high failure rate of most pharma players to innovate in this area, isn’t discussed as much as high failure rates in the development of innovative new drugs.

‘Customer service’ innovation – high failure rate – falling short of expectations:

Again, another article - ‘How Agile Is Powering Healthcare Innovation,’ published by ‘Bain & Company’ on June 20, 2019, brought out some interesting points related to this area. Let me quote a few of which as follows:

  • 65 percent of ‘customer-service innovation’ fall short of expectations of the target group.
  • The number of health care executives recognizing the need to respond quickly to changing customer-needs, has increased from 38 percent in the past three years to 60 percent for the next 3 years. But, most of them ‘lack the methodology, and even the language to implement it in practice.’
  • ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore.’ Thus, healthcare companies face growing pressure to innovate in providing unique ‘customer experience’.
  • The critical point to note, customer needs evolve continuously, and leading companies respond rapidly with innovative new solutions catering to changing market demand.

As the core purpose of working for ‘customer-service innovation’ is linked with creating ‘brand loyalty’, let’s have a quick recap on ‘brand loyalty’ really means for pharmaceutical products, in today’s context.

‘Brand loyalty’ for pharmaceutical products in modern times:

There are many similar definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ for a pharmaceutical product. The research article – ‘Brand Loyalty as a Strategy for the Competition with Generic Drugs: Physicians Perspective,’ published in the Journal of Developing Drugs, on August 30, 2016, defined ‘brand loyalty,’ and articulated its advantages.‘ I am paraphrasing a few of which, as below:

  • The extent of the faithfulness to a particular brand, which is a major indicator of a long-term financial performance of companies.
  • The main advantages of brand loyalty can be defined as greater sales and revenue, a substantial entry barrier to competitors, increase in a company’s ability to respond to competitive threats and lower consumer price sensitivity.
  • ‘Brand loyalty’ can protect against price competition, including branded generics, as it gives confidence to physicians on the perceived effectiveness and safety of a brand – which they usually won’t be willing to compromise with for lower prices.

This brings us to a key question. Are traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience’?

Creating ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘patient loyalty’ – a new equation:

It’s a fact today that traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ is getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience.’ This, in turn, is increasing the need of building ‘patient loyalty’, both for a pharma brand, as well as respective companies offering these brands. This is a new equation, where offering a ‘unique treatment experience’ to patients assumes a critical role more than ever before. This needs to be clearly understood by today’s pharma marketer, without any ambiguity.

In traditional pharma marketing, physicians remain, virtually, the sole focus of the branding exercise, as they appear to be the only decision makers of writing a brand prescription. Patients, in general, hardly used to have any role to play in that process. In this scenario, brand loyalty for the doctors – assuming the absence of any malpractices, is primarily driven by the following three much known factors:

  • Physicians’ unprejudiced buying-in a brand’s value offerings
  • Evaluation of opinion leaders and the doctors’ professional counterparts,
  • Quality of disease treatment outcomes.

Nevertheless, before getting into this area, let’s have a quick look at the primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand.

Traditional sales boosters of a pharma brand:

The primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand can broadly be classified as follows:

  • Multiple ways are followed to make important doctors write more prescriptions,
  • Increase the drug price, whenever an opportunity arises.

These factors still remain important, but aren’t just enough to deliver sustainable performance over a period of time. Thus, a new dimension needs to be added to it.

Add a new dimension to create brand and corporate loyalty:

With the emergence of increasingly more informed and demanding patients, there is a need to create a ‘loyal patient population’, by offering them primarily a ‘unique treatment experience’. And this is the new dimension.

For this purpose, off-the cuff approaches or strategies based on mere gut-feelings are unlikely to work. As I indicated in one of my articles, marketers need to acquire deep insights on their customers to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. Currently available state of the art technology can be a great enabler to facilitate this process.

This is easier said than done, because answering the question – how does a drug company create ‘brand loyalty’, is indeed a tough call. Nonetheless, many different industries have realized, since long, that offering a ‘unique customer experience’, is critical to create a pool of ‘loyal customers’.

I also had written earlier, pharma is still a late learner in accepting various new normal, in a holistic way. Accepting this reality, a sharp focus on creating ‘brand loyal doctors’ in various innovative ways, I reckon, will serve this purpose well. It’s only recently, a few companies have started working to offer such ‘experience’ to patients in the disease treatment process - end-to-end. Ironically, a large majority of them prefer to talk about it more than actually translating the same into reality.

Benefits of ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘unique customer experience’:

There are several advantages of building pharma ‘brand loyalty’ by offering ‘unique customer experience, without diluting the focus on ‘increasing prescription generation through doctors’. The benefits, I reckon, include, both new – innovative products and also branded generics. Let me give below one example of each:

  • Innovative new-products – positive word-of-mouth promotion: Satisfied patients having ‘unique end-to-end treatment experience’ with a new, innovative brand, are very likely to share it with others. This may be done by using different modes of communication, including various social-media platforms. This, in turn, may help both – add to take-off speed – post launch and create a snowballing impact on the brand adoption thereafter.
  • Branded generics – extend the product life cycle and increase growth: Patients who are loyal to a particular branded version of a generic molecule, are quite likely to refuse any change to a cheaper equivalent, even if recommended by the physician. Moreover, they will advocate for this brand to others, using different communication platforms, as indicated above. Continuation of this process will extend the life cycle of the branded-generic, with increasing growth and market share.

Conclusion:

Now, it’s time to get back to what we started with - What pays more: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drug?’ From the above perspective, it emerges that bringing innovative product to markets is, of course important. However, to ensure its sustainable financial success, other innovations, such as creating ‘a unique end-to-end patient experience’ with the brand, in all probability, would weigh more. This is an area which did not receive much attention for a long time, moving beyond the creation of increasing numbers of ‘brand loyal’ doctors, for business success.

Today, increasing consumerism in the health care space, besides pricing pressure, unfavorable perception and sinking image of the industry, is creating a strong headwind – impeding desirable growth of many pharma players. Such a challenging business scenario has prompted a few of them to innovate in designing a differentiated ‘customer experience’ – in a true sense.

Although, a large number of companies are talking about it, most are mere lip-services – a ground-swell in this area is yet to take place. The industry priority, in general, still weighs heavily in developing innovative products, and creating ‘brand loyal’ doctors, rather than cultivating ‘brand loyal patients’, alongside.

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.

Dawns A New Era: Regenerative Medicine For Degenerative Disease

Posted on by
Reply

Could breakthrough innovation in ‘Regenerative Medicine’ significantly reduce the need of expensive lifelong medications, or even make the use of some important medical devices less relevant, or even help avoiding expensive and risky surgical interventions? The common answer to these critical questions is now getting clearer, in tandem with the rapid progress of the science of ‘Regenerative Medicine.’

On June 13, 2017, Nature Biomedical Engineering published an interesting an article titled, “3D-printed vascular networks direct therapeutic angiogenesis in ischemia.” In simple words, these 3D-Printed patches are going to usher in a highly innovative way to treat ischemic diseases, in the future. As the researchers highlighted, arterial bypass grafts are currently considered as the gold standard for the treatment of end-stage ischemic disease, though many patients are unable to tolerate the cardiovascular stress of arterial surgery. The researchers found that implantation of 3D-printed grafts containing endothelial-cell-lined lumens, induces spontaneous and geometrically guided generation of collateral circulation in ischemic settings.

In rodent models of hind limb ischemia and myocardial infarction, these scientists successfully demonstrated that the vascular patches rescue perfusion of distal tissues, preventing capillary loss, muscle atrophy and loss of function.

In this article, I shall deliberate on the importance of this discovery, and its overall future implications on a broader perspective.

Regenerative medicine:

Here comes the basic question – What is ‘Regenerative Medicine’?

It is defined as a highly innovative branch of medicine that develops implementable methods to regrow, repair or replace damaged or diseased cells, organs or tissues. According to RegerativeMedicine.net following are illustrations of some conditions or diseases that regenerative medicine has the potential to cure, and what their current state of treatment looks like in in the American perspective:

  • Heart valves- 250,000 patients receive heart valves, at a cost of US$27 billion annually
  • Heart disease and Stroke- 950,00 people die of heart disease or stroke, at a cost of US$ 351 billion annually
  • Diabetes- 17 million patients have diabetes, at a cost of US$ 132 billion annually

I discussed in this blog, the subject of ‘3D Printing in health care’ on January 11, 2016. Hence, won’t dwell on that subject here

Ischemia, and the relevance of the above discovery:

Ischemia, as many would know, is a condition that restricts adequate flow of blood in some parts of our body, which over a period, may narrow, harden or even block the important blood vessels, much often resulting in stroke, heart attack or other related life-threatening vascular disorders.

Currently, ischemic heart conditions are usually treated either with blood thinning drugs, or blood vessel relaxants. In more serious stages of this condition, doctors prefer angioplasty or other surgical interventions, such as coronary artery bypass.

In this broad perspective, the relevance of the above discovery in addressing various debilitating or life- threatening ischemic conditions, is profound. Its novelty lies in the ability of the scientists making a 3D-printed patch that can be infused with cells to help grow healthy new blood vessels.

An emerging medical space:

The science of ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is increasingly being considered as an emerging medical space aimed at the treatment of those diseases that are usually classified as degenerative, incurable and irreversible. As it appears today, this science has the potential to unfold a new paradigm in this space, where patients can expect cure for many serious ailments, such as, spinal injuries, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease and even diabetes, besides many others.

One more recent pursuit in this much uncharted frontier was reported in the British news daily – ‘The Telegraph’ on February 21, 2017, revealing the outcome of a path-breaking medical study for freezing the progression of a crippling ailment called Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This research followed a unique Stem Cell (SC) transplantation process, and is regarded as the largest long-term follow-up of SC transplantation treatment study of MS in regenerative medicine.

This study, spearheaded by Imperial College London, established that 46 per cent of patients who underwent the treatment did not suffer a worsening of their condition for five years. The process works by destroying the immune cells responsible for attacking the nervous system. This is indeed a very significant development in the space of medical research.

The treatment, called autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), was given to patients with advanced forms of MS who had failed to respond to other medications. However, the researchers noted that the nature of the treatment, which involves aggressive chemotherapy, carried “significant risks”.

As many would know, MS is caused by the immune system malfunctioning and mistakenly attacking nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, leading to problems with movement, vision, balance and speech. It’s a lifelong condition and often causes serious disability, with no cure still in sight. The disease is most commonly diagnosed in people in their 20s and 30s, although it can develop at any age.

A potential game changer:

According to California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), this procedure has a game changing potential for successful use:

  • To replace neurons damaged by spinal cord injury, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or other neurological problems
  • To produce insulin that could treat people with diabetes, and heart muscle cells that could repair damage after a heart attack, or
  • To replace virtually any tissue or organ that is injured or diseased

Research on “Regenerative Medicine’ signals a new hope:

Following are examples of just a few more promising developments, indicating that research in ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is taking rapid strides, signaling a new hope:

- A cure for Type 1 diabetes:

According to an international report on October 9, 2014, for the first time after 23 years of research, Harvard University has been able to manufacture millions of beta cells required for transplantation. It could mean a cure for diabetes, and the end of daily insulin injections for patients living with Type 1 diabetes. Although, just around 10 per cent of all diabetes is Type 1, it is the most common type of childhood diabetes.

The report indicated, the stem cell-derived beta cells are presently undergoing trials in animal models, including non-human primates, where they are still producing insulin after several months.

Another report of April 2014 indicates that for the first time, scientists have successfully replaced the damaged DNA of a type 1 diabetes sufferer with the healthy genetic material of an infant donor. When these cells are injected back into the diabetic patient, it is expected that they will begin to produce insulin on their own.

- Restoring vision in macular degeneration:

Yet another study published in ‘The Lancet’ in October 2014 stated that scientists in the United States have announced that single transplant of stem cells has helped restore the sight of patients suffering from incurable forms of blindness due to Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD). Currently no effective treatments exist for this eye disorder, which can cause complete blindness due to the loss of light-receiving photoreceptor cells in the retina.

To recreate a type of cell in the retina that supports those photoreceptors, the new treatment uses stem cells derived from embryos that are only a few days old and have the ability to develop into any kind of tissue in the body. However, the transplants have proved controversial because they use stem cells derived from spare human embryos left over from IVF treatment.

- A cure for heart failure:

One more international report of May 01, 2014 states, by injecting human stem cells into the organs of macaque monkeys, scientists have been able to regenerate their damaged hearts by up to 40 per cent in just a few weeks. Thus, it appears now that a cure for heart failure could be just a few years away and would mean that even people who are “bed-bound” with heart failure could be “up and about” again within a few weeks.

As on date, the heart muscle cannot be repaired, making people with severe heart failure necessarily wait for a heart transplant, provided the patients are willing, and can afford so.

Conclusion:

There is a host of diseases, including several chronic ailments, such as diabetes, heart conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, or some types of cancer, which can’t be reversed, however, could be managed with a lifelong treatment. For most of these diseases, ‘Regenerative Medicine’ has the potential to be a game changer by transforming many lives.

Moreover, ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is expected not just to bring down the cost of health care and the disease burden significantly, but would also help increasing the economic productivity of a nation considerably.

Currently, medical research of the highest order in this area, has mostly been conducted by various academia of global repute, along with a few in the industry. It should soon involve, besides patients, several industries, including pharmaceuticals and biotech sectors, in a big way.

Nevertheless, this emerging trend sends a clear signal that to treat various chronic, incurable, irreversible and seriously debilitating degenerative diseases ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is now poised to take a giant leap in the health care space.  In that process, it would possibly help healing various ailments in a more meaningful, providing a cure for many chronic diseases that was a badly missing piece in the medical science, so far.

Thus, ‘Regenerative Medicines’ to treat many ‘Degenerative Diseases’ signal a great potential to give an altogether new shape and dimension to the future of global health care. It is also expected to ensure lesser lifelong usage of expensive drugs, setting a new normal to bring back the patients’ lives back to the pre-disease state.

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.

 

 

Drug Price Control in India: When A Local Media Goes Against, A Global CEO Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

‘Variety is the spice of life’, as the good old saying goes. The week, just gone by, was indeed packed with a wide variety of surprises, well encompassing various important areas, some of which are as follows:

  • Effective November 08, 2016 midnight, Indian currency notes of ₹500 and ₹1000 denominations ceased to remain legal tenders. This demonetization followed extensive media coverage, both national and international, on unprecedented administrative and public chaos around this otherwise bold and good intent.
  • The same day witnessed much unexpected triumph of Trump as the 45th President-Elect and the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. It is entirely a different matter though, that post-election, millions of Americans reportedly took to streets across the United states to vent their fury over the billionaire’s election victory.
  • On November 07, 2016, a well-known Indian business daily, ‘The Economic Times’, in its editorial, apparently expressed its solidarity with the pharma industry, in general, to do away with drug price control in India. The key reason for this advocacy, as I could sense, is to encourage the drug players to grow by making more profits. I respect this view of the editor will all humility. However, the point that I am unable to ferret out though, what happens to especially the poor patients in such an eventuality. With hands-on experience in the pharma industry over several decades, it appears to me that the editorial suggestions, as well, grossly lack in requisite depth of understanding of the core issue.
  • On November 09, 2016, quite opposite to what the above editorial of ‘The Economic Times’, the current global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline – Sir Andrew Witty, in an interview, strongly argued in favor of the necessity of drug price control in India, that improves access to medicines for a vast majority of the country’s population. To substantiate this point Sir Andrew said in another interview on the same day, “We’ve seen demand of products jump 45 percent after the price is cut by 20 percent. The problem arises when we don’t have supply to cater to the demand, leaving patients frustrated. A bit more predictability (on the part of government) will help.”
  • As if this diametrically opposite views are not enough, on November 10, 2016, the well-known civil society organization – ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’, reportedly sent legal notices to the CEO of Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries to the Health Ministry, Department of Pharmaceuticals and Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion over their talks to cut the powers of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). AIDAN has termed this Government move “anti-national” and “anti-people”, further adding that it affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to the pharma related issue of the past week, especially on the interesting advocacy through editorial, against the drug price control in India. Simultaneously, I shall also underscore its relevance in the country, primarily to improve access to medicines for millions of Indians, as articulated by one of the leading voices from the global pharma industry.

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

This particular question floats in my mind because of several reasons. One such is, almost regularly sponsoring fully paid trips for doctors, especially in an exotic foreign land, by many pharma companies. Such practices of the drug companies are generally inferred, more often than not spearheaded by a large section of the media, as dubious means of the organization to entice, or influence prescribing decisions of physicians in favor of their respective high priced brands, ignoring the health and economic interest of patients.

In similar context, just after having a quick glance over a not so important article, written on various operations at the headquarter of a global drug company situated in a beautiful locale of the world, when one focuses the fine print at the end as a disclaimer, which reads: “This reporter was in (name of the country) on an invitation by (name of the global company)…, do the readers arrive at the same conclusion on ‘gratification’, as above, and its consequent possible outcome on pharma related writings of these reporters?

Can the concerned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ possibly claim desired intellectual independence in their analysis of a situation involving such companies or their trade associations, even after the above disclaimer? Or for that matter, related publications too, which allow acceptance of such avoidable ‘gratis’ by its reporters? Shouldn’t such incidences, whenever these happen, irrespective of who availed these, be perceived in the same light?

In the current scenario, this issue is something for us to seriously ponder. This is mainly because, for following similar practices, why should there be two different yardsticks to gauge the quality of professional independence of two different otherwise highly respectable professions?

This reminds me of a great pharma reporter, writing for an internationally acclaimed business daily, mainly on the drug industry and healthcare. I met him in India a few years back on his invitation. Although, I shall not take either his or his paper’s name. This is to show respect to our free and frank interaction. He flew down to India with his employer paying all the pharma reporting work related expenses. He met with all those in the Indian drug industry that he wanted to, primarily to capture the nuances of the thought pattern of large and small Indian pharma players. I was so impressed with his intellect, and independent professional outlook, like all those who met him during his that specific visit to India. Even now, I can feel his independent perspective, as I read his articles. It would be great to experience similar feelings, while reading pharma related articles and editorials, in various publications of my own country. At the same time, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong regarding any such possibilities in this area.

That said, I shall now move on to the relevance of drug price control in India.

Any relevance of drug price control in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

No doubt, this is a very pertinent question. Equally pertinent answers are also available in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with issues related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’, despite intense competition, especially for branded generic drugs in India.

Quoting a practicing surgeon, the DSE article states: “Sometimes it could be just plain ignorance about the availability of a cheaper alternative that makes doctors continue to prescribe costlier brands. But one cannot ignore the role of what is euphemistically called marketing “incentive”, which basically mean the inappropriate influence pharmaceutical companies exert on doctors. This runs deep. Hospitals choose to stock only certain drugs in their in-house pharmacies and insist that hospitalized patients buy drugs only from the hospital pharmacy. Drug companies sell drugs to hospitals at a price much lower than what the patient is charged, further incentivizing the hospital to stock their products. The cheaper brands often get left out in this game.”

Further, in an ideal free-market economic model, for all approved branded generics with exactly the same formulation, having the same claimable efficacy, safety and quality standards, though marketed by different pharma companies, competitive forces should prompt some parity in their pricing.

Any generic brand with exactly the same formulation as others and offering the same therapeutic value, but costing significantly more, should ideally attract a lesser number of customers, if and where purchase decisions are taken by the consumers directly. However, for prescription medicines it’s not so. The well proven process of consumers exercising their own choice to select a brand, mostly influenced by advertising or word of mouth, does not happen at all.

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated the following:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines generally unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts the huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on health care.

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

In this context, it is important to note that seven large Civil Society Organizations in a letter of August 20, 2014 addressed to Mr. Ananth Kumar, the present Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers with a copy to Prime Minister Modi, articulated similar views, as follows:

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

Last week, AIDAN has also indicated that the reported Government move to curtail the power vested on the NPPA for drug price, affects an ongoing case at the Supreme Court over various aspects of the drug price control.

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

It is often highlighted that medicines cost much cheaper, if not the cheapest, in India. This is too simplistic a view on this subject. It compares the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against the prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries, only after applying the following two critical parameters:

  • Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
  • Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drug pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to the majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

‘Cannot do away with Drug Price Control’ – said the New Government:

On August 24, 2015 in an interview with a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

All stakeholders expect that there is some predictability in what the Government says. Can the stand taken by the policymakers change in just a year’s time, probably wilting under industry pressure?

Conclusion:

The drug price control in India is in vogue since 1970, uninterruptedly. The retail audit data continue to indicate that the growth of the Indian pharma industry, over the last four and half decade long price control regime, has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improved access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. Sir Andrew Witty of GSK also articulated the same view, just the last week. It’s a different story altogether that some of the industry sponsored expensive market surveys attempt to wish it away.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India in 1970, almost all the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about seven are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without frequent M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been probably higher today.

By the way, what’s the span of drug price control in India really – just about 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? Around 80 percent of the local drug market continues to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the promoter of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person in India. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control.

Keeping this in perspective, is it not baffling to fathom the reason behind a local business publication’s apparently endorsing the advocacy initiatives of pharma industry against drug price control through an editorial, when a well-regarded global pharma CEO expresses a strong favorable view in this regard?

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.

‘The Memory Thief’ Still Eludes Grasp Of Pharma R&D

Posted on by
Reply

Over several decades, in fact, since its very inception, pharma R&D has been playing a crucial role in alleviating diseases of various types – from severe acute infections, to a large variety of non-infectious chronic illnesses, including many dreaded diseases, such as, cancer.

In the battle against diseases, pharma research and development initiatives, both by a large number of academia and also the pharma players, have mostly won, decisively. R&D has been consistently coming out with flying colors, both in finding cures and also in effective disease management, to prolong and improve the quality of life of billions of people, the world over.

However, there is still an important disease area, where pharma R&D has not been successful yet. Without any prior warning, this disease stealthily affects the human brain and completely erases the entire lifetime memory of the person, gradually but surely, over a relatively short period of time. This disease is known as Alzheimer’s, following the name of Dr.  Dr. Alois Alzheimer, who first detected it in 1906. Due to its devastating impact on human memory, some, very appropriately, term the Alzheimer’s disease – ‘The memory thief’.

I discussed this subject in one of my previous articles titled, “It Took 90 Years To Accept The Dreaded Disease Discovered In A Mental Asylum”, published in this Blog on December 01, 2014.

A recent alarm for a future epidemic:

A January 6, 2016 paper titled, “Sounding the alarm on a future epidemic: Alzheimer’s disease”, published by the well reputed public research university in the United States, ‘The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), made the following noteworthy observation:

“If the aging trend illustrates the success of public health strategies, it also raises the specter of a major public health crisis – a sharp rise in the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease.”

Causing havoc in many lives and families:

‘Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral (ADEAR) Center’ of the United States, currently ranked Alzheimer’s disease as the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, but recent estimates indicate that the disorder may rank third, just behind heart disease and cancer, as a cause of death for older people.

According to Mayo Clinic, the frightful disease – Alzheimer’s, is progressive in nature. At the onset, the afflicted persons may exhibit just mild confusion and some difficulty in remembering.

Tragically, in around five years or a little after, Alzheimer’s would erase the entire lifetime memory of most of the affected persons, when they may even forget the important people in their lives and undergo dramatic personality changes.

The dreaded disease – Alzheimer’s, still without any effective medication in place, has been causing havocs in many lives and families since long, involving many great international personalities too. It is one of those ailments, where the disease process mostly commences almost a decade before the visible appearance of above clinical symptoms.

Worldwide Projections of Alzheimer’s Disease Prevalence:  

The above UCLA report highlights the worldwide projections of Alzheimer’s disease prevalence from 2005 to 2050, which includes both the early and late stage patients.

According to this report, the number of people afflicted by this total memory-erasing disease, would grow from 35.26 million in 2015 to as high as 106.23 million populations in 2050, as follows:

Year Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (in Millions)
2005 25.73
2010 30.12
2015 35.26
2020 41.27
2025 56.55
2040 77.49
2050 106.23 
Similar situation in India: 

The situation in India seems to be no different, though we are living today in the midst of the hype of ‘Demographic Dividend’.

According to the March 2012 report of ‘The Population Reference Bureau’ of Washington DC of the United States, India’s population with ages 60 and older, who are more prone to Alzheimer’s disease, is projected to increase dramatically over the next four decades, from 8 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2050. By mid-century, this age group is expected to encompass 323 million people, a number greater than the total US population in 2012.

Currently available treatment:

At present, there are no treatments available that can stop or slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain of the affected persons.

As I wrote earlier, very often the onset of this disease starts decades before the visible manifestation of even preliminary symptoms. Thus, there is a critical need for early medical interventions to arrest the disease progression.

Again, quoting Mayo Clinic, current Alzheimer’s disease medications and management strategies may at best temporarily improve symptoms. These symptomatic treatments can sometimes, help Alzheimer’s patients maximize cognitive and other related functions to the extent possible, and thereby maintain independence for a little while longer.

Primary reasons:

Many earlier research had postulated that plaques and tangles are primarily responsible for the permanent damage and destruction of nerve cells.

While the plaques are abnormal clusters of beta-amyloid protein fragments between nerve cells, tangles are twisted fibers made primarily of a protein called “tau” that accumulates in the brain cells, damaging and killing them.

The appearance of these two in the brain structure makes the affected persons suffer from almost irreversible memory loss, altered thinking pattern and associated behavioral changes, which are usually serious in nature.

However, I shall discuss below about a very recent research that is focusing on a different and novel target.

Key hurdles in Alzheimer’s drug development:

Despite all these, almost at a regular interval, we have been getting to know about various new studies on Alzheimer’s disease, mostly from academic and scientific institutions. It clearly vindicates, at least, the global academia and also some pharma players, are working hard to get an effective key to unlock the pathway of Alzheimer’s disease process.

The hurdles in developing a suitable drug for effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are many. A paper titled, “Researching Alzheimer’s Medicines: Setbacks and Stepping Stones Summer 2015”, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) – a trade association of leading biopharmaceutical researchers and biotechnology companies of the United States, cited the following three major reasons as examples:

  • Scientists still do not understand the underlying causes and mechanisms of the disease. It remains unknown whether many of the defining molecular characteristics of the disease are causes, effects, or signs of progression. This scientific knowledge gap makes the identification and selection of viable targets for new medicines difficult. 
  • Current preclinical models of Alzheimer’s disease are limited in the extent to which they can be extrapolated or translated to the human condition. Better models are needed to facilitate preclinical testing of drug candidates and better predict the effects of the drug in humans. 
  • The absence of validated, non-invasive biomarkers to identify disease presence and progression means the diagnosis is delayed until an individual becomes symptomatic. This makes it particularly challenging to evaluate, enroll, retain, and follow up with patients in clinical studies. It also makes it challenging to assess the effects of the drug candidate. Ultimately, this leads to long and very expensive clinical trials. 

The PhRMA publication also states that “researchers believe that no single medicine will be able to defeat Alzheimer’s; rather, several medicines will probably be needed to combat the disease. Thus, researchers need not one, but an array of options to prevent or treat Alzheimer’s disease.”

High rate of R&D failure, with flickers of success:

The above PhRMA publication also indicates, between 1998 and 2014, 123 medicines in clinical development have been halted and have not received regulatory approval.

In this rather gloomy R&D scenario, there are also some flickers of success in this pursuit.

In a recent study, the scientists at the University of Southampton announced that their findings added weight to evidence that inflammation in the brain is what drives the disease. A drug, used to block the production of these microglia cells in the brains of mice, had a positive effect. The study, therefore, concluded that blocking the production of new immune cells in the brain could reduce memory problems seen in Alzheimer’s disease. This finding is expected to pave the way for a new line of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

Currently, most drugs used for the treatment of dementia targeted amyloid plaques in the brain, which are considered as a key characteristic of people with the Alzheimer’s disease. According to an article published in Forbes on March 20, 2015, several amyloid-clearing drugs have failed to show statistically significant benefits in large clinical trials. Notable among those are Bapineuzumab – developed by Elan Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson failed in 2009; Solanezumab of Eli Lilly failed in 2012; and so did Gantenerumab of Roche in 2014.

The latest study, as quoted above, published in the journal ‘Brain’, on January 8, 2016 suggests that targeting inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia, could halt progression of the disease.

Another flicker of hope is, another drug being developed by Biogen Idec for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease appeared to slow down the inexorable cognitive decline of patients’, though in a small and a preliminary study.

Lack of research funding is a critical impediment:

Be that as it may, many experts believe that not enough is still being done in Alzheimer’s research, especially in the area of funding.

In an article titled, “Alzheimer’s disease: are we close to finding a cure?” published by ‘Medical News Today (MNT)’ on August 20, 2014, quoted the Alzheimer’s Society, as follows:

“Dementia is the biggest health and social care challenge of our generation, but research into the condition has been hugely underfunded. This lack of funding has hampered progress and also restricted the number of scientists and clinicians working in the dementia field.”

As an illustration, MNT mentioned that in the United States Alzheimer’s research received US$504 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014, while cancer received more than US$5 billion. Breast cancer alone received more funding than Alzheimer’s at US$674 million. 

Quoting an expert in this field the report highlighted, “Other diseases have demonstrated that sustained investment in research can improve lives, reduce death rates and ultimately produce effective treatments and preventions. We have the tools and the talent to achieve breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s disease, but we need the resources to make this a reality.”

Conclusion:

From the published research reports, it appears that the quest to decipher the complicated Alzheimer’s disease process continues, at least by the academic and scientific institutions, with equal zest. 

These scientists remain committed to finding out the ‘magic bullet’, which would be able to effectively address the crippling disease. As a result, the research has also moved from discovery of effective amyloid-clearing drugs to search for new molecules that targets inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia. 

Undeniably, the challenges ahead are still too many.

Nevertheless, enough confidence is also building up to halt the epidemic of Alzheimer’s by overcoming those hurdles, the world over. Experts are hoping that both a cure and also successful preventive measures for the disease, are not too far anymore.

Though some Global Pharma majors invested significantly to discover effective drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, overall research funding in this area is still far from adequate, according to the Alzheimer’s Society. 

For various reasons, not many pharma players today seem to believe that it would be financially prudent for them to make significant investments in developing new molecules for the treatment of Alzheimer’s – the disease that robs memory of millions of people, completely, and without any prior warning whatsoever.

‘The Memory Thief’ continues to prowl, undeterred, still eluding otherwise brilliant Pharma R&D, across the world.

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.

 

Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Aggressive drug pricing is becoming a burning issue in the healthcare space, across the world. The raging debate continues in India too, fueled by many factors.

In this context, it was quite interesting to note, on July 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of India asked the Government to analyze and explain why the controlled price of essential medicines has been fixed at a high level, depriving the poor from getting life-saving drugs at reasonable rates.

Consequently, the Government was compelled to have a relook at the allegedly ‘flawed’ National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and the subsequent Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) forming an inter-ministerial committee to work out a more robust alternative.

Even thereafter, on November 03, 2015, the editorial column of a business daily concluded by advocating, “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market.” The editorial has not elaborated though, what it means by “excessive price control,” despite the fact, the current span of drug price control is just around 20 percent of the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Market.

The most intriguing part in this editorial is, to make affordable health care in general and drugs in particular available to all, though it broached on some ideas in a patchy way, did not suggest any comprehensive pan-India solution, as a viable alternative. It just wrote against DPCO, which too seems to be off the cuff, as many believe.

Such blatant advocacy against DPCO, without being overarching solution centric, could jeopardize patients’ health interests in India. This is primarily because, ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on drugs is one of the highest in India, even as compared to its neighboring countries, with very low per capita income.

I discussed in this Blog similar subject on July 13, 2015 in my article titled, “India: Tops The GDP Growth, Remains At The Bottom On Health Care”.

Would abolition of DPCO be foolhardy? 

Further, the above editorial comment on the above  business daily that “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market,” appears hypothetical and not fact based, as many experts in this field have articulated quite in contrary.

Many believe, the bogey that advocates ‘price control causes drug shortages’ is industry sponsored. Whether it is right or wrong, may be a contentious issue. Nevertheless, there is no robust evidence that price control causes drug shortages.

At the same time, this is also true that some price controlled drugs under DPCO 1995 were discontinued by the respective manufacturers. The key reason for the same is product obsolescence, as those drugs were old and newer alternatives were in the market. Those are really product value and prescription demand related issues. To the best of my knowledge, not a single modern drug, has ever faced permanent shortages due to the price control in India. Moreover, there are robust provisions under DPCO 2013 to deal with such artificial drug shortages, as and when happen.

Moreover, after the announcement of Ceiling Prices of DPCO 2013 products, when wholesaler’s margins were initially revised downwards by a number of manufacturers, some wholesalers agitated and refused to buy those drugs causing some shortages. This dispute was mutually resolved since then, jointly by the drug manufacturers and pharma wholesalers. There have been no reported shortages of DPCO 2013 drugs, thereafter.

Be that as it may, I reckon, advocacy by any responsible entity to abolish DPCO in India without suggesting an effective alternative, such as, putting in place a public funded Universal Health Care (UHC) mechanism, would be foolhardy. We have a large number of functioning examples of UHC, across the world, including the OECD and BRICS countries, which makes a policy mechanism like DPCO almost irrelevant.

What happens when ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing is allowed?  

Recent incidences of ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing in the largest free-market economy of the world – the United States, have started attracting ire of even the more affluent and mostly health insured American citizens too.

As reported by the Boston Globe on October 16, 2015, this is happening in both patented and generic medicines. A few examples, out of many, of some recent jaw dropping aggressive drug pricing are as follows:

  • Average price of a new cancer drug costs around US$ 100,000 a year
  • A new hepatitis C drug costs US$84,000 for a course of 12-week treatment
  • A generic tetracycline price was increased by 70 fold just within a year
  • 5000 percent-plus increase on Turing Pharmaceuticals’ generic Daraprim (pyrimethamine) ant-parasitic tablets

Moreover, on November 6, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that three US pharma majors – Eli-Lilly, Merck and Valeant have received inquiries about drug pricing from the Justice Department of the US Government.

Giving an example, the report stated that for the nine months ended September 30, sales of the asthma drug Dulera inhalers (containing a combination of formoterol and mometasone) of Merck, rose 17 percent from the year-earlier period to US$383 million.

Is the dictum ‘competition controls prices of generic drugs’ just a myth?

Besides many other examples, the last two of the above four points on 70 fold and 5000 percent price increase for two old generic drugs – tetracycline and pyrimethamine, respectively, in the world’s largest free-market economy, suggests that ‘competition fails to control even generic drug prices’ for various other reasons. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India has already termed this phenomenon as ‘market failure’ for medicines. 

Adding to it, Elsevier Clinical Solutions reported recently in a White Paper titled, “The Impact of Rising Generic Drug Prices on the U.S. Drug Supply Chain”, as follows:

“Over the past two years, the pharmacy industry has seen unprecedented increases in the prices of generic drugs, causing unexpected cost increases for payers and consumers, and spurring an investigation by the United States Congress.”

A recent survey:

More recently, in October 2015, ‘Kaiser Health Tracking Poll’ of the ‘Kaiser Family Foundation’ of the United States reported that the affordability of prescription drugs continues to be at the top of the public’s priority list for the President and Congress in America. In this study, 77 percent of Americans identified the increasing prices of prescription drugs as their number one health concern.

The top two priorities by majorities across political parties, were reported as follows:

  • Making sure that high-cost drugs are affordable to those who need them
  • Government action to lower prescription drug prices

Following this report, on November 03, 2015, the ‘Committee on Oversight & Government Reform’ of the U.S. House of Representatives, by a ‘Press Release’, announced that “Top House Democrats Launch Affordable Drug Pricing Task Force.” The members of the newly formed Task Force will suggest meaningful action to combat the skyrocketing costs of pharmaceuticals in the United States, as captured in the survey of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Does India want to jump into this quagmire? 

If DPCO is abolished India because of intense, both direct and indirect advocacy, would India have no alternative but to jump into this quagmire of allowing free-drug pricing to pharma players?

70 fold and 5000 percent obscene price increase in a year for branded generics may not be possible in India, but for non-schedule drugs, there is no cap on the fixation of the launch price either. Any drug manufacturer can first fix a high launch price and then can go for 10 percent price increase every year, putting public health interest in jeopardy. That’s why inter-brand price difference for the same drug molecule in India varies so much and has attracted the attention of even the NPPA.

The unfinished agenda:

There is no denying of the fact that even DPCO is not a comprehensive mechanism to offer affordable health care to all. It is meant primarily for the essential drugs in the prevailing environment, when the out of pocket drug expenditure hovers around 70 percent, being one of the highest in the world.

To offer a viable mechanism for affordable health care to all, India expressed its interest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in 2010, when the erstwhile Planning Commission of India convened a High Level Expert Group (HLEG) to work out a road map for UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, the physician of international repute. UHC has still remained an unfinished agenda in the health care space of India.

At that time the HLEG made some important recommendations in its report for effective implementation, the key ones being the following: 

  • Increasing public financing from the current 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to at least 2.5 percent.
  • Outlined an essential health care package for provision through tax funding, supplemented by employer-provided insurance
  • Free provision of essential drugs and diagnostics.
  • Emphasized prioritized funding for primary health care, with efficient links to secondary and tertiary care. 
  • Services were to be delivered jointly by strengthened public facilities and contracted private providers. 
  • Reforms were suggested for improving the health care workforce, strengthening of regulatory systems for quality assurance, and improving governance and accountability. 

Change in Government puts UHC back to square one? 

Meanwhile, the change of national Government in May 2014, gave a new perspective to the debate over UHC. The incumbent Government that had already promised and announced a “National Health Assurance,” released a draft National Health Policy (NHP) in January 2015 for public discourse.

The NHP outlines a broad framework for reform of the health care system in India. The new policy, besides others, clearly recommends the following:

  • Enactment of citizens ‘Right to Health’ through parliamentary legislation
  • Allows states to decide the services that would fall under ‘Right to Health’
  • Both public- and private-sector providers would be engaged to deliver the service package, which would be paid for by government-funded health insurance schemes
  • The states will have greater freedom in designing and delivering health programs

As the union government has already agreed to increase the states’ share of central tax revenues from 32 percent to 42 percent and transferred the responsibility for funding and implementing welfare schemes to the states, it should also identify and assign to them specific responsibilities for effective health care systems against measurable parameters.

Although the final version of the NHP has not yet been made public and adopted just yet, it will need firm political and budgetary commitment for resource allocation both by the Union and the State governments.

Current impediment to UHC:

Implementation of UHC calls for increasing public health expenditure significantly, from the current 1.2 percent to around 2.5 percent, may be over a period of five years. However, immediate increases in public financing for UHC may get impeded by the Government priority on fiscal deficit reduction, which is likely to continue in the immediate future too

Possible alternative:

As Dr. Srinath Reddy suggested in a paper titled, “India’s Aspirations for Universal Health Coverage”, published in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2, 2015:

“Health can, however, be positioned prominently in other new, well-funded government schemes such as:

  • The “Clean India” Mission, focused on sanitation and reducing air pollution,
  • The Smart Cities Project, which deploys information technology for urban development and service delivery.

Nevertheless, it may take years for the right mix of political will, financial resources, and health system capacity to deliver on the full promise of Universal Health Care.”

Assuming continuity of this situation in the near term, UHC for India is not visible anywhere near the horizon, not just yet.

Conclusion:

Non availability of affordable health care for all, including drugs, keeps bothering a vast majority of population in the country. Ironically, people feel its absence, mostly when the concerned individual or his/her dependents or any near and dear ones falls sick afflicted by serious ailments such as cancer or any other serious chronic disease.

This serious handicap for the nation has remained a key retarding factor in its attaining much desired sustainable rapid economic growth objectives, primarily for the following reasons:

  • Per capita income is very low compared to the size and other resources of the country
  • Public expenditure for health has still remained one of the lowest in the world
  • Fragile public health care infrastructure and delivery systems
  • No ‘Universal Health Coverage’ in place
  • Just 16% of the Indian population has access to free or partially-free health care
  • Comprehensive private health care is expensive and beyond reach of a vast majority
  • One of the highest ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health, including drugs
  • Market failure for most drugs, where competition does not work
  • In terms of ‘Purchasing Power Parity’ together with ‘Per Capita Income’ drug prices are not low in India, as have been made out to be.

In a situation like this, when in the absence of UHC, total average ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health is around 65 percent, and around 70 percent of which is on drugs, there does not seem to be any scope to abandon DPCO in India, just yet, for public health interest.

Any possible decision of the Government to abandon DPCO is also unlikely to pass the acid test of intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court either, to uphold public health interest. This makes me believe that a well functioning ‘Universal Health Coverage’ is the only alternative to ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, if at all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges

Posted on by
Reply

It is no-brainer that the advocacy initiatives to influence the new Government doing away with the ‘Drug Price Control’ in India has re-started by flooring the gas pedal. A fresh invigorating effort, apparently a pretty expensive one, has been initiated in July 2015 with an interesting study conducted on the subject by an international market research organization, sponsored by a multi-national pharma trade association in India.

Having gone through the report, it appears to me, as if the whole purpose of the study was to rationalize an ‘advance’ conclusion in mind, weaving plethora of data around it for justification.

The report presents an abundance of selective data, apparently to rubbish the very concept of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India. In that process, it reinforced the existence of a deep seated malady in the overall sales and marketing strategic framework of most of the pharma players, rather than failure of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, meant for the essential drugs.

In this article, I shall dwell on this issue adding my own perspective. Although my views are different, I totally respect the findings and suggestions made in this report.

Drug price control in India:

From 1970, Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) are being issued in India under the Essential Commodities Act, without any break, so far. The key intent of the DPCO is to provide quality essential medicines at a reasonably affordable price to the consumer. The DPCO has been amended four times since then, the latest one being DPCO 2013.

Unlike the previous ones, the span of price control of DPCO 2013 is restricted to essential medicines, as featured in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). The methodology of price control has also now changed to ‘marked-based’ pricing from earlier ‘cost-based’ pricing.

However, for the first time in July 2013, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) extended ‘Drug Price Control’ beyond the Schedule Drugs, when by a notification it announced price fixation of ‘anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs in respect of 108 non-scheduled formulation packs under Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013’,

Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013, authorizes the NPPA in extraordinary circumstances, if it considers it necessary to do so in public interest, to fix the ceiling price or retail price of any drug for such period as it deems fit.

Although the pharma industry initially had supported the switch from ‘cost based’ price control to ‘market based’ price control and only for NLEM 2011 drugs, it took a tougher stand after the above notification. Some trade association reverted to the same good old genre, yet again, trying to establish that ‘Drug Price Control’ does not help at all. The brand new market research report under discussion in this article, appears to be a step in that direction.

‘Market failure in pharma’ where competition does not work:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, as mentioned above, the NPPA justified its action by underscoring ‘market failure’ for those anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, where competition does not work. NPPA considered ‘market failure’ as one of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and explained the situation as follows:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

I discussed this subject in my bog post of April 27, 2015 titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”

Are medicines cheapest in India, really?

It is quite often quoted that medicines are cheapest in India. In my view, it would be too simplistic, if we compare the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro converted into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries only after applying the following two critical parameters:

  • Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
  • Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drugs pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

A new study on drug price control:

Recently, I came across a ‘brand new’ research report that tries to justify the fresh stance allegedly taken by the pharma industry on the abolition of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

This new study of IMS Health released on July 2015, sponsored by a pharma MNC trade association in India, titled “Assessing the Impact of Price Control Measures on Access to Medicines in India”, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’.

The key findings:

The following are the key findings of the report:

  • High income patient populations, rather than the low-income targets are the primary beneficiaries of the DPCO 2013.
  • The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.
  • The DPCO 2013 has resulted in an increase in market concentration and a decrease in competitive intensity.
  • Price control has increased margin pressures for small and mid-sized companies, limiting both employment and investment opportunities in the sector.
  • Price controls negatively impact internal capability-building and expertise-building initiatives, discourage local talent and undermine the government’s ’Make in India’ initiative.

The suggestions made:

In my view, the report almost repeats the same old suggestions being made by the pharma industry over decades. However, while making recommendations, this new report selectively quotes, without clearly naming them, from the draft National Health Policy 2015 and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the DoP. It also attempts to ride on the shoulder of Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign. The key recommendations of the study are, as follows:

  • Strengthen healthcare financing and extend universal health coverage across population segments with focus on providing cover for medicines
  • Invest in healthcare infrastructure and capability building
  • Promote joint and bulk procurement mechanisms, e.g. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation
  • Levy a cess on the tobacco and liquor industries to fund the healthcare sector and subsidize essential medicines from taxes
  • Introduce mechanisms to ensure availability of generics at lower prices, to improve affordability for patients i.e. set up dedicated generic medicine stores.

An official of IMS Health was also quoted by the media that sounds to me almost like pontification:

“Price control has limited impact on improving patient access and, furthermore is not aligned with the requirements of a vibrant economy like India” and the “Government’s priority should be on strengthening India’s healthcare infrastructure and extending universal insurance coverage.”

The blunt edges in the report raise more questions than answers:

I wonder, whether another apparently expensive research, such as this, was at all necessary to reinvent the same old advocacy narratives on ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

As I note, the report highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.” If this is true, one should try to fathom:

  • What does it really mean and what are its implications?
  • Can it happen, if it has happened, just because of ‘Drug Price Control’?

I am raising these two questions mainly because, price controlled drugs are prescription medicines. Thus, post DPCO 2013, when it happens to ‘prescription only medicines’, other critical questions that come at the top of mind are as follows:

  • Are the doctors now prescribing less of price controlled drugs? If so, why?
  • Price controlled drugs being essential drugs, are the doctors prescribing less of essential drugs? If so, why?
  • Do the doctors prefer prescribing expensive ‘non-schedule’ drugs to patients against their interest? if so, why?

Further, deliberately causing decline in consumption of these drugs, for margin or whatever may be the reasons, without intimating the NPPA as stipulated in the DPCO 2013, is a serious offense, attracting stringent penal action under the Essential Commodities Act.

Therefore, if the above finding of this study is correct and assuming that NPPA is not aware of such shortages or declining consumption of essential drugs in India, yet another critical question that needs to be answered:

  • By deliberately bringing down the consumption of essential medicines, are the concerned pharma players not taking the law in their own hands?

If yes, the Government would need to act forthwith. If not, the above finding of the report is just not correct.

The DoP, NPPA and other stakeholders would, therefore, need to ferret out, which one of the above two is correct.

Thus, I reckon, to wish away ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, the fresh advocacy initiative of the pharma trade association, keeping in the forefront a new study with blunt edges, raises more questions than answers. I have given just an example here, as above.

More marketing push on ‘free-pricing’ drugs is common:

It is not uncommon that the sales of ‘free-pricing’ drugs are usually more, as their margin is unlimited. Pharma players take increasing interest in those drugs and push them harder, almost totally controlling the ‘push-pull’ effect of drug marketing.

Globally, drug companies take increasing interest in such medicines. India is no exception. Here too ‘out of price control’ non-schedule drugs usually show higher growth, as the doctors are influenced to prescribe more of such drugs, though at the cost of consumer.

This practice may not be acceptable to many, but is a stark reality. This process is expected to continue, at least, till Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) is made mandatory with strict enforcement and strong punitive provisions for any violations.

Is the growth of price controlled drugs declining?

If the growth of price controlled medicines drastically comes down post DPCO 2013, that should get reflected on the declining overall sales and growth of those drugs. Similar pattern should also be visible in the growth of those types products marketed by most of the major pharma companies in India.

Let me now present the scenario of that space. The following analysis is based on the monthly retail audit data of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS.

When I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products based on NLEM 2011 and other price controlled drugs under ‘Para 19’ from January to July 2015 period in the following table, the scenario does not look as worrying just yet, as the above report has made it out to be.  

Product group-wise market growth (in Value):

Month (2015) DPCO products (%) DPCO  Para 19 Products (%) Non-DPCO Products (%) Total Market Growth (%)
July 5.1 11.8 14.2 12.9
June 5.6 14.6 16.2 14.8
May 5.3 7.2 12.1 11.0
April 11.1 11.9 18.4 17.2
March 1.6 15.6 21.7 20.9
February 13.9 14.4 20.0 18.9
January 6.9 NA 14.0 12.7

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

Again, in the following table, when I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products of some the very major pharma players in India, the conclusion still remains the same as above:

DPCO Products Growth (%) by major companies (Jan-July 2015):

Company July June May April March Feb Jan
Ranbaxy 20.5 31.9 29.5 17.3 27.6 20.7 53.7
Pfizer 13.0 17.4 5.7 16.7 25.6 21.1 18.6
Abbott 7.2 11.7 18.5 13.5 15.5 18.3 21.2
GSK -2.1 - 1.8 -1.2 12.2 12.2 NA NA

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

The blunt edges fail to cut ice:

Quite expectedly, even a month after its release in July 2015, the blunt edges in the report seem to have cut no ice, especially at a very important place that matters most to the industry in this area. This observation gets vindicated by a credible media report.

On August 24, 2015 in an interview to a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

Conclusion:

With all due respect to all concerned, the above report appears to me palpably commercial, sans any worthy academic value or intellectual input that could trigger thinking for a change in the Government policy. The report apparently lacks in the required cutting edge to achieve the intended goal. The blunt edges are glaring, suggesting on the contrary, that the real action actually lies with the industry. Let me hasten to add, if any one has a different view on the subject, I would respect that with all humility.

The drug price control in India has been continuing since 1970, without any gap. The retail audit data clearly indicates that the growth of the Indian pharma industry did not get stunted or stifled during the period for this particular reason, as postulated in the above report of IMS Health. On the contrary, despite price control of drugs with all its ‘ill-effects’, as highlighted in the study, the growth of the Indian pharma industry in the last 4 decades has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improving access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. I discussed this subject in my blog post of December 13, 2013, titled “Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony”.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India, almost all, if not all, the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about 7 are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been even higher today.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the soft-spoken and well-respected owner of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person of the country. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control – as elaborated in the above report.

By the way, what is the span of drug price control in India really – just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? More than 80 percent of the local drug market continue to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone. In that case, is the essence of the report not chanting… ‘yeh dil maange more’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

India’s Drug Pricing Policy: “Absurd, Unreasonable And Irrational” – Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

On July 15, 2015, while hearing a petition related to the current ‘Market Based Drug-Pricing Policy’ of the country, the Supreme Court of India expressed its bewilderment on the very rationality of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012’ and directed the Government for its review.

The petition was filed by an NGO called, ‘All India Drug Action Network’. It pleaded before the honorable court that ‘Market Based Drug-Pricing’ that is currently followed in India, was never used for any price regulatory purposes. Under this new policy, simple average ‘Ceiling Prices’, in many cases, are higher than the market leader price.

The petitioner reportedly also alleged that under the new drug policy, the profit margin for pharma companies and dealers has become in the range of 10-1300 per cent. Thus, the NGO sought a direction to the Government to continue with earlier ‘Cost-Based Pricing’ to arrive at ‘Ceiling Prices’ for all essential drugs.

‘All India Drug Action Network’ contended that the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’ consisted of only 348 drugs and had left out many other essential medicines from price control. Thus, it sought inclusion of more life-saving medicines in the NLEM whose prices would be regulated by the government. It also pleaded that the price control must extend to various “dosages, strength and combinations” of those drugs falling under NLEM.

Expressing its serious concern, the three-judge bench of the Apex Court reportedly told the Government, “You are fixing the maximum price of a medicine above the retail price of the leading company of the same drug. It is absurd.”

The honorable Supreme Court reportedly also observed that the “pharmaceutical companies were already charging 5,000 times of the production cost and then you are taking the average of them and fixing under the drug price control order. This is legitimizing the profiteering”.

Many construe this observation of the Supreme Court as virtual endorsement of ‘All India Drug Action Network’s accusation that the earlier ‘cost-based drug-pricing’ model was better for the patients, whereas the new ‘market-based drug pricing’ model just legitimizes profiteering and pushes drugs out of reach of the poor, who are already suffering under very high ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure burden.

The Honorable Court reportedly asked the Department of Pharmaceuticals of Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers to reconsider aspects like the formula to fix prices. And thereafter pass a “reasoned” order on the representation of the NGO on the issue within six months after hearing all parties concerned. It also asked the Centre to file a copy of its decision on the representation of NGO, which would file it in six weeks.

However, at the very beginning the bench had expressed, “this is not an easy area for the courts to intervene and it is very difficult for a court to sit in judgment in such kind of policy matters.”

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Government reportedly submitted that the Government is open to consider the representation. “We will have a look to add some more drugs under the price control order”, she reportedly said.

Key objectives for drug price control in India:

As has now been well established, backed by robust data, that in a country like India ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ for medicines is very high.

According to the World Bank Out-of-pocket health expenditure (% of private expenditure on health) in India was last measured at 85.88 in 2013.

In a situation like this, to ensure adequate access to affordable essential medicines for the common man, the Government has hardly any option but to regulate the prices of, at least, the essential medicines.

To achieve this objective meaningfully, the Government through the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ tries to make sure that all such medicines are:

  • Adequately Available
  • Reasonably Affordable

Therefore, maintaining a right balance between ‘affordability’ and ‘availability’ of medicines is of critical importance, while framing any drug pricing policy, .

A January, 2013 article titled, “Pharma Policy 2012 and Essential Drug’s Pricing” gives the following examples to illustrate how current ‘market based pricing’ mechanism is going to make many drugs costlier:

Drug Disease Market-based pricing (simple average) Cost based pricing
Metformin Diabetes Rs.35 Rs.14
Atorvastatin Cholesterol Rs.127 Rs.16
Atenolol Hypertension Rs.38.5 Rs.08

Source: Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA)

Why ‘drug price control’ at all in a ‘Free Market Economy’?

It is indeed a very pertinent question to ponder over.

However, equally pertinent answers are also available. One such was deliberated in a 2014 paper titled, “Competition Issues in the Indian Pharmaceuticals Sector” of Delhi School Economics (DSE). The paper deals with the subject related to failure of ‘Free Market Economy’ especially for branded generic drugs in India, despite seemingly intense price competition.

In an ideally free-market economy model, for each of these brands of identical drugs, having similar regulatory approvals from the Indian drug regulator on efficacy, safety and quality standards, competitive forces should have prompted uniform or at least near uniform prices for all such products.

Any brand of the same drug/drugs charging more, should generally have attracted lesser customers, if consumers would have exercised their purchase decisions directly; efficacy, safety and quality standards being the same, as certified by the drug regulator.

Interestingly, for prescription medicines, the much proven process of consumers exercising their free choice to select a brand, influenced by advertising or other available information, does not happen at all.

A snapshot of key changes in the new drug policy over the previous one:

The ‘Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013)’ clearly articulates two basic changes in the criteria for drug price control in India, as follows:

1. Span of price control:

This was re-defined in DPCO 2013 based on the ‘essentiality criteria’ of the drugs, which in turn is based on the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, instead of bulk drug based price control of DPCO 1995.

2. Methodology of price control:

This was also re-defined in DPCO 2013, making a clear departure from ‘Cost-Based Price Control’ of DPCO 1995 to ‘Market-Based Price Control’. The ‘Ceiling Prices’ are now arrived at by calculating the simple average price of each essential drug with market share of 1 percent and above. Instead, in DPCO 1995, ‘Ceiling Prices’ of price-controlled drugs used to be arrived at by applying specified ‘Maximum Allowable Post Manufacturing Expenditure (MAPE)’ on the manufacturing costs of each of such formulations. 

Key lacunae in DPCO 2013:

Besides contentious methodology of price control in DPCO 2013, NLEM 2011 does not also cover a wide range of essential drugs, which are so important for patients. I had highlighted this issue  in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Is The New ’Market Based Pricing Model’ Fundamentally Flawed?”

NLEM 2011 does not cover many combinations of TB drugs, a large number of important drugs for diabetes and hypertension. Many other critical life saving medicines, such as, anti-cancer drugs, expensive antibiotics and products needed for organ transplantation have been left out of price control. In fact, the prices of a number of these drugs have reportedly gone up after the notification of DPCO 2013, though NPPA has now started acting on this avoidable trend.

The government has reportedly admitted in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the market value and share of medicines covered by new DPCO 2013, as ‘Essential Drugs’, is a meager 18 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), instead of 20 percent under DPCO 1995.

As a result, DPCO 2013 based on NLEM 2011 undermines the entire objective of making essential drugs affordable to all.

All these lacunae in the current DPCO 2013 calls for a major revision of NLEM 2011, besides methodology of ‘Ceiling Price’ calculations. The Union Health Ministry has reportedly initiated steps to revise the list considering the existing market conditions and usage of drugs by the patients. This has reportedly happened again as recently as on July 16, 2015.

Observations of Indian lawmakers:

On April 20, 2015, a panel of 31 lawmakers of the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers tabled its report in the Indian Parliament. The committee emphasized that patients in India should have access to all medicines, including life saving drugs, at affordable prices. Accordingly, it recommended expansion of the scope of price control to all medicines available in the country.

The Committee wondered why all medicines are still not listed in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)’ and is of the view that drugs of all kinds are essential and are required by the patients for treatment of various disease conditions at different times.

Government defines “Market Failure for pharmaceuticals”:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, the NPPA has categorically stated about “Market Failure for pharmaceuticals” as follows:

  • There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price.
  • It is observed that, the different brands of the drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.
  • In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.
  • Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for the Government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most patients. This also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

Has DPCO 2013 delivered?

Many stakeholders, barring some NGOs, felt initially that DPCO 2013 would be a win-win drug pricing policy for both the industry and patients, as it would apparently be less intrusive for the pharma players.

Along side, through ‘Public Relations’ overdrive, a hype was successfully created in the media by vested interests to generate a feeling that the drug prices are coming down by 30-40 percent as a result of the new market-based price control regime under DPCO 2013.

That could well be true for a handful of drugs. However, the fact is that the industry was adversely impacted by just around 2.3 percent, with the provision for annual price increases for even the price-controlled drugs. On the other hand, the span of price control came down from 20 percent of the just pervious DPCO 1995 to 18 percent in DPCO 2013, not impacting the industry as significantly as it was hyped before. This is quite evident even from the reported overall performance of the industry.

For the general patients, by and large, DPCO 2013 has not delivered what it was expected to on the ground.

Conclusion:

Realization of these facts has been just enough for the public disillusionment to set in, with a possible snowballing effect. Now the Supreme Court has intervened responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). It has also made tough observations on the rationale of ‘market based drug price control’ and directed the government to review it.

On the other side, the Government appointed experts are reportedly revisiting the NLEM 2011 to include more essential drugs in this list.

In the midst of all these, the same drug pricing juggernaut continues to keep rolling, with almost similar narrative, though with different packaging and all associated theatrics of the day. Universal Health Care (UHC) for all now seems to be no more than an illusion, as vindicated by the recent union budgetary allocations for health in India

The Supreme Court of the country has observed afresh that India’s drug pricing policy is “Absurd, Unreasonable and Irrational”. This ticks the general population looking up to the honorable Apex Court as the savior to their long outstanding misery in this area, especially when steep ‘Out of Pocket Health Expenditure’ in India continues to stand out as a sore thumb.

Be that as it may, hoping against hope, the common man continues to clutch on mostly to Government assurances, just on its face value, that ‘Achhe din anne wale hain (Good days are coming)’ for most patients in the country…who knows?

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.