Tag Archives: foundation

Self-made Barriers To Business Transparency Impacting Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

A recently published book on pharma industry tried to expose the deceit behind many generic-drug manufacturing—and the consequent risks to global health. This publication is described as an ‘explosive narrative investigation of the generic drug boom that reveals fraud and life-threatening dangers on a global scale.’ However, I reckon, this is just a part of the story, and its huge adverse impact on public health flows generally from the following facts:

  • Greater use of generic drugs is hailed as one of the most important public-health developments of the twenty-first century.
  • Today, almost 90 percent of global pharma market, in volume terms, is comprised of generics.
  • These are mostly manufactured in China and India.
  • The drug regulators continuously assure patients and doctors that generic drugs are identical to their brand-name counterparts, just less expensive.

No question, such deceit, blatant fraud and data manipulation – seriously affecting drug quality of generic medicines, shake the very purpose of making affordable drugs accessible to many. But, simultaneously, lack of transparency – right across the various functions of a pharma business, is also making a host of modern life-saving drugs unaffordable and inaccessible to even more patients. Although, both are despicable acts, but the latter one is not discussed as much.

Thus, in this article, I shall dwell on the second one – how attempts for pharma business ‘transparency’ for expanded drug access to patients, getting repeatedly foiled, especially in light of what happened on May 28, 2019, in the 72nd World Health Assembly (WHA).

Does pharma want low business transparency to continue?

Despite so many encouraging initiatives being taken in the pharma industry over a period of time, gross lack of transparency in its business continues, since long, despite this is being a raging issue. The obvious question, therefore, remains: Does pharma want low business transparency to continue? Thus, to give a perspective to this pertinent point, I shall quote two important observations, appeared in ‘MIMS Today’ – the first one on April 17, 2017, and the other came a year before that, on November 20, 2016, as follows:

  • “A market cannot function when purchasers have limited information and, in the case of prescription drugs, pricing is a black box. Prices for drugs are clearly rising at rates that far exceed inflation and the level of any rebates or discounts offered by manufacturers,” experts opined. They further said, to hold the industry accountable, Access to Medicine Foundation (AMF)’ regularly compiles an index to rank the progress made by each large drug maker in the area of business transparency. Curiously, they concluded, ‘the number and quality of evaluations for the effectiveness of these programs are lacking.’
  • “Lack of transparency of drug makers was also identified. Their policy positions, political contributions, marketing activities and memberships in associations and the associated financial support provided and board seats held were all analyzed. And only then, the ‘AMF’ reached a consensus that transparency remains low in all areas. The analysts further added, ‘there is a lack of transparency and rigor in monitoring and evaluating the access-to-medicines initiatives as well as the link between prices and development costs. Thus, ‘greater transparency from manufacturers to disclose R&D costs for drugs and evaluation of the initiatives’ is imperative.

Despite key policy makers’ favoring transparency, it remains elusive:

To illustrate this point, let me draw a recent example from the United States.

Alex M. Azar II, who is currently the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States, also served as president of Eli Lilly USA. LLC from 2012 to 2017 supports the need of business transparency in the pharma industry. Last year, he also emphasized:

“Putting patients in charge of this information is a key priority. But if we’re talking about trying to drive not just better outcomes, but lower costs, we also have to do a better job of informing patients about those costs. That is where our emphasis on price transparency comes in.” By naming the key health care product and service providers, Azar added, “So this administration is calling on not just doctors and hospitals, but also drug companies and pharmacies, to become more transparent about pricing and outcomes of their services and products.”

Like Secretary Azar, policy makers in several other countries, including India, are also talking and seemingly in favor of transparency in health care business systems, but it remains elusive, as we shall see below.

Do vested interests create over-powering pressure to maintain status-quo?

The above examples give some idea about the pressure created by vested interested to maintain a status-quo in this important area. Although, business transparency is a must, pharma influence on policy makers is so powerful that even a recent global resolution on the subject, had to dilute its original version in its final avatar, significantly, which I shall now focus on, as yet another vindication on this issue.

The final version of the 2019 WHA resolution made weaker in transparency:

On May 28, 2019, by a News Release in Geneva, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) announced, to help expand access to medicines for all, the72nd World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a significant resolution on improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines and other health products, globally. I repeat, this was a global effort to expand access. The assembly brought together delegates from 194 Member States of the W.H.O, including India – from 20 to 28 May 2019, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Intriguingly, as several reports highlighted, ‘the final resolution is considerably weaker than the original draft.’ Nevertheless, it still provides, at least, some measures, which have potential to make an impact on market access, globally.

What exactly was the 2019 WHA original resolution?

The original WHA draft resolution, titled ‘Roadmap for access 2019-2023 – Comprehensive support for access to medicines and vaccines’, urged the Member states the following:

  • To enhance public sharing of information on actual prices paid by governments and other buyers for health products,
  • Greater transparency on pharmaceutical patents, clinical trial results and other determinants of pricing along the value chain from laboratory to patient.
  • Requests the WHO secretariat to support efforts towards transparency and monitor the impact of transparency on affordability and availability of health products, including the effect of differential pricing.

Highlighting that access to medicines is the key to advancing the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), the resolution aims to help the Member States:

  • To make more informed decisions when purchasing health products,
  • Negotiate more affordable prices
  • And ultimately expand access to health products for the populations.

Palpable discomfort of large pharma associations:

The May 30, 2019 article of the Pharm Exec Magazine on this resolution, carried a headline with a query: Is it ‘A Watershed on Transparency and International Collaboration in Drug Pricing?’ The paper brought out some important points that may help explain why the 2019 original WHA resolution, could not be adopted as such. Apparent discomfort in this regard of some top industry associations, which were created and fully funded by large global drug companies, was palpable, according to this report.

For example, “the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), warned governments ‘to carefully consider potential risks to patients, particularly in less developed countries, of sharing outcomes of confidential price negotiations across countries.’ The implication is that prices in less-affluent countries could rise if the wealthier nations used international transparency to demand lower prices for their markets.”

Why couldn’t the original resolution on business transparency be adopted?

To instantiate the level of discomfort of vested interests, let me highlight some critical changes made in the 2019 in final WHA resolution at the international level, as I get from the above paper. A few of which are as follows:

In the original draft Changes in the final resolution
1. “Undertake measures to publicly share information on prices and reimbursement cost of medicines, vaccines, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies.” Refers to publicly sharing of information only on net prices.
2. “Require the dissemination of results and costs from human subject clinical trials, regardless of outcome or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.” “Take the necessary steps, as appropriate, to support dissemination of and enhanced availability of and access to aggregated results data and, if already publicly-available or voluntarily-provided, costs from human subject clinical trials regardless of outcomes or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.”
3. “Require the publication of annual reports on sales revenue, prices, units sold, and marketing costs for individual products, as well as details of the costs of each trial used to support a marketing authorization application and information on financial support from public sources used in the development of a drug.” Calls on the member states to “work collaboratively to improve the reporting of information by suppliers on registered health products, such as reports on sales revenues, prices, units sold, marketing costs, and subsidies and incentives.”
4. Wanted the WHO Director-General to “propose a model/concept for the possible creation of a web-based tool for national governments to share information, where appropriate, on medicines prices, revenues, units sold, patent landscapes, R&D costs, the public sector investments and subsidies for R&D, marketing costs, and other related information, on a voluntary basis.” Diluted only to “assessing the feasibility and potential value of establishing a web-based tool to share information relevant to the transparency of markets for health products, including investments, incentives, and subsidies.”
5. Proposed the creation of a forum to “develop suitable options for alternative incentive frameworks to patent or regulatory monopolies for new medicines and vaccines” that would both promote universal health coverage and adequately reward innovation. This point doesn’t find any place in the final resolution.

It appears, the final 2019 WHA resolution has been able to remove the key points of discomfort for the drug industry – caused by greater business transparency. It is largely due to the fact that the final pledges ‘consist largely of recommendations for voluntary action rather than the requirements for comprehensive disclosure proposed in the original draft.’

Conclusion:

To arrive at a consensus, especially over promoting transparency in costs incurred towards R&D of drugs and health-related technologies, appeared challenging for the W.H.O Member States, inthe 72nd World Health Assemblythat concluded on May 28, 2019.Overall resolution changed the narrative from a mandatory process to a voluntary initiative. As I said before, it still prescribes several measures, which can help expand access to medicines for all, across the world.

In tandem, it also comes out clearly that barriers to business transparency to ensure better access to drugs for all, across the world, are not easy to uproot, either. Especially, when it comes to fighting against concerted efforts of powerful pharma lobby groups, other vested interests and some looney fringes.

The process of adoption of the May 2019 WHA final resolution of the world’s most relevant public health issues, is just an example.

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.

Antimicrobial Resistance: A Recent Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle antibiotic drug resistance, was published by the Netherlands based Access to Medicine Foundation.

The issue of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) was brought under focus by the World Economic Forum (WEF) not for the first time at Davos in 2018. Its 2013 Annual Report on global risks, also underscored the gargantuan health hazard that AMR poses to mankind. It said, we live in a bacterial world where we will never be able to stay ahead of the mutation curve. A test of our resilience is how far the curve, we allow ourselves to fall behind. It’s indeed a profound statement!

In that sense, the AMF analysis is important. More so, when the global population is virtually at the threshold of facing a situation very similar to pre-antibiotic era, where even a common infection used to pose threat to a life. And now, a fast-developing AMR to many effective antibiotics or even super-antibiotics, are making them almost redundant in many serious conditions. Consequently, around 700,000 people die every year only due to antimicrobial resistance, the world over.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also reiterated its grave concern in this area by a news release on September 20, 2017. It cautioned, “Antimicrobial resistance is a global health emergency that will seriously jeopardize progress in modern medicine.” Against that backdrop, in this article, I shall dwell on some latest developments in this area, both globally and also in India.

Dire need for newer antibiotics – but dry R&D pipeline:

At the very outset, let me flag another critical area that is intimately related to this concern. An article titled, “Where Are the Antibiotics?”, published by the AARP Foundation adds more to this growing concern. It writes, in an era when many breakthrough innovative drugs are curing some of our most deadly afflictions, the quest for meeting the unmet medical needs, seems to have shifted away from development of critically needed breakthrough antibiotics to effectively address AMR, for various reasons.

The author further highlighted that between the time penicillin was discovered in 1928, and the 1970s – 270 antibiotics were approved – a robust arsenal of powerful drugs that kept almost all bacterial infections at bay. However, since then, research into new antibiotics has declined dramatically. Today, just five of the top 50 big drug companies are reportedly developing innovative antibiotics – the article reiterates.  Nevertheless, some recent developments in this area can’t be ignored, either, which I shall touch upon in this discussion.

Global initiatives for a multi-pronged concerted action:

It is understandable that there are no magic bullets to address the fast-growing menace of AMR. It calls for a multi-pronged strategy with well-orchestrated concerted efforts for its effective implementation with military precision. Following are the three primary constituents who should lead from the front in the battle against AMR, as I reckon:

  • The world leaders
  • Each country, individually
  • Pharmaceutical industry, both global and local

The medical profession, including hospitals, nursing homes, the retail chemists and individual patients, also play a significant role to alleviate this problem, especially in India and other developing countries. But, I shall keep that as a subject for a separate discussion, altogether. Let me now touch-upon the first three constituents, one by one, as follows:

1. The world leaders’ initiative:

Realizing that failure to act on AMR will result in a global health and financial crisis, the world leaders met to address this growing menace. Accordingly, on September 21, 2016, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a declaration aimed at slowing the spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. At this meeting in New York City, the top UN leaders successfully urged all governments to sign a political declaration to tackle the problem of AMR, both globally and in their respective countries. The joint declaration requires each country to develop a 2-year plan to protect the potency of antibiotics for both livestock and humans. The progress of the initiative for each country at the end of those 2 years will be evaluated. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the agreed human-specific actions, which include the following:

  • Antibiotics should be prescribed only when they are absolutely necessary
  • A massive education campaign about antibiotic resistance.
  • Greater monitoring of superbugs to understand the scope and magnitude of the problem.
  • Safeguarding current antibiotic stockpile.

The leaders suggested that people should be encouraged to help prevent the crisis from turning into a death sentence for millions, with the steps, such as:

  • Get available vaccines to prevent illness
  • Stop asking doctors for antibiotics when they have the cold or flu, as antibiotics treat neither
  • To urge their political leaders to commit to action in combating antibiotic resistance.

2. Country-specific initiatives:

In September 2016, just a year after the UNGA high-level meeting on AMR, an update by the United Nations Foundation reported that 151 countries out of 195 WHO member states have responded. The overall response includes the following, among others:

  • 85 percent of countries are developing or have developed National Action Plans (NAC).
  • 52 percent of countries have a fully developed plan with ‘One Health’ approach that seeks to unify human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and food providers against the progression of AMR by reducing agricultural antimicrobial use.
  • 52 percent of Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have national-level measures in place on ‘Infection Prevention and Control (IPC)’ measures in human healthcare.

3. Pharmaceutical industry initiatives: 

I shall cite only the latest commendable developments in this area, as I see it. On Jan. 21, 2016 a document titled the ‘Declaration on Combating Antimicrobial Resistance’, was launched, again, as part of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland.

For the first time, 85 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic-drug, and diagnostic companies agreed on a common set of principles for global action to support antibiotic conservation and the development of new drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines. The document, outlining several critical measures the government and industry must take to increase antibiotic effectiveness worldwide, was also drafted and signed by nine industry associations spanning 18 countries.

Global progress assessment of AMR initiatives in 2018:

This brings me back to where I started from, while analyzing what happened in this regard a year after the above declaration was signed. On January 23, 2018, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – the first independent analysis of pharmaceutical industry efforts to tackle drug resistance, was revealed by the AMF. It found companies are developing new drugs, as well as dismantling the incentives that encourage sales staff to oversell antibiotics, setting limits on the concentration of antibiotics in factory wastewater released into the environment, and tracking the spread of superbugs.

In the AMR Benchmark, GSK and Johnson & Johnson lead among the largest research-based pharmaceutical companies. A separate ranking of manufacturers of generic antibiotics features Mylan, Cipla, and Fresenius Kabi Global, in the leading positions. While Mylan leads the generic medicine manufacturers, Entasis, reportedly, leads the biotechnology group. 

Twenty-eight antibiotics are in late stages of development:

The other key findings of the 2018 study include mention of 28 antibiotics that are in later stages of development, targeting pathogens deemed critical AMR priorities by the WHO, and/or US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, only two of these 28 candidates are supported by plans to ensure they can be both made accessible and used wisely if they reach the market. Be that as it may, the benchmark finds room for all companies to improve in this space, the report indicated.

Some major initiatives in India:

The good news is, ‘The National Policy for Containment of Antibacterial Resistance’, with similar objectives, was put in place in India by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, way back in 2011. Further, on March 20, 2015, to strengthen the surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had set up a National Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Surveillance Network (AMRRSN) to enable compilation of national data of AMR at different levels of health care.

Again, in February 2017, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)  has put a new ‘Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes’, to achieve the same objectives. Despite this, as many medical experts opine, a large number of General Practitioners (GP), including hospitals, nursing homes continued over-prescribing antibiotics. Alarmingly, considered as the last line of defense antibiotics by many doctors – Colistin and Carbapenem resistant infections have also been reported from several Indian hospitals. All this adds further fuel to the AMR fire.

Another matter of huge worry in India:

The February 04, 2018 article titled, ‘Threats to global antimicrobial resistance control Centrally approved and unapproved antibiotic formulations sold in India,’ published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, highlight serious hurdles for controlling antimicrobial resistance in India, which has had parliamentary investigations into the failures of the country’s drug regulatory system. The study was conducted by researchers from Queen Mary University in London, Newcastle University and Lakshya Society for Public Health Education and Research in Pune. Some of the key findings of the study are as follows:

  • Extensive use unapproved of fixed dose combination (FDC) antibiotics is contributing to the rising rate of AMR in India, which is already one of the highest in the world.
  • Out of the 118 of FDC antibiotics being sold in India, only 43 (36 percent) were approved by the CDSCO. These 118 antibiotic formulations are being sold in 3307 brand names and manufactured by 476 entities. Of these, 464 were Indian manufactures, and 12 were MNCs.

The authors recommend work on understanding why unapproved formulations are being prescribed by medical professionals.

Conclusion:

As the above AARP Foundation article highlights, like all living beings, bacteria constantly evolve to survive. While encountering a new antibiotic, they quickly find ways to evade it, and continue to live or exist. Some have even developed cell wall like virtually impregnable shields, as it were, keeping antibiotics out. Others pump antibiotics out when they get in. Several deadly bacteria have even devised ways to deactivate antibiotics.

The comments made in the article titled, ‘The Future of Antibiotics and Resistance,’ published by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on January 24, 2013, is also worth noting. It says, the converging crises of increasing resistance and collapse of antibiotic research and development are the predictable results of policies and processes we have used to deal with infections for 75 years. If we want a long-term solution, the answer is not incremental tweaking of these policies and processes. Novel approaches, based on a reconceptualization of the nature of resistance, disease, and prevention, are needed.

The bottom line still remains, AMR is a humongous threat to the global population, not just in India. While its awareness is gradually increasing, much more painstaking work remains to be done by all, both individually and collectively, to contain this global health menace. It’s our responsibility to protect the well-being of our future generations.

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.

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

Posted on by
Reply

As the saying goes, “Great people think alike”, many thought leaders of very high credibility across the globe, seem to think almost in similar lines when it comes to improving access to medicines for a large section of the global population.

In this article, I shall briefly focus on two such instances, both revolving around the same centerpiece – one from India and the other from the land of ‘pharmaceutical innovation’ – America.

An interesting article written recently by the well-regarded Indian expert of global stature Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, President, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), reiterates emphatically,  “India must protect access to medicine”.

In a more focused context related to EU-FTA, the author wrote about possible adverse impact of more stringent product patent and regulatory data protection related issues on access to generic medicines in India and other developing countries. Thus, he argued that EU-FTA should be well negotiated by India and cautioned as  follows:

“It must be remembered that India needs to protect its vital interests in any trade agreement, just as other nations strive to. Our interest lies in protecting the lives and safeguarding the health of Indians, without permitting unreasonable restrictions on our ability to produce, use and even export, generic versions of drugs the patents of which have lapsed (or where compulsory licensing has been invoked to protect public health).

India needs to tread carefully while negotiating the FTA with the EU, so that the health of the Indian people is not compromised through provisions that shackle our generic drug industry.”

The debate has assumed a global dimension:

Such raging debates on a critical public health issue, like access to medicines, are also taking place in many other countries, as I write, including America, irrespective of the fact whether these are generic or patented drugs.

Marcia Angell, M.D, a faculty of Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of the world’s leading medical journal ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ wrote an interesting book.

In this book titled “The Truth About the Drug Companies: ‪How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”, she makes many interesting comments on the American pharmaceutical industry on access to medicines and the kind of pharmaceutical innovations that they are involved in.

The world noticed it:

This book arrested global attention and was extensively reviewed. Since, the author wrote more specifically about the American pharmaceutical industry, following are some excerpts quoted from her book reviews in the USA:

New York Times: “A scorching indictment of drug companies and their research and business practices…tough, persuasive and troubling.”

Boston Globe: “A sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of Drug Company power…a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book.”

Washington Post: “Always authoritative…[this book] delivers the message—that drug-company money and power is corrupting American medicine—in a convincing, no-nonsense manner.”

Some key issues raised in the book:

Like the above article of Dr. Reddy, here also the author raises some interesting issues related to the American drug companies. I am penning below some of those issues exactly as expressed by the author (verbatim):

  • “The magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.”
  • “R&D is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.”
  • “The great majority of ‘new’ drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called ‘me-too’ drugs.”
  • “If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?”
  • “Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)”
  • “Now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.”
  • “Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.”
  • “One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong.”
  • “In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they’re worth—and they’re worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.”
  • “The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called ‘marketing and administration – a name that varies slightly from company to company.”
  • “The industry is fighting these efforts—mainly with its legions of lobbyists and lawyers. It fought the state of Maine all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2003 upheld Maine’s right to bargain with drug companies for lower prices, while leaving open the details. But that war has just begun, and it promises to go on for years and get very ugly.”
  • “The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known.”
  • “There are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact.”
  • “Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs.”
  • “While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs. In the meantime, the once-solid foundations of the big pharma colossus are shaking.”
  • “Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers.”
  • “The me-too market would collapse virtually overnight if the FDA made approval of new drugs contingent on their being better in some important way than older drugs already on the market.”
  • “A second important reform would be to require drug companies to open their books. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business.”
  • “But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.”

An opposite view:

On this an article in Forbes Magazine commented as follows:

“The problem with Angell’s arguments is that they are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies. Furthermore, she makes no accounting for changes in the industry that have occurred over the last decade.”

“It is time for those in the medical profession to spur a more truthful and factual discussion about the pharmaceutical industry and its role in the discovery and development of new medicines. The pharmaceutical industry is a key player in the evolution of healthcare and this needs to be recognized if the industry is to operate effectively.”

Conclusion:

One of the key counter arguments that very often comes up in this area, including in India is, the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is the responsibility of the Government concerned at any cost, even if such protective measures severely restrict access to these drugs to a large population of the society across the globe, due to ‘affordability’ considerations.

It is also claimed that, to come out with innovative medicines, large pharmaceutical companies invest a huge amount of money and time towards R&D related activities.

Thus, the global innovator companies, by and large, with a few exceptions though, believe that stricter enforcement of stringent patent laws by the Governments is the only answer to foster innovation within the industry. Such stringent measures, as they argue, will help them keep investing in R&D to meet the ‘unmet needs’ of patients on a continuous basis.

However, as we have seen above, many experts, like Harvard faculty Marcia Angell and Dr. K. Srinath Reddy have strong and quite different view points. It is certain that the debate on access to affordable medicines is not going to die down, at least any time soon.

Despite all these, it is not difficult, I reckon, to identify an emerging but a clear trend indicating, the priority of the Governments to protect public health interest in the longer term, will ultimately prevail in most parts of the world, including India.

Consequently, the world will probably witness more and more new government policies and legal frameworks in this area striking a right balance between improving access to medicines and fostering innovation, as the countries move on.

That said, taking note of the above two paintings, as it were, painted on the same canvas of ‘improving access to medicines for all’, is it not amazing to note a striking similarity in the thought pattern between two highly credible and independent think tanks, belonging to the oldest and largest democracies of the planet earth, to ensure affordable medicines for 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.