Tag Archives: FDI

In the cacophony of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India

Posted on by
Reply

It is a widely accepted fact that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Pharmaceutical industry, just like in any other industry, is important for an emerging economy like India, mainly because of various important benefits that the country would derive out of such investments, like for example:

  • Job creation
  • World class infrastructure development
  • Transfer of modern technology
  • Help creating a talent pool through international training and development
  • Meeting unmet needs of patients through innovative medicines
  • Help imbibing the best practices of the world

Types of FDIs in the Pharmaceutical sector of India:

There are mainly three types of FDIs that we have witnessed so far in India:

  1. Green field investment: Like, setting up new manufacturing facility at Vizag by Eisai of Japan
  2. Brown field investment: Like, acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA or Shantha Biotech by Sanofi Aventis of France.
  3. Joint venture: Like, Bayer Healthcare and Cadila Healthcare or Sun Pharma and MSD etc.

Besides these, as mentioned below, there have been some collaborative arrangements, as well, between global and Indian Pharmaceutical companies in the last five years like, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Pfizer with Biocon etc.

Key drivers for FDI:

Following are the key factors, which attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, especially in an emerging market like India:

  1. Domestic market size, prospects for future market growth,
  2. Cheaper operating cost
  3. Cheaper input and English-speaking skilled manpower cost
  4. Regulatory environment
  5. Pricing environment
  6. Robust IT infrastructure
  7. Legal, IPR and financial framework

Relationship between FDI and Intellectual Property (IP) Environment:

Some recent media reports in various parts of the world including India had highlighted that China attracts more investment from foreign drug makers due to more robust Intellectual Property (IP) laws in that country.

US Trade Representatives (USTR) is one such agency which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with US trading partners in various countries of the world through annual release of their ‘Special 301 Report’.

The report of US Trade Representatives (USTR 2011 Special 301) rates IPR regime of both China and India as unsatisfactory, so far as law enforcement, piracy prevention and transparency are concerned. The two main categories in the report are the ‘Priority Watch List’ and the ‘Watch List’. Both India and China fall under ‘Priority Watch List’ of this report.

An apparent contradiction:
The key question, in this context, that is being raised for quite some time now is, whether the decisions of foreign drug makers to invest in the emerging markets, like India and China are predominantly dependent on the IPR scenario in the respective countries.

If it is so, some would obviously like to know whether or not the ‘USTR 2011 Special 301 Report’ contradicts the above hypotheses.

Notwithstanding ‘USTR Special 301 Reports’ and being featured in their ‘Priority Watch List’ year after year, China continues to attract more and more FDI in pharmaceuticals over a long period of time. In any case, the FDI from USA in China was just around 12% of the total FDI that the country attracted in 2008. The same trend continues even today.

However, without going into the details of any report, relative robustness of IPR regime could at best be just one of the several key factors for a research based global pharmaceutical company to decide on FDI in any emerging market of the world.

Relatively speaking:

China is certainly attracting more FDI in the Pharma space than India. According to “The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry” of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for a three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million. The percentage of total investments made by the major countries is as follows:

Country wise pharmaceutical FDI % in China in 2008

 

Rank

Country

%

1.

Hong Kong

39.69

2.

United States

11.95

3.

British Virgin Island

11.64

4.

Bermuda

6.45

5.

Singapore

4.91

(Source: Invest in China 2009, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China)

Whereas, as per Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.39 million, as follows:

FDI ( US$ million)

Sector

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10 (upto Sept.09)

Cumulative

DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS

214.84

334.09

181.61

86.85

817.39

These figures would change significantly if FDI through M&A is taken into consideration.

In any case, this trend should not necessarily be exclusively correlated to the relative robustness of the IPR regime in India and China, notwithstanding the fact that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China (Based on WIPO PCT applications)

Impact of FDI on the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector:

Some important FDI in India from 2006 to 2011

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
Aurobindo Pharma Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Dr Reddy’s  Labs GlaxoSmithKline

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition
Claris Lifesciences Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Biocon Pfizer

350

 Insulin Marketing Deal
2011
Cadila Healthcare Bayer

Not disclosed

 Marketing Joint Venture
Sun Pharma Merck & Co.

Not disclosed

 Marketing, Manufacturing Joint Venture

There is no published data, as yet, to justify that the inflow of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, including acquisition of large domestic pharmaceutical players like, Ranbaxy, Piramal Healthcare etc., had any adverse impact whatsoever on the country.

However, the reality is that such apprehension, especially the acquisition of some ‘Pharma Crown Jewels’ of India by the Multinational Companies (MNCs), though not fact-based, are apparently getting reverberated as a ‘sinister and sordid design’ even in the corridors of power ranging from the Ministry of Commerce, Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA), Planning Commission of India to Joint Parliamentary committee for Commerce.

It appears that the government is adopting a ‘wait and watch’ policy in this area for now, presumably because of the fact that the newly formed ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’ from now onwards will keep a careful vigil on such mega acquisitions.

Poor healthcare coverage could be a key barrier:

As indicated above, relative size and growth of the domestic pharmaceutical market together with healthcare coverage and delivery mechanism of a country could well be the most critical factor to influence foreign investment decision of the global pharmaceutical companies.

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India, even without considering the current base of both the countries.
Even in Health Insurance space, “India ranks 136th on penetration levels and lags behind China (106), Thailand (87), Russia (86), Brazil (85), Japan (61) and the US (9),” reported ‘Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)’ on July 21, 2009, in a paper titled, “India’s insurance penetration lower than world average”, jointly prepared by Crisil and Assocham.

Moreover, ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure in India is one of the highest in the world at around 80% against 61% in China.

Country Attractiveness Index (CAI):

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a CAI for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India. This could mainly be due to prevailing lackadaisical regulatory environment in India.
Other reasons to influence FDI:
I would reckon, all foreign direct investments (FDI) by the global pharmaceutical companies are driven by a combination of key business factors, as mentioned above, IPR ecosystem in the country is just one of them. This is vindicated by a recent report, which is as follows:

“Novartis has signed an agreement to build a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in St. Petersburg, Russia. The plant is part of a $500 million Novartis investment in infrastructure, health care initiatives, and R&D in Russia over the next five years”.

The reason behind this investment was reported as follows:
“The announcement follows a pledge late last year by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of some $4 billion in federal funding for pharmaceutical industry development over the next 10 years. The government has set a goal for local industry to produce 90% of Russia’s “essential medicines”—about half of the country’s total pharmaceutical sales—by 2020.”
Other recent examples of FDI made by the global majors in other countries, which will support my above statement, are as follows:

1. Novo Nordisk: US $100 million in Russia 2. Sanofi-Aventis: a plant in Saudi Arabia. 3. Eisai: relocated global Aricept manufacturing facility to India for worldwide export.

Conclusion:

‘The Journal of International Business Studies’ (1999) 30, 1–24 based on the results from an econometric analysis of 136 laboratory investments reconfirms that relative market size, growth and the  strength of science base of a country would ultimately influence FDI in pharmaceutical research and development in an emerging market. The study also reiterated that these factors hold good for even Japanese, European and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Thus, to attract more FDI in the pharmaceutical sector and effectively compete with China, India should primarily focus in creating a vibrant and large domestic pharmaceutical product and services market reflecting sustainable high inclusive growth. A comprehensive ecosystem to provide healthcare to all, efficient regulatory mechanism, effective well balanced IP environment and a robust legal and financial framework will further hasten the process.

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.

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Posted on by
Reply

FR: Our last report on India dates back to 2006, right after the Patent Law was passed. What developments have you seen happening in the industry since then?

TR: There has been a paradigm shift with the Product Patent Regime coming in place in 2005. The era from 1970 to 2005 has been a very successful era of reverse engineering, when Indian manufacturers were copying and marketing innovative products in India at a fraction of their international price. Nevertheless, this also required talent, for which India had brilliant process chemists. However, the country eventually realized that reverse engineering model would not truly serve the longer term advancement of the economy in creating a conducive ecosystem to foster innovation. This realization process started in 1990 and was reinforced after signing the WTO Agreement in 1995. After the ten-year transition period, the patent law came into force in January 2005.

Since around 2005 Indian companies, which had mainly been relying on cost efficient processes, started investing in the drug discovery research. There are now at least 10 Indian companies engaged in basic research, while around 32 New Chemical Entities (NCEs) are at various stages of development.

This significant step that the country has taken so far, could not have been possible without a conscious decision to move away from the paradigm of replication to the new paradigm of innovation. More importantly, this shift has not happened at the cost of fast growing generic pharmaceutical industry in the country. Branded generics continue to grow rapidly in the new paradigm.

Today, branded generics constitute over 99% of the domestic pharmaceutical market. Of course, according to McKinsey (2007), the share of patented medicines is expected to increase to 10% by 2015. Even in that scenario 90% of the market will still constitute with branded generics in value terms.

FR: At the same time, companies are still only spending some 4% of their revenues on R&D, while internationally these numbers amount up to 12%. Many of the people in the industry seem to still see the future of India for the next 10 years to remain in manufacturing. Is innovation really the story of India right now?

TR: As I mentioned earlier, around 32 NCEs are at various stages of development from pre-clinical to Phase III. Thus, what Indian companies have achieved since 2005, is, indeed remarkable. If you now look at the investments made by the Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D, as a percentage of turnover, you will notice an ascending trend. Though the R&D ecosystem in India cannot be compared with the developed world just yet, India is catching up.

FR: In some previous interviews we have conducted, concerns were raised over the Indian industry, saying that the local companies are selling off to international players. What is your take on this?

TR: In India, we all express a lot of sentiments and are generally emotional in nature. These are not bad qualities by any standard. However, such expressions should ideally be supported by hard facts. Otherwise these expressions cannot be justified.

Consolidation process within the industry is a worldwide phenomenon and is also taking place in India. One of the apprehensions of such consolidation process in India is that drug prices would go up, as a consequence. In my view, all such apprehensions should be judged by what has already happened in our country by now, in this area.

One example we can cite is the Ranbaxy-Daiichi-Sankyo deal, an acquisition which has not at all led to an increase in Ranbaxy’s product prices. Similarly, the acquisition of India-based Shantha Biotech by the French pharmaceutical major, Sanofi-Aventis did not lead to any increase in product prices either. It is difficult to make out how could possibly the drug prices go up when we have an effective national price regulator called National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) in India? Currently, 100% of the pharmaceutical market in the country is regulated by NPPA in one way or the other.

India is currently having a drug policy which came into force way back in 1995. As per this drug policy, any company which increases its product price which are outside price control, by more than 10% in a year, will be called for an explanation by the NPPA. Without a satisfactory explanation, the concerned product – not the product category – will be brought under price control, that too for good. In addition, intensive cut-throat competition has made pharmaceutical product prices in India the cheapest in the world, even lower than in the neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Moreover, if the potential to increase prices exists, why would any company wait for an acquisition in a highly fragmented pharmaceutical market in India?

Many of the concerns are, therefore, difficult to justify due to lack of factual data. In fact, on the contrary, the presence of multinational pharmaceutical companies in India is good for the country. These companies with their international expertise and resources would help India to build capacity in terms of training and creating a world-class talent pool. Indian companies, therefore, should consider to take more and more initiatives to partner and collaborate with these MNCs to create a win-win situation for India.

Another key advantage is in the area of market penetration. Market penetration through value-added innovative marketing has happened and has been happening all over the world; India should not let go this opportunity.

FR: In that case, how do you feel about some of the proposed protectionist measures such as a 49% cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)?

TR: This may, once again, be related to the strong local sentiments. India needs financial reforms and wants to attract more and more FDI. The country wants to liberalize the process of FDI and, to the best of my knowledge, any step to move backward in this area should not be contemplated.

It is also worth mentioning that the acquisitions that have taken place were not of any hostile nature. Both Indian companies and MNCs have their own sets of skills, competencies and best practices. Both cost revenue and value synergy through such consolidation process could be made beneficial for the country.

Without commenting on any specific cases, I believe India has taken significant steps to encourage and protect innovation by putting in place the product patent Act in 2005. However, there are some additional steps that the Government should take to further strengthen the process, such as fast-track courts that can quickly decide on the cases of patent infringements. Another example is that when any company will apply for marketing approval for a product, the regulator will upload the same on its website. This is an easy way for other players to detect patent infringement and start taking counter-measures at an early stage. These are examples of steps that can be taken to create a proper ecosystem without amending the law.

FR: You mentioned the paradigm shift towards innovation earlier, to some extent a similar path as China. How innovative has India become in this respect and is it sufficient in terms of clinical trials and other related aspects of the sector?

TR: With regards to attracting FDI in areas such as R&D and clinical trials, India at present is far behind China. The reason for this, as said earlier, is that the country should try to analyse why the innovator companies are not preferring India to China in these areas. Simultaneously, there is a need to assess the expectations of the innovative companies from India in various areas of IPR. One such factor that is bothering the global innovative companies is the absence of regulatory data protection in India. The Government should seriously ponder over this need and take active steps towards this direction as was proposed by ” Satwant Reddy Committee in 2007.”

FR: In your view, what is the industry going to look like in the coming years?

TR: I do not expect a radical shift in the way the Pharmaceutical Industry will be operating in the next few years. Changes will take place gradually and, perhaps, less radically. The increase of the share of patented medicines to 10% of the market share by 2015 as was forecasted by McKinsey in 2007, in my opinion, is rather ambitious. We will certainly see more and more patented products in the market, but it will be slow and gradual unless corrective measures are taken to tighten the loose knots in the Patent Amendment Act 2005, as stated earlier. As more and more Indian companies will start embracing an innovation-driven business model, the strengths and the international experience of the MNCs in this area should be leveraged to catapult the Indian pharmaceutical industry to a much higher growth trajectory.

The interview is available at the following link:

http://www.pharma.focusreports.net/#state=Interview&id=0

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.

Limiting FDI in Pharma is a protectionist cry: Does not benefit the common man.

Posted on by
Reply

“Protectionism is harmful” very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister of India, just the other day. This was in context of “recent US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.
While almost at the same time, both Indian and the foreign media reports indicate that being concerned by the recent acquisitions of the home grown relatively large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the Department of Industrial Policy and promotion (DIPP) of the Government of India are mulling a proposal to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), as applicable to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Even the Health Minister of India has been expressing this concern since ‘Abbott – Piramal deal’ was inked last year. He expressed the same apprehension, as he read out from his written speech, in an industry function in Mumbai held on January 7, 2011.

Thus the moot question is, will limiting FDI in pharmaceuticals be not considered by the world as a protective measure, just as ‘hiking visa fees and clamping down outsourcing’ from India by other countries?
Is it a mere speculation?
I would reckon so, as at this stage India cannot afford to take any retrograde anti-reformist measure in its endeavor to further accelerate the economic progress of the nation. The Finance Minister of India has also expressed so publicly, in the same context, quite recently.
Still the speculation is quite rife that a new cap of 49% FDI for pharmaceuticals would be able to keep the multinational companies (MNCs) away from having controlling stakes in the Indian companies, which will not jeopardize access to quality medicines at an affordable price to a vast majority of the population.
The key apprehensions:
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following key apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies by the MNCs:
1. Such takeovers could lead to an ‘oligopolistic market’ where a few companies will decide the prices of essential medicines, adversely impacting the ‘Public Health Interest (PHI)’.
2. If large Indian companies having the wherewithal to replicate any patented molecule are taken over by the MNCs, the ‘oligopolistic’ situation thus created and being strengthened by the exclusivity of products through product patent rights, will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of PHI by granting CLs.
3. In such a situation MNCs could well decide to sell only the high priced patented and branded generic drugs rather than the cheaper essential drugs, pushing up the drug prices and causing inconvenience to patients.
Addressing the key apprehensions:
Let me now try to address these apprehensions impartially and with as much data as possible.
1. Can Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) be ever oligopolistic? Dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.
IPM has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (source: IMS 2010). Even after, all the recent acquisition, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% (source: AIOCD/AWACS , November 2010). Even the Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter group though different and not the individual companies) contribute just around 40% of the IPM.
Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘oligopolistic market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.
2. The idea of creating a legal barrier in terms of limiting the FDIs to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of you, as mentioned in the ‘discussion paper’ of DIPP, sounds bizarre.
3. The market competition is also extremely fierce in India with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the IPM) having not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism. In an environment like this, the very thought of any threat to ‘public health interest’ due irresponsible pricing, may be taken as an insult to the government’s own price regulators, who have contributed in making the medicine prices in India cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Hard facts tell us a different story:
The apprehension that acquisition of Indian drug companies by MNCs will hurt the consumer interest is not based on hard facts. MNCs constitute 19% of the total share of the Indian pharmaceutical market in value terms. Of the 455 companies listed in IMS ORG, 38 are foreign owned (only 8.4%). The fragmented nature of the industry ensures high level of competition that has led to the lowest prices of essential medicines in India.

Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.
Access to world class science and technology:
Even the acquisition of Shantha Biotechnique by Sanofi-aventis has enabled the domestic bio-tech company to get world class R&D support and international exposure in partnership with the one of the world’s largest vaccines development company – Sanofi-Pasteur. It is worth noting that none of the prices of locally produced vaccines by Shantha Biotechnique has gone up after this acquisition.
Data also shows that the number of products under price control is now much higher for MNCs in general than the domestic drug companies.
Other positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:
All these acquisitions were absolutely voluntary in every way and brought in for the country large amount of foreign investments as can be seen in the Piramal Healthcare buyout amounting to US $3.72 billion and earlier the Ranbaxy buyout of US $4.2 billion. Such acquisitions also help in shifting investment and R&D focus of the MNCs into India, which offers good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, through partnering with MNCs, local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, resources and good manufacturing practices. A number of local companies have already entered into alliances with MNCs to leverage these opportunities.
Thus limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical industry at this stage, when the government in fact is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investments will indeed be a retrograde step for the country.

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.