Tag Archives: for

Is rural India emerging as the new ‘Eldorado’ for the Indian pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply
“If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up,” wrote the management guru C K Prahalad in his well known book titled, “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”.I am not sure whether the above profound observation is encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to spread their wings, at a much organized way, in rural India, where over 70% of the Indian population live and most of them are poor.Rural reforms have commenced in India at a much faster pace than ever before. Even many die-hard skeptics will now agree that the “Rural India has started Shining”. The shine, however, may not be as much as it ought to be. But surely, it is happening. The result of recent General Election in India perhaps will vindicate this point.

Is rural India the new growth opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry?

Decent business prospects in largely un-tapped rural India are making the pharmaceutical companies to move into this uncharted frontier. Reaching out to about 65% of the population who do not have access to modern medicines, could prove to be the new ‘Eldorado’ for the industry. Some well organized but small preparatory steps are already being taken towards this direction, which ultimately could lead to taking a giant leap towards this new frontier.

Some companies have started charting in a new way in this much uncharted frontier:

Possibly as a testimony to this new business approach we can now see:

1. Novartis with its “Arygoya Parivar” initiative working out a tailor-made program for rural areas of seven selected states, to start with. They have developed special packs of essential medicines with special prices to reach out to the rural marketing population.

2. Novo Nordisk screening patients suffering from diabetes in the rural areas of Goa with mobile clinics.

3. Eli Lilly developing a program along with the Self-Employed Women’s Association in Ahmedabad to educate and encourage rural patients suffering from tuberculosis to go for treatment.

4. Ahmedabad based Cadila Pharma setting up a dedicated rural marketing arm called ‘Explora’, which has already clocked a reported annual turnover of Rs. 50 crore.

5. Vadodara based Alembic Chemicals creating a rural business unit called ‘Maxis’.

6. Piramal Healthcare launching a pilot project in Rajasthan to take its products to rural areas where there is no proper public health system.

These are just a few illustrations and not an exhaustive list. However, the question is whether the rural marketing initiatives will continue to remain an illusion to the pharmaceutical companies in India or will get translated into a decent strategic move?

Going by various published reports, it appears that fortune still exists at the bottom of the pyramid.
In 2007 the rural markets registered a growth of over 40% over the previous year. This scorching pace of rural market growth is expected to continue in the next decades.

Moreover, according to McKinsey Report, rural markets will contribute about 27% of the total consumption of India by 2020 and by 2015, rural India will account for over 24% of the domestic pharmaceutical market from its current level of 17%.

Rural market size:

The rural markets currently contribute about 17% of U.S$8.1 billion pharmaceutical market in India. As reported in ‘India Pharma 2015’ of McKinsey,” by 2015 rural pharma market size is expected to reach U.S$4.8 billion from U.S$1.2 billion in 2005.”

Key growth drivers, as McKinsey indicated in this report, will be as follows:

• Income growth: 40%
• Medical infrastructure: 20%
• Health insurance penetration: 15%

Rural markets are currently dominated by ailments related to various types of infections. This disease pattern is expected to change by the next decade to non-infectious chronic illness, like diabetes, cardiac diseases, cancer, hypertension etc.

The opportunities in the rural markets:

‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’, the famous observation of the management guru C.K. Prahalad is equally apt for the pharmaceutical industry of India, where the just 35% of the population has access to affordable modern medicines.

Further, 20 million middle class households living in about 6,00,000 villages, which is almost the same as the number of middle class households residing in urban India, is currently instrumental to significant increase towards healthcare spending in rural India.

Rural market entry strategy:

Instead of transplanting the urban marketing strategy into rural India, some companies like, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, as mentioned above, have taken the community-welfare route to make the rural population aware of particular disease segments like, tuberculosis, diabetes, waterborne diseases etc together with the treatments available for such ailments.

These value added marketing strategies offer benefits to both the patients and the company concerned. The local medical practitioners, in turn, are also benefitted as they get increasing number of patients in their clinics through such disease awareness community program by the pharmaceutical companies.

Key challenges:

There are some key challenges, as well, for effective rural penetration by the Indian pharmaceutical industry, which are as follows:

• Inadequate basic healthcare infrastructure. Only 20% of total healthcare infrastructure of the country is in rural areas where over 70% population lives.

• Density of doctors per 10,000 populations in India is just 6. About seven lakh villages in India do not have doctors. As per AC Neilsen study, an average rural Indian has to travel about 6 km to visit a doctor. A Medical Representative will require travelling about 250 to 300 km every day just to meet about 10 doctors and 4 dealers.

• Villages are not well connected by proper all season roads.

• Lack of appropriate supply chain network and logistics support.

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) – a key facilitator:

Be that as it may, greater focus of the new UPA Government on NRHM will help immensely to overcome many of these challenges in various different ways.

In the interim budget 2009, the Government has allocated U.S$ 2.35 billion for the NRHM. It is expected that this initiative, if implemented well, will help improving not only the healthcare infrastructure in rural India, but also supply of affordable medicines, in these long neglected areas.

Conclusion:

With required infrastructural support and tailor made value added marketing strategies for rural India, simultaneously delivering both preventive and curative therapies under one umbrella, it may not be difficult for the Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ – a win-win situation indeed for both the ‘haves’ and a vast majority of ‘have nots’ living in India.

By Tapan 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.

New Drug Policy 2009 – suggesting key elements for a strategic shift in the policy framework

Posted on by
Reply
The new drug policy of the Government of India (GoI) is long overdue. Despite so many reform measures taken by various Governments over last two decades, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has not seen a new ‘drug policy’since 1995.As an individual who has been closely observing the pharmaceutical industry during this period, I would expect the new UPA Government to work out a new ‘drug policy’, without further delay, after having a fresh look at the current policy, which has outlived its time. The new ‘drug policy’should be aimed at achieving inclusive growth, keeping pace with the progressive outlook and aspirations of young India.Broad policy objectives:

The broad objective of the new ‘Drug Policy’ should undoubtedly be ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines to all’, clearly addressing the following key elements, in detail:

1. Affordability:

• The new policy should ensure adequate availability of all ‘National List of Essential Medicines’ (NLEM) at affordable prices.

• ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should be strengthened further through public-private-partnership (PPP) initiatives, using strong public distribution outlets like ration shops and post offices for effective rural penetration of the scheme.

2. Access:

• Around 65% of the Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines even today, against 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

• GoI should make effective use of its existing initiatives, take some new initiatives and dovetail them as follows:

- ‘National Rural Health Mission’ (NRHM): to create rural healthcare infrastructure.

- ‘Jan Ausadhi’ scheme: to extend the reach of affordable medicines to a vast majority of
rural population.

- Innovative ‘Health Insurance Schemes’ to be worked out for all sections of the society through PPP, like for example, ‘Yashasvini’, pioneered by Dr. Devi Shetty of Bangalore and the Government of Karnataka, which is possibly the world’s cheapest comprehensive Health Insurance scheme, at Rs.5 (11 cents) per month, for the poor farmers of the state.

3. Research & Development:

• Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 ushered in a new paradigm for the pharmaceutical industry of India. There is a great opportunity for the domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover, develop and market their own New Molecular Entities (NMEs) throughout the world. The new policy should plan to provide adequate fiscal incentives for R&D initiatives taken by the pharmaceutical industry of India.

• R&D in India costs almost a fraction of equivalent expenditure incurred in the west. Because of availability of highly skilled manpower with proficiency in English together with cost advantages, the country has the potential to become the largest global hub for ‘Contract Research’ and other R&D related work being outsourced by the global Pharmaceutical Companies.

• As India is poised to be a global hub for Clinical Trials, the new policy should extend adequate support to companies carrying out clinical studies in India not only to help them record a healthy growth, but also to attract more ‘foreign direct investments’ (FDI) for the country.

4. Exports:

• The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers reported in its ‘Annual Report of 2006-07′ that exports of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals have doubled during the last four years. To give greater boosts to exports PHARMEXIL should be further strengthened to act as an effective nodal centre for all pharmaceutical exports, together with the responsibilities for conducting extensive promotional activities to accelerate growth for this sector.

• It is estimated that in the next three years sales of over U.S.$ 60 billion being generated by some blockbuster pharmaceutical products patented in the western countries and not in India, will go off patent. This will open the door of significant opportunities for Indian pharmaceutical exports. GoI should help the domestic pharmaceutical companies to encash this opportunity through adequate financial measures and other support, wherever required.

5. Employment generation:

• Indian pharmaceutical industry with its encouraging pace of growth is making good contribution towards employment generation initiatives of the country, both within skilled and unskilled sectors of the population.

• With projected CAGR of around 14%, the employment opportunity, especially for the qualified professionals is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, across the industry, from core pharmaceutical sectors, right through to contract research, manufacturing services (CRAMS) and clinical trials space.

• Recommendations to be provided in the new drug policy should further accelerate such employment generation opportunity by the industry.

6. Contribution to Economic Growth of the Country:

• The new ‘drug policy’ should also address how will the pharmaceutical industry in India contribute more to the economic development of the country through various reform measures, in areas like, R&D, CRAMS, Clinical Trial (CT) and also towards health insurance, for all strata of society.

Innovative new ‘drug policy’ initiative of the new government will not only ensure a stimulating inclusive growth for the industry, but also will help attract adequate FDI for the country.

Broad Strategic shift towards ‘Access to affordable modern medicines for all’:

Ensuring ‘access to affordable modern medicines for all’ should be made one of the key objectives of the DoP. Resorting to populist measures like ‘drugs price control’ may sound good. Unfortunately at the ground level, it has not helped a vast majority of 650 million population of India, thus far.

Therefore, ‘Drugs Price Control’ since 1970 has not been able to ensure ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to more than just 35% of Indian population. The new ‘drug policy’ should, therefore, shift its focus from ‘Price Control’ to ‘Price Monitoring’, which has been proved to be of great success to keep medicines affordable to the common man, as indicated by the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ (NPPA). However, for government purchases, made to address the healthcare needs of the ‘common man’ there should always be room for price negotiation with the concerned companies, as is being practiced in many countries of the world.

Conclusion:

To achieve the proposed ‘new drug policy objective’ of ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines for all’, the policy makers should try to think ‘outside the box’. ‘The old wine in a new bottle’ policy will just not be enough.

By Tapan 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.

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

The ‘Patent Pool’ is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

Andrew witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan 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.

Recent appetite of Global Pharmaceutical Majors for Generic Pharmaceutical Business: can it pose a threat to pure generic players?

Posted on by
Reply
Last year Lehman Brothers estimated that by 2012 over 25% of the global pharmaceutical market will face competition from generics. Higher demand of generics is mainly due to the following reasons:1. Increased number of patented drugs is going off-patent.2. Cost containment and pricing pressure, especially from the Government, in the developed markets of the world.

3. Increasing number of patents is being challenged, especially in the U.S courts, on the ground of “obviousness”.

“Obviousness” is becoming a key reason of patent challenges in the U.S:

In first quarter of the last year we read about the U.S trial court making void the key patent of Yasmin, the contraceptive drug of Bayer for ‘obviousness’. This incident had compelled Bayer to revise its profit forecast downwards, for 2008.

‘Obviousness’ is increasingly becoming one of the key reasons for challenging Patents in many countries of the world, including India. Financial Times reported recently that keeping protection to all patents intact, could eventually pose to be a key challenge for the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies. Many analysts feel that the issue of “obviousness” could indeed be a threat to many U.S pharmaceutical patents, especially those, which will be considered by the court just as a ‘tweaked-up’ version of existing drugs.

As reported by ‘Chemical Weekly’, March 2008, total 338 patent challenges were recorded globally in 2008. India ranks only next to USA with a share of 21% pharmaceutical patent challenges.

Global generic pharmaceutical market is growing at a faster pace:

Prescription market in the U.S grew by just 1.3% last year to U.S$291 billion. Key factors believed to be responsible for slower growth in the U.S market are as follows:

1. Higher prescriptions for less expensive generic medicines.

2. Lower sales of higher priced new products.

3. Economic downturn has made more patients to move to generics and large number of consumers to lose their health insurance.

Similarly in the United Kingdom (U.K) generics industry supplies 64% of medicines dispensed by the National Health Scheme (NHS), though they contribute just around 30% of NHS expenditure towards medicines.

Recent reports indicate that the generic global pharmaceutical market is expected to record a turnover of U.S$ 520 billion by 2012. This market size is too lucrative to ignore by any big global pharmaceutical player.

Based on sales turnover of 2007, Teva tops the list of global generic players with a turnover of U.S$ 9.1 billion, followed by Sandoz with U.S$ 5.8 billion and Mylan/Merck with U.S$ 4.6 billion.

From India, Ranbaxy registered a turnover of U.S$ 1.7 billion, Dr.Reddy’s U.S$ 1.4 billion, Cipla U.S$ 1 billion and Sun Pharma/Taro U.S$ 900 million, during that year.

48% of the total 422.6 million prescriptions written in Canada in 2007 were for generic medicines, which registered an annual growth of 14%, reports IMS Canada. Compared to this performance, branded products in Canada recorded a growth of meager 0.2%, during this period. As a consequence, generic Canadian pharmaceutical companies like Novopharm (Teva) and Apotex recorded impressive growth of 46.8% and 18.5%, respectively, in that period.

Despite such outstanding performance of generic pharmaceuticals, overall growth of prescription drugs in Canada was at just 6.3%, the lowest in the last ten year period.

President Obama’s Healthcare Policy will encourage generics and biosimilar drugs:

It is widely believed that the new U.S administration under President Barak Obama will try to encourage speedy introduction of generics into the U.S market.

So far as ‘Biosimilar’ drugs are concerned, in 2009 Obama administration is expected to work out the road map to facilitate the introduction of ‘Biosimilar dugs’ in the U.S market. Due to inherent characteristics that biological are ‘grown and not just manufactured’, biosimilar drugs are not expected to be replica of the original products.

To find out a solution to the heated debate, an answer has to be found out regarding the extent of clinical trials that the ‘biosimilar’ manufacturers will require to undertake to satisfy the U.S FDA that these drugs are as safe as the original ones. It is believed by some that the answer to this question lies in the approach that gives regulatory authority the flexibility in ‘what it demands that asks for more evidence than is now required for generic drugs, but something less than the kind of full-blown trials required for products new to the market.’

Global pharmaceutical majors are developing appetite for generics business:

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, as it were, even Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical player of the world, has started curving out a niche for itself in the global market of fast growing generics, following the footsteps of other large global players like Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis and Daiichi Sankyo.

Is Pfizer planning to follow the business model of Abbott and Johnson & Johnson (J&J)?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Mr. Kindler the CEO of Pfizer very recently commented, “We are breaking the company down into smaller units so we aren’t dependent on any single product… I am a great admirer of J&J and Abbott’s business model.”

It appears what Mr. Kindler perhaps meant by this statement is that smaller business units, like Over the Trade Counter (OTC), Vaccines, Nutrition and Animal Health can be more ‘manoeuvrable and innovative’ for faster business growth. Acquisition of Wyeth could actually help Pfizer to implement this business model.

Coming back to generic business, the recent collaborative arrangement of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma in India vindicates Pfizer’s recent appetite on generic global pharmaceutical business. The company is already in this business with some of its off patent products. But now like others, Pfizer seems to be strategizing to reap a rich harvest from fast-growing generic pharmaceutical business through most probably its “Established Products” business division.

Could such business model of Global Pharmaceutical majors pose a threat to pure generic players in the business?

The entry of the global pharmaceutical majors into generic pharmaceutical business, in my view, could pose a serious threat to current generic players in the business, including those who are operating from India in the ‘regulated markets’ of the world, for the the following reasons:

1. Generic pharmaceutical business is usually a high volume, relatively low margin and highly competitive business. To survive in this business of cut-throat competition will require both financial and innovative marketing expertise, as well as financial and marketing muscle, where large global players are expected to easily score over others.

2. Product price of generics of the same or similar molecules being within a price band, prescribers and payors’ preference are expected to be in favour of large global pharmaceuticals, because of corporate brand image.

3. In future, the pharmaceutical marketing model, in my view, is expected to shift from ‘marketing of only medicines’ to ‘marketing of a bundle of medicines and services’. In the changed scenario global pharmaceutical majors are expected to have a distinct strategic advantage.

4. Global Pharmaceutical majors may also use this business model as a ‘preventive strategy’ to restrict market entry of number of players for an off-patent molecule and thereby effectively contain the extent of price erosion, as the brands will go off-patent.

It will, therefore, be quite interesting to watch, what happens in the global generic pharmaceutical business in the next five to ten years. I expect a significant consolidation taking place in this market, both global and local.

By Tapan 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.

‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’ project of DoP is a great idea – is it on course?

Posted on by
Reply
In mid 2008 The Government of India created a new department, ‘The Department of Pharmaceuticals’ (DoP), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers. The new department came out with its following vision statement:“To enable Indian pharmaceuticals industry to play a leading role in the global market and to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices within the country, of good quality pharmaceuticals of mass consumption.”‘Jan Aushadhi’ – ‘Medicines for the common man’:

In this article, I shall submit my point of view on the second part of the above vision statement, which articulated the responsibility of the department to ensure availability of affordable modern medicine for ‘mass consumption’.

When over 70% of Indian population lives in rural areas, one can quite easily assume that such medicines will be available adequately in rural areas of the country, as well. Obviously the question that follows this admirable vision statement is how?

To respond to this question one will try to address the following two basic strategic issues:

1. Create a workable and viable business model, which can be gradually developed over a period
of time to deliver the promise

2. Create a robust supply chain network to ensure easy access of these medicines to the common
man, located even in remote rural areas.

The first part of the strategic issue has been well addressed by the DoP, within a very short period, by creating ‘Jan Aushadhi’, the medicines for the masses. Importantly, the second point, which will determine the success of the project, has not been clearly articulated.

The objectives of the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ were stated as follows:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.)

2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through private public partnership (PPP). (I support this objective from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would argue below:why do we reinvent the wheel?)

3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality
generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market, like India.)

4. To help patients save significantly towards medicine cost with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets.

5. A national help line is believed to be able to increase awareness level of this initiative.

The statements of intent of the DoP also highlight that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

This particular decision of DoP, as I stated before, appears to be an attempt to ‘re-invent the wheel’, as it were. I shall argue on this subject, very shortly.

An open ended launch plan with inadequate market penetration compared to set objectives:

DoP announced that this scheme will be launched gradually in all the districts of India in four phases. However, for some unknown reasons, besides phase one and two, the other two phases of the launch plan have been kept by the department, as open ended as it could be, despite the Government of India’s having all wherewithals to implement this scheme with a reasonable degree of preciseness.

The four phases were decided as follows:

1. Phase 1: Amritsar Civil Hospital in November 8, 2008

2. Phase 2: Few stores in Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR), district hospitals in Mohali,
Ludhiana, Bhatinda and Jalandhar by February 28, 2009

3. Phase 3: Other districts of Punjab and some other states to be covered during 2009 and
2010

4. Phase 4: Remaining districts of the country by 2010 and 2012

I am not surprised that with such vague launch plan and an open ended timeline, the Government seems to have faltered in Phase 2 itself, when it could not go beyond Amritsar and Shastri Bhavan, Delhi outlets, by February, 28, 2009.

Arguing for the need of a course correction:

Despite being a hardcore optimist, I now get a vague feeling that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and may remain just as another good intention of the Government of India, if a course correction is not made at this stage.

The key barrier to improve access to affordable quality generic medicine to the common man, in this particular case, is not conceptualization of a project. We all know that our Government is reasonably good at it, with a good number of brilliant minds working to give a shape to it. The main weakness to translate this laudable idea into reality, in my view, falls well within the general weakness of the Government in visualizing the key barriers to the project and at the same time missing out on some of the key drivers for the same.

In this case, there seems to be some flaw in the ‘ideation’ stage of the project, as well. This flaw lies with the plan of its delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other bodies.

If procurement of cost effective quality generic medicines is not an issue, then the DoP should carefully look within the Government system to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘mass delivery systems’:

The Government of India has two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to even far off rural areas. These two Government owned supply and delivery chains are as follows:

1. Public Distribution System (PDS) for food grains and other essential commodities (Ration shops).

2. Indian Post Offices

Like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why then DoP not collaborate with PDS to ensure easy access of such medicines to the common man?

Similarly, when postal department are collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas, why not DoP consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend usage of both PDS and Post Offices by the DoP for deeper penetration of such medicines especially for the benefit of those 650 million people of India who do not have any access to affordable modern medicines.

I am aware, the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system or process are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’.

We have many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure success of the project “Jan Ausadhi” – “Medicines for the common man”.

It is worth noting that this project seems to have already started limping with its vague execution plan and a delivery system, the scaling up of which to ensure access to one billion population of our country could be a serious question mark.

By Tapan 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 stormy debate on wrongful grant of pharma product patents – a countdown of the news events, for a quick perspective.

Posted on by
Reply
To give a quick perspective to this debate, I reckon, a countdown of five reported news events on the subject will be helpful. I start from February, 2009 and gradually go one year back, to February, 2008, to capture the key elements of this stormy debate. Finally, I move to ‘ground zero’ to explore the basic remedial measures to effectively address the issue.Event 5‘The Economic times’ (ET) dated February 24, 2009 reported an interesting news item titled, “Dichotomy between patent law and practice”. The timing of this article, with its various quotes, highlighting the following points, evokes interest:

1.“Indian patent authorities are virtually not following the spirit of the Sections 3(d) and 3(e)”.

2.“A large number of patents granted in India since 2005 pertain to products first patented in 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most of which were launched in Indian markets long before 2005, the year of introduction of product patenting in the country”.

3.“The patent applicants are not making adequate disclosures, making it difficult for potential challengers to file post-grant objections which the law provides for. Since the International Non-proprietary Name (INN) is not of the drug is often not given along with the Title of the Patent, it is cumbersome for anyone to trace the patent to the original PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application and have an idea about how new it is”.

4.“Many law firms refuse to take briefs from Indian companies, because their multinational clients do not permit them to do so! The result— post-grant objection facility is not effectively used by Indian companies.”

Why are these observations interesting?

These observations are interesting because for point number 1 to 3, as stated above, following three recourses are available to all:

1. After publication of the patent applied for, in the patent journal, one can file a pre-grant opposition.

2. Assuming that someone has missed this opportunity, the provision for filing post grant opposition will still be there.

3. Assuming that both the opportunities have been missed due to some reasons and one could not understand the details of the patent applied for, during the patent granting process, the opportunity of going to a Court of law with a request to make such patents (which have violated section 3.d) invalid, will still exist.

It is indeed very difficult to understand why such measures are not being taken by the aggrieved parties, as specified in the law.

Point number four is even more difficult to understand. When lawyers are available to the domestic companies to defend alleged patent infringement, why then lawyers will not be available to them to take such objections to a court of law?

Event 4

Mint dated October 7, 2008 in its article titled; “Cozy deals and conflicting interest mark patent granting process” reported the following:

“There are even local and multinational corporates who ‘seek’ help of examiners and controllers to get their applications drafted, thereby ensuring a grant for a price”.

Event 3

‘The Economic Times’ dated July 1, 2008 reported in its article titled, “Cipla gets patent for Nexium, Fosamax modified versions” that Mumbai Patent office granted these two patents to Cipla in April, 2008 for new forms of two well known blockbuster drugs, Esomeprazole (Nexium of Astra Zeneca) and Alendronate (Fosamax of Merck). This news came as a big surprise because Cipla is well known for its continuous accusation to innovator companies for trying to extend ‘monopoly’ period by ever-greening patent through similar means. The report, therefore, raised a very valid question, whether Cipla has ‘walked the talk’ in India? It will be interesting to know on what basis Cipla managed to overcome the ‘efficacy’ barriers under section 3(d).

On this ET report, well known IPR expert Shamnad Basheer wrote the following in his blog dated July 6, 2008:

“Reading the ET piece, Nathan Evans of Finnegan Henderson, who’s a very astute commentator on the Indian patent scene and has written a couple of articles in this regard posed this question to me:

“This makes me wonder if the patent office in India will apply the laws less strictly to Indian pharmas than MNCs (kind of like they apply the patent laws more strictly for essential medicines)”

Shamnad Basheer concluded his comment on this subject with the following observations:

“How ought section 3(d) to be interpreted when our very own generic manufacturers are applying for supposedly “incremental” inventions?”

Event 2

According to Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI) report dated March 7, 2008, FICCI and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and Industry have joined hands to set up a working group to improve Intellectual Property regime in India.
It will be interesting to know the view of this joint working group between the Government and the Industries, in this matter. I have not read anywhere any comments of this important working group on such matter, so far.

Event 1

‘Thomson and Reuters patent focus report’ dated February, 2009 observed absence of clear guidelines (Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure) about some of the complex provisions of patent law, particularly section 3(d). The report indicated that there should be clarity on what would qualify as “enhanced efficacy” under section 3(d) so that it can help the patent examiners to clearly make out which patent applications would fall under section 3(d).

Ground Zero:

Let us now try to ponder, realize and fathom the core issue of this problem, which lies at the ‘Ground Zero’. Thus far we have been reading constant allegations about the functioning of Indian Patent Offices and even on their integrity and honesty.

In absence of a well drafted, long overdue, Patent Manual, all concerned, including patent examiners will have their own ways of looking into “enhanced efficacy”. In such a situation, I shall not be surprised if the Patent Examiners suffer from the dilemma as to what exactly will constitute “enhanced efficacy”.

Protracted debate with the stakeholders on the ‘draft patent manual’ appears to be over now. The last stakeholders’ meeting on this subject was concluded in Kolkata following Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, several months ago. However, the final Patent Manual is still not in place, which has been kept for public inspection since 2005.

To address this stormy debate, in my view, we need to:

1. Push for expeditious release and implementation of the Patent Manual (Manual of Patent Practice
and Procedure).

2. Let FICCI – DIPP working group work more effectively and cohesively for better functioning of the
new IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) regime.

3. Let ‘capacity building’ exercise at the Indian Patent office (IPO) continue with greater speed.

Mere accusation and constant bashing of the IPOs, as we now see around, may not yield much result. After having taken the above measures, if similar dissatisfaction in any quarter still remains, let law take its own course. Despite great apprehensions by some, as quoted above under point 1, never mind, enough lawyers will be available to fight such cases.

By Tapan 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 heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan 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.

‘Orphan Drugs’ for ‘Orphan Diseases’ – is ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ platform for discovery research the way forward?

Posted on by
Reply
To meet the unmet needs of common and dreaded diseases intensive R&D activities are being undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the world over. At the same time, a percentage of human population, however small, also suffers from some rare diseases, for which there are no approved medical treatments even in the twenty first century, for the rich and poor alike.These rare diseases are also termed as ‘orphan diseases’, which are often chronic, progressive, degenerative, life-threatening or disabling. Many patients suffering from such rare diseases are denied their right to get their ailments effectively treated.It is indeed heartening to note that European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) and National Alliances announced February 29, 2008 as the first ‘Rare Disease day’. Thereafter, the last day of February has been designated as ‘Rare Disease Day’ worldwide to call attention to the public health issues associated with rare diseases, which have been reported to affect around 30 million patients around the world.

People with rare diseases remain a medically underserved population even in a developed country. We can then well imagine the plight of such patients in India. The ‘Rare Disease Day’ is intended to bring together the patients and families with rare diseases to discuss the need for greater awareness, more research, and better access to diagnosis and treatment. I am not sure how various authorities, including our Government, are deliberating on this healthcare issue.

People suffering from ‘orphan diseases’ often face huge challenges compared to more common diseases. These include delay in getting an accurate diagnosis, few treatment options and difficulty finding medical experts. Many such rare diseases have no approved treatment. Moreover, treatments for ‘orphan diseases’ tend to be in most cases more expensive than treatments for more common diseases.

This year, the “Rare Disease Day” will be observed in India also, on February 28, though these are not very much talked about in our country, nor is there any proper definition in place for such diseases, as yet.

The drugs meant for treating ‘orphan diseases’ have been very appropriately termed as ‘orphan drugs’, mainly due to commercial reasons, as such drugs will be used on much fewer patients with commensurate return on investments towards R&D. Thus spending expensive R&D resources toward such drugs may not make sound commercial sense.

To address this need, in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was passed by the Congress in the USA to extend financial incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Since then, nearly 330 ‘orphan drugs’ and biologics have been approved by the U.S. FDA, which estimates that from 11 to 14 million Americans would benefit from these ‘orphan drugs’. However, despite such commendable measures taken by the US FDA, around 15 million Americans still leave with such ‘orphan diseases’ for which there is no approved treatment.

It is interesting to note that some of these ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in medical science, more of such ‘orphan diseases’ are likely to be known in our country.

Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures? In the USA, even by giving adequate financial incentives, this problem could not be effectively addressed for commercial reasons.

In my view, one of the ways to properly address this issue is to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever required. This initiative has been pioneered by the well known scientist and Director General of CSIR Dr. Samir Brahmachari. Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline also had mooted a similar idea in another context in not too distant past.

Therefore, to address the issue of ‘orphan diseases’, in my opinion, the OSDD model with partnerships between private, public and academia will not only prove to be a viable and more practical model to discover ‘orphan drugs’, but will also help India to effectively contribute to this important global issue – not just by observing the ‘Rare Diseases Day’ on February 28 or 29, each year.

By Tapan 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.