Tag Archives: global

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Is the yardstick of judging pharma industry different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government attributes ‘Market Failure’ for pharmaceuticals:

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

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

Civil Society echoed the same sentiment:

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

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

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

Are medicines cheapest in India…really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

Posted on by
Reply

New products are the lifeblood for any company, including the pharmaceutical players. Business performance and sustainable growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as a whole depend on quality of R&D output in terms of ‘New Molecules’, followed by successful development and launch of those new products by the global pharmaceutical innovators.

Post-patent expiry, robust development and ‘just in time’ launch of cheaper generic versions of those innovative products, in a mega scale, usually drive the growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry, globally.

It is worth noting that for the last several years, ‘Patent Cliff’ coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering new product launches, are taking heavy tolls on the business performance of the global pharmaceutical majors.

The changing dynamics need to be considered:

Echoing this development, a March 2014 report of McKinsey & Company states: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet sales expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.”

To analyze the situation now in perspective, let us start tracking the launches from 2006 and 2007.

10 Big Pharma Sales in 2012 from NMEs approved since 2007 – A comparison

According to a June 2013 report of the ‘FirstWord Pharma’, in 2012 the combined sales of 10 top Big Pharma constituents, as named in the tables below, from the New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved by the US-FDA since 2007, were US$ 14.8 billion i.e. 4.9 percent of the total revenue of these 10 companies in that year from the patented drugs.

Individual performance of these 10 companies are as follows:

No. Company Sales US$ Million Sales from NMEs US$ Million As % of 2012 Sales
1. Novartis 32153 3445 10.7
2. J&J 25351 2593 10.3
3. BMS 17621 1495 8.5
4. GSK 28518 1282 4.5
5. Merck 35945 1515 4.2
6. Sanofi 30879 1265 4.1
7. Roche 37578 1238 3.3
8. Eli Lilly 20566 457 2.2
9. Pfizer 47496 1040 2.2
10 AstraZeneca 27925 449 1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

The success rate: With 2007 as the base year for NMEs

This table shows that Novartis and Johnson & Johnson were the two most successful companies with the launch of such NMEs in 2012, as they generated 10.7 percent and 10.3 percent, respectively, of their total patented drugs sales from these NMEs, as against an average of 4.9 percent, as mentioned above, during that year.

If we now try to analyze the new product launch success rates of the 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of these new products (launched since 2007) to their respective total sales in 2012, the following picture emerges:

  • Good:  More than 10 percent - 2 Companies (20 percent)
  • Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 1 Company (10 percent)
  • Poor: Less than 5 percent - 7 Companies (70 percent)

The success rate: With 2006 as the base year for NMEs

It is interesting to note from this report that by extending the ‘review period’ to NMEs approved by the US-FDA between 2006 and 2012 (i.e. one additional year), revenues generated by these new drugs in 2012 double to US$ 29 billion – or approximately 10 percent (instead of earlier 4.9 percent) of the total combined branded drug sales of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents in the same year, as follows:

No. Company Sales US$ Million Sales from NMEs US$ Million As % of 2012 Sales
1. Merck 35945 7518 20.9
2. Novartis 32153 5843 18.2
3. J&J 25351 3939 15.5
4. BMS 17621 2514 14.3
5. Roche 37578 2818 7.5
6. Pfizer 47496 2946 6.2
7. GSK 28518 1282 4.5
8. Sanofi 30879 1265 4.1
9. Eli Lilly 20566 457 2.2
10 AstraZeneca 27925 449 1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

No significant overall qualitative change:

Here also, though some numbers related to the new product launch success rates of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of the NMEs launched since 2006 to their respective total sales in 2012 do change, poor to average performance with the new products still remains quite high, as follows:

  • Good: More than 10 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)
  • Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 2 Company (20 percent)
  • Poor: Less than 5 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)

However, at a company level, the broad success trend with new products does not change very significantly. Just two new products approved by the US-FDA in 2006 were off to flying starts. These were:

  • Januvia of Merck: Generated sales of US$ 5.7 billion in 2012
  • Lucentis of Novartis and Roche: Generated combined sales of US$ 4 billion in 2012

Is it practically ‘The End’ of blockbuster drugs era?

While considering the larger picture on the subject, does it mean that Januvia and Lucentis would mark the end of the golden era of global blockbuster drugs…at least for now?

This picture may get clearer with the following table, prompting possibly an affirmative answer:

Best selling NMEs launched since 2006:

No. Product Company Approval Year 2012 Sales in US$ Million
1. Januvia Merck 2006 5745
2. Lucentis Novartis 2006 2398
3. Lucentis Roche 2006 1580
4. Isentress Merck 2007 1515
5. Invega J&J 2006 1346
6. Sutent Pfizer 2006 1236
7. Gilenya Novartis 2010 1195
8. Stelara J&J 2009 1025
9. Sprycel BMS 2006 1019
10 Tasigna Novartis 2007  998

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

Successfully launched most recent product is also on a shaky ground:

The new game-changing hepatitis C drug of Gilead Sciences – Sovaldi, has generated a turnover of around US$ 140 million in less than a month’s time from its market launch. Analysts expect an annual turnover of around US$7 billion from this brand.

However, sustaining the current sales momentum for Sovaldi in the years ahead could indeed be challenging for Gilead, as Bristol-Myers Squibb is preparing to obtain FDA approval for its own hepatitis C treatment daclatasvir, which has already been cleared in Europe. In addition, AbbVie is also progressing fast with its novel three-drug fixed dose combination in the same therapy area.

Moreover, Sovaldi’s unusually high price has reportedly created a furore in the western market. It costs US$ 1,000 a pill, raising huge concern among insurers and state funded healthcare providers in the United States. The report states that three Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have already demanded that Gilead Sciences must justify the price of Sovaldi.

Categorization of new drugs:

Analyzing the current situation the above McKinsey report categorizes the types of new products that are now being launched, as follows:

  • Roughly one in four launches involves drugs that are strongly differentiated from competing products.
  • More than half of upcoming launches are of moderately differentiated products in well-established disease areas, and the priority is to find a way to stand out from the crowd. This requires innovative approaches to unveil insights into stakeholder needs and behaviors that competitors do not have.
  • For roughly 15 percent of launches, the priority will be to establish unmet needs effectively to ensure access to a well-differentiated treatment for a targeted population. McKinsey call these launches “category creators.” Gardasil, launched in the un-established human papilloma virus market, is an example.
  • 8 percent of launches face the substantial challenge of launching an undifferentiated product in an un-established disease area.

Broad strategic steps prescribed:

To address this challenge effectively the above report underscores the need for a systematic approach for the pharma players as follows:

  • Establish unmet needs in a disease area,
  • Develop deep customer insight as a basis for a truly differentiated positioning
  • Land the products safely in the market
  • Maximize launch uptake
  • Use early experiences in the market to fine-tune ongoing launch activities

Conclusion:

Considering the prevailing scenario of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering success with the new product launches, how would a company work out its new product launch strategy, is becoming increasingly a critical question to answer on priority.

To appropriately tune a new product in its long-term sales and profit growth trajectory, it is imperative to ensure that the product exhibits its winning trends as soon as it is fired from its launch pad.

This is absolutely essential, as it appears from the above study, around one in three launches has been good in meeting the planned expectations. This makes about two-thirds of new product launches falling well short of target.  It is noteworthy that 78 percent of those new products that fell short in their first year target, lagged in their second-year forecasts too. Further, 70 percent of those laggards did not measure up to the organizational expectations even during their third year in the market.

Thus, any inadvertent mistakes in this area could make the grand finale of intense product development and strategizing efforts over a number of years together with expenses of millions of dollars, unflattering, if not catastrophic, both in terms of top and bottom line score-card of the organization, as is happening more frequently during the last several years.

This trend needs to be reversed with the application of innovative minds and charting the uncharted frontiers, sooner the better, for a healthier global pharmaceutical industry, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Posted on by
Reply

‘Big Pharma’ now seems to be desperately trying to gain the long lost high moral ground by pushing  hard its gigantic image makeover juggernaut, maintaining a strong pitch on the relevance of stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the lives of the patients. However, even more alert media, by reporting a number of unethical and fraudulent activities of some of its constituents on the ground, is taking much of the steam out of it. As a result, the pace of erosion of all important pharma credibility is fast accelerating.

Innovation – A critical need for any science-based business:

Innovation, which eventually leads to the issue of IPR, is generally regarded as extremely important to meet the unmet needs of patients in the battle against diseases of all types, especially the dreaded ones. Thus, it has always been considered as the bedrock of the global pharmaceutical industry. As we all know, even the cheaper generic drugs originate from off-patent innovative medicines.

At the same time, it is equally important to realize that just as the pharmaceutical or life-science businesses, innovation is critical for any other science based businesses too, such as IT, Automobile, Aviation, besides many others. Since many centuries, even when there were no ‘Patents Act’ anywhere in the world, leave aside robust ones, pharmaceutical industry has been predominantly growing through innovation and will keep becoming larger and larger through the same process, acrimonious debate over stringent IPR regime not withstanding.

India has also amply demonstrated its belief that innovation needs to be encouraged and protected with a well-balanced Intellectual Property regime in the country, when it became a member of the World Trade Organization and a part of the TRIPS Agreement, as I had discussed in my earlier blog post.

Simultaneously, a recent research report is worth noting, as well. The study reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, since mid 2000, have spent around US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones. This is indeed a matter of great concern, just as a very ‘stringent IP regime’ prompts ‘evergreening’ of patents, adversely impacting the patients’ health interest.

Though innovation is much needed, obscene pricing of many patented drugs is limiting their access to majority of the world population. On top of that, business malpractices net of fines, wherever caught, are adding to the cost of medicines significantly.

Key reasons for acceleration of credibility erosion:

I reckon, following are the three main factors accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and Big Pharma in particular:

  1. Large scale reported business malpractices affecting patients’ health interest
  2. Very high prices of patented medicines in general, adversely impacting patients’ access and cost of treatment
  3. Attempts to influence IP laws of many countries for vested interests

1. Accelerating credibility erosion due to business malpractices:

In the pharmaceutical sector across the world, including India, the Marketing and Clinical Trial (CT) practices have still remained very contentious issues, despite many attempts of so called ‘self-regulation’ by the industry associations. Incessant complaints as reported by the media, judicial fines and settlements for fraudulent practices of some important pharma players leave no breather to anyone.

To illustrate the point, let me quote below a few recent examples:

Global:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder. According to the Italian regulator Avastin costs up to 81 euros, against around 900 euros for Lucentis. Out of the total amount, Novartis would require to pay 92 million euros and Roche 90.5 million euros. Roche’s Genentech unit and Novartis had developed Lucentis. Roche markets the drug in the United States, while Novartis sells it in the rest of the world. Quoting the Italian regulator, the report says that the said practices cost Italy’s health system more than 45 million euros in 2012 alone, with possible future costs of more than 600 million euros a year.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges. An investigation of those former employees of Sanofi unearthed that they had made illicit payments to get more orders from pharma dealer.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US$ 3 bn in the United States after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. According to the report, the company encouraged sales reps in the US to ‘mis-sell’ three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.
  • Not so long ago, after regulatory authorities in China cracked down on GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly bribing of US$490 million to Chinese doctors through travel agencies, whistleblower accusations reverberated spanning across several pharma MNCs, including Sanofi. The company reportedly paid ¥1.7 million (US$277,000) in bribes to 503 doctors around the country, forking over ¥80 to doctors each time a patient bought its products.

All these are not new phenomena. For example, In the area of Clinical Trial, an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel reportedly uncovered in May, 2013 that erstwhile international conglomerates such as Bayer, Hoechst (now belongs to Sanofi), Roche, Schering (now belongs to Bayer) and Sandoz (now belongs to Novartis) carried out more than 600 tests on over 50,000 patients, mostly without their knowledge, at hospitals and clinics in the former Communist state. The companies were said to have paid the regime the equivalent of €400,000 per test.

India:

Compared to the actions now being taken by the law enforcers overseas, India has shown a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, as on date. It is astonishing that unlike even China, no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by Indian media has now triggered a debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry. The Government, so far, has shown no active interest in this area, either.

In an article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off”, published in a leading business daily of India, states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

In the drug manufacturing quality area, USFDA and MHRA (UK) has recently announced a number of ‘Import Bans’ for drugs manufactured in some facilities of Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, as those medicines could compromise with the drug safety concerns of the patients in the US and UK. Even as recent as in late March 2014, the USFDA has reportedly issued a warning letter to another domestic drug maker USV Ltd on data integrity-related violations in good manufacturing practices occurred at the company’s Mumbai facility. This is indeed a cause of added concern.

Similarly, in the Clinical Trial area of India, responding to a PIL, the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee also had indicted the drug regulator. The Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

2. Accelerating credibility erosion due to high patented drugs pricing:

On this subject, another March 2014 report brings to the fore the problems associated with access to affordable newer medicines, which goes far beyond India, covering even the wealthiest economies of the world.

The report re-emphasizes that the monthly costs of many cancer drugs now exceed US$ 10,000 to even US$ 30,000. Recently Gilead Sciences fixed the price of a breakthrough drug for hepatitis C at US$ 84,000 for a 12- week treatment, inviting the wrath of many, across the world.

Why is the drug price so important?

The issue of pricing of patented drugs is now a cause of concern even in the developed countries of the world, though the subject is more critical in India. According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest component of expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare, as follows:

Items Outpatient/Outside Hospital (%) Inpatient/Hospitalization (%)
Medicines 63 43
Consultation/Surgery - 23
Diagnostics 17 16
Minor surgeries 01 -
Private Consultation 14 -
Room Charge - 14
Others 05 04

Probably for the same reason, recently German legislators have reportedly voted to continue until the end of 2017 the price freeze on reimbursed drugs, which was introduced in August 2010 and originally set to expire at end of 2013.

However in India, only some sporadic measures, like the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2011), that covers just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market, have been taken. On top of this, unlike many other countries, there is no negotiation on price fixation for high cost patented drugs.

If caught, insignificant fine as compared to total profit accrued, has no impact:

Many stakeholders, therefore, question the business practices of especially those players who get exposed, as they are caught and fined by the judiciary and the regulatory authorities.

Do such companies prioritize high profits ahead of patients’ lives, creating a situation for only those with deep pockets or a good health insurance cover to have access to the patented medicines, and the rest of the world goes without?

It is also no surprise that highly secretive and well hyped so called “Patient Access Programs” of many of these companies, are considered by many no more than a sham and a façade to justify the high prices.

3. Accelerating credibility erosion due to unreasonable IP related demands:

Despite some well-justified measures taken by countries like, India in the IP area, the US and to a great extent extent Europe and Japan, continuously pressured by the powerful pharma lobby groups, are still pushing hard to broaden the IP protections around the globe through various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). At the same time, Big Pharma lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel various governments to enact IP laws, which would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of Big Pharma.

Conclusion:

In the midst of all these, patients are indeed caught in a precarious situation, sandwiched between unethical practices of many large pharma players and very high prices of the available life saving patented medicines, beyond the reach of majority of the global population.

That said, accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and the Big Pharma in particular could possibly lead to a stage, where it will indeed be challenging for them to win hearts and minds of the stakeholders without vulgar display or surreptitious use of the money power.

To avoid all these, saner voices that are now being heard within the Big Pharma constituents should hopefully prevail, creating a win-win situation for all, not by using fear of sanctions as the key in various interactions, not even raising the so called ‘trump card of innovation’ at the drop of a hat and definitely by jettisoning long nurtured repulsive arrogance together with much reported skulduggery, for patients’ sake.

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.

Big Pharma: Now A ‘Chink in Its Armor’?

Posted on by
Reply

Emerging trends bring to the fore a possible ‘Chink in the Armor’ of the ‘Big Pharma’, despite a number of recent belligerent moves.

One such move I had deliberated in my earlier blog post. There I mentioned that 2014 report on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’ of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) highlights India’s featuring at the bottom of 25 countries on Intellectual Property (IP) protection. Accordingly, the US Chamber having put forth a set of recommendations reportedly urged the US Trade Representive (USTR) to classify India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’. This nomenclature is usually attributed to the worst offenders of ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)’, which could culminate into trade sanctions.

The move attempts to dissociate IPR from ‘access to medicines’:

Though the methodology and alleged biases of this report were the topics of raging debates, according to USTR, this move of the US Chamber of Commerce is reportedly just against the IP regime in India and ‘not about access to medicines.’

This clarification is indeed bizarre, as most of the issues related to creation of intense political pressure from overseas for stringent IP regime in a country, such as India, revolve around access to patented medicines. The twin issue of IP and ‘access to patented medicines’ can hardly be separated.

Same old contentious example of ‘Glivec Access Program’:

The example of ‘Glivec Access Program’ does not appear to have many takers within the experts either for well-argued reasons.

Even then, to substantiate the point that the IP issues in India are not related to ‘access to patented medicines’, the US Chamber of Commerce states, yet again:

“In the case of Glivec, Novartis provided the leukemia drug to 95 per cent of patient population for free. The annual cost for Glivec generic treatment is approximately three to for times the average annual income in India”.

It is worth noting that the Swiss drug-maker Novartis reportedly gave the same example while defending the patent protections of Glivec before the Supreme Court without success. The apex judiciary ultimately dismissed the case last year.

Post Glivec judgment, the same ‘patient access program’ was debates in television programs too. However, its relevance for enhancing access could not be established in either of these two high profile public deliberations, as there were hardly any takers.

That said, I do not have any inkling, whether the protagonists of this much-touted “Glivec Access Program” would at anytime, in future, be able to establish their claim beyond any reasonable doubt that, ‘95 percent of the total patients population suffering from chronic myeloid leukemia receive Glivec free of cost from Novartis’.

Visible ‘Chink in its Armor’:

Not so long ago, Global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

In tandem various other tough uttering, well crafted by the global communication agencies of ‘Big Pharma’, followed on the same IPR related issues, projecting its tough monolithic dimension.

However, after keenly watching a good number of much contentious moves being taken on IP and various other related areas by its lobby groups, both in India and overseas, it appears that all constituents of the ‘Big Pharma’ are not on the same page for all these issues, clearly exposing the ‘Chink in its Armor’, as it were.

Let me now give some examples, spanning across various issues, to vindicate this point:

I. Differences on ‘public disclosure of all Clinical Trial data’:

As discussed in my blog post earlier, The Guardian reported an incident on the above issue in July 2013. The article stated that the global pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against the plan of European Medicines Agency (EMA) to force pharma companies publishing all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database for patients’ interest.

Important global pharma industry associations strongly resisted to this plan. The report indicated that a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), had drawn out the above strategy to combat this move of EMA.

The Chink:

However despite this grand strategy, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Johnson & Johnson decided to disclose the results of all applicable/covered clinical trials, regardless of outcome, in a publicly accessible clinical trials results database.

II. Differences on ‘leaked pharma lobbying plan against South African draft IP Policy’:

February 3, 2014 issue of ‘The Lancet’ states, among other issues, the draft IP policy of South Africa seeks to address patent ever-greening, a contentious strategy in which drug firms tweak formulations to extend the 20-year life of a patent.

The leaked 9 page document of the PR firm, Public Affairs Engagement (PAE), titled, ‘Campaign to Prevent Damage to Innovation from the Proposed Draft National IP Policy in South Africa’, was reportedly prepared for ‘Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ based at Washington DC and the lobby group representing research-based pharmaceutical companies in South Africa – ‘Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of South Africa (IPASA)’.

The Chink:

As deliberated in my earlier blog post, when the above lobbying plan was leaked out, Swiss drug maker Roche and Denmark’s Novo-Nordisk reportedly resigned from the IPASA. Both the companies said that neither do they support this campaign nor have they given any approval to it and hence they are resigning from IPASA. However, the above report quoting IPASA states, “IPASA maintains that the departure of Roche and Novo-Nordisk did not weaken the association’s position.”

III. Other recent major differences within ‘Big Pharma’ constituents:

The Chink:

A. Merck Sereno:

Indian pharma regime may appear to be not encouraging or protecting innovation to the US Chamber of commerce, but one of the oldest constituents of the ‘Big Pharma’ – Merck Sereno has reportedly articulated quite a different take on this score.

In an interview to ‘The Economic Times’, Stefan Oschmann, member of the executive board and CEO, Merck, Germany made some very important observations on:

Patentability:

“Some of the strategies used in the past were developing 20 products and slightly differentiating them. That doesn’t work anymore. This industry has to do its home work.” He added that it makes little sense to adopt a confrontationist attitude towards sensitive issues.

Access:

Oschmann said, “Companies are rightly or wrongly criticized in spending all their money on 20 percent of the richest people of the world and neglecting the rest of the population. This is changing.”

Pricing:

He would not criticize governments such as India for trying to protect consumers from spiraling health-care costs. “Pricing and tier-pricing are worth looking into”.

Governments across emerging markets have been trying to find a way to the same challenges of increasing access to affordable healthcare. Oschmann feels, “This is legitimate to any government. What matters is rules are transparent, fair and non-discriminatory. Rules shouldn’t be used as a tool for industrial policy to only foster local industry.”

Another Chink:

B. GlaxoSmithKline:

Another icon in the global pharmaceutical industry Sir Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly commented a few months ago on the following, with a pragmatic approach to the situation:

Pricing:

“I think it is wholly reasonable for a country that is having a tremendous growth with challenges has to think about pricing. I don’t think that it is a ridiculous proposition. Of course it hurts the period you go through that price adjustments, there are alternative ways to achieve and having a good dialogue may create positive ways to do it.”

Patented medicines:

“I am not one of those CEOs who is gonna stand here and say that you have to have a same approach as you have in other country. India is a very unusual country. It starts from different place than a Britain or a France or a USA, therefore we have to think about what is the right way for India to balance its needs.”

IP:

Sir Andrew emphasized, “And the key to that isn’t to get rid of patents; the key to that is to fix the R&D and manufacturing processes. And that’s what we’ve got to realize in the world we are going to be living in the next 30 or 40 years; companies cannot just turn up and have any price they want. Companies will have to come with a competitive and efficient business model, which will bring real innovation to the people.”

Conclusion: 

Culling all these important developments together, while traveling back in recent times, it does appear, whether the issues are on IP, access or even pricing of medicines, seemingly overpowering might (or may just be simple bullying tactics) of US Chamber of commerce is drowning some very important ‘Big Pharma’ constituents’ voices and numbing many others, despite a visible ‘Chink in its Armor’.

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.

“Make Global Pharma Responsible in Homeland for Objectionable Conduct in Clinical Trials Elsewhere”

Posted on by
Reply

In the context of his recent meeting with Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg of US-FDA, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly expressed his concern to ‘The Economic Times’ on the ‘objectionable conduct’ of global pharma in new drug trials in India, as follows:

“US and other global drug makers who conduct clinical trials at different locations across the globe need to be made responsible in their home country for their objectionable conduct in clinical trials elsewhere.”

He further added:

“While conducting trials, drug makers cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality, because patient safety is top priority for every regulator – US or India”

The above report also mentioned that there is already a law in place in the United States that makes companies accountable in their homeland, if they are found to be indulging in corruption overseas.

‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life’:

That is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed last year in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Human Rights group ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM)’.

At the same time, revoking the power of the ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)’ under the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), the apex court directed the Health Secretary of India to be personally responsible for all ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’ of new drugs conducted in the country in order to control the ‘menace’ of poorly regulated trials on a war-footing.

Earlier in May 2012, the Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its report on the CDSCO, also stated as follows:

“There is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.”

Inaction on CT related deaths:

According to the Ministry of Health, between 2005 and 2012, around 475 new drugs were approved for CT, out of which only 17 obtained the regulatory approval for market launch. Though 57,303 patients were enrolled for CT, only 39,022 could complete the trials. During CT, 11,972 patients suffered Serious Adverse Events (SAE) and 2,644 died. 506 SAEs out of the total and 80 deaths had clearly established link to CTs. However, only 40 out of 80 trial related deaths had their respective families meagerly compensated.

An independent investigation:

Interestingly, an investigation  in 2011 by ‘The Independent’, a newspaper of global repute, also highlighted the recruitment of hundreds of tribal girls for a drug study without any parental consent.

Stringent regulatory action followed:

Following high voltage indictments, alleging wide spread malpractices, from all corners – the Civil Society, the Supreme Court and the Parliament, the Ministry of Health constituted an experts committee last year chaired by Professor Ranjit Roy Chaudhury. The committee, after due consultation with all stakeholders, submitted its report recommending a robust process for CTs in India. Besides many other, the experts committee also recommended that:

  • CTs can only be conducted at accredited centers.
  • The principal investigator of the trial, as well as the Ethics Committee of the institute, must also be accredited.
  • If a trial volunteer developed medical complications during a CT ‘the sponsor investigator’ will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care.

Further, in October 2013, the Supreme Court reportedly ordered the government to video record clinical trials of new drugs, making it even tougher for pharma MNCs and the CROs to avoid responsibility on informed consent of the participating volunteers, as required by the regulator.

Consequent industry uproar and recent Government response:

Following all these, as the ball game for CTs in India changed significantly, there were uproars from Big Pharma, the CROs and their lobbyists crying foul.

As the caustic comments and the directive of the Supreme Court of India triggered the regulatory changes in CT, the Union Ministry of Health did not have much elbowroom to loosen the rope. Consequently, the pharma industry and the CROs reportedly made some angry comments such as:

“The situation is becoming more and more difficult in India. Several programs have been stalled and we have also moved the trials offshore, to ensure the work on the development does not stop.”

In response to shrill voices against the stringent drug trial regime in India, Mr Keshav Desiraju, Secretary, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, reportedly said recently:

“While it is not our intention to impose unrealistic barriers on industry, it is equally our intention not to take risks, which may compromise the safety of the subjects of clinical trials.”

During the same occasion, the Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad also remarked:

“The industry has complained that the regulations are too stringent, but there have also been complaints by parliamentarians, NGOs and others that they are too lax, which the Supreme Court had taken note of.”

He further said without any elaboration, “The Indian regulatory regime governing clinical trials needs to balance the interests of all stakeholders.”

Conclusion:

According to the Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR), pharma companies conduct around 60 percent of CTs and the rest 40 percent are outsourced to Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in India.

With the Supreme Court laying stringent guidelines and the regulatory crackdown on CTs, the number of new drug trials in India has reportedly come down by 50 percent. According to Frost & Sullivan, the Indian CT industry was worth US$ 450 million in 2010 -11. Currently, it is growing at 12 percent a year and is estimated to exceed the US$1 billion mark in 2016, with perhaps some hiccups in between due to recent tightening of the loose knots in this area.

Some experts reportedly argue that laxity of regulations and cost arbitrage were the key drivers for global players to come to India for CTs. Thus, there should not be any surprise that with the costs of drug trials going north, in tandem with stringent regulations in the country, some business may shift out of the country. As Mr. Desiraju epitomized in his interview succinctly, as quoted above, this shift would result in much increased costs for the respective companies, which his ministry would ‘regret greatly.’

That said, would the recent anguish of the DCGI, when he expressed “Make global pharma also responsible in their respective homelands for objectionable conduct in CTs elsewhere”, be also construed as a clear signal for shaping up, sooner?

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.

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Close on the heels of a reasonably successful patent challenge by the German pharma Multinational Corporation (MNC) Fresenius Kabi for the breast cancer drug Tykerb of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in India, another MNC Mylan, with its headquarter in the United states, has explicitly expressed its plan to challenge frivolous and weak patents of MNCs, in conformance to the Indian Patents Act, to provide less expensive generic drugs to patients.

This is indeed another interesting development, which could possibly culminate into robust, cleverly crafted and fiercely competitive business strategies of many other MNCs, revolving around patent challenges in India, for business excellence in the country.

Mylan develops new products in India:

Mylan is now reportedly working with the local Indian player Biocon to develop a strong new product pipeline, which would include a portfolio of biosimilar drugs. The advanced breast cancer drug Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche is just one of many in the list. Mylan has also expressed its intent to market ‘Herceptin’ at a price, which will be affordable to many more cancer patients of India.

It is worth mentioning that some other domestic Indian companies like, Reliance Life Sciences and BDR Pharma are reportedly working on generic Trastuzumab (Herceptin), besides some South Korean bio-pharma players.

Mylan has also inked an agreement with Biocon to develop and market an insulin drug derived from the global major Sanofi’s expensive patented product Lantus.

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

Though Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India, it reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent patent scrutiny. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

To extend the patent right for Herceptin, in early September 2013, Roche reportedly announced that the European Commission has approved a new formulation of its breast cancer drug Herceptin, which allows the medicine to be administered more quickly.

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

For global innovator pharma majors, India still remains a tough market to crack, despite strong overseas political pressures of various types, intense collective and individual lobbying efforts and deployment of expensive global ‘Public Relations’ firms working in full steam.

Their strong success factors of the yesteryears in this area, which worked so well across the world, are getting mostly negated by the ‘evolving patient friendly IP laws’ of the emerging economies.

Considering the vast business potential of the pharmaceutical market of 1.2 billion people in India, it is now envisaged by many, more like-minded MNCs will gradually jump into this fray with similar intent of patent challenges in conformance with the Indian Patents Act 2005.

If this scenario assumes a cascading effect on a broader canvas, ultimate beneficiary will be the ailing patients, having much greater access to more affordable newer drugs for many dreaded diseases, like cancer.

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

To provide less-expensive generic drugs to patients, other countries also have started following India to leash astronomical prices for new drugs, especially for life threatening and intensely debilitating ailments. China has reportedly strengthened its compulsory licensing provisions already for dealing with costly drugs, paving the way to force entry of generic drugs in the Chinese market well before patent expiry.

In 2012, Indian Patent Office, in a path breaking decision granted Compulsory License (CL) to a local company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture the patented kidney-cancer drug, Nexavar of Bayer reportedly at a cost of Rs. 8,800 (around US$ 176) for a month’s therapy of 120 capsule against Bayer’s price of Rs. 280,000 (around US$ 5,600) for the same.

This is the first-ever case of CL granted in India thus far to make life saving drugs affordable to patients.

On September 3, 2012, the Indonesian government took the unprecedented step of overriding the patents on seven HIV and hepatitis treatments, citing urgent need to improve patient access. These drugs were reportedly beyond the reach of most of the patients in Indonesia.

Thailand has also used this provision more than once, and countries like, Brazil has reportedly threatened quite often for invoking CL during price negotiations of such drugs with global pharma majors.

Winds of Change in South Africa:

Now South Africa has also exhibited its firm intent to have a tight leash on the grant of pharmaceutical patents of all types.

A recent report indicates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the Government of South Africa is calling for comments on its proposed ‘National Policy on Intellectual Property’ by October 4, 2013, which if implemented, would significantly curb patent evergreening and expand production of generics.

The same report mentions that at present, South Africa does not examine patent applications. Instead, the system allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain multiple patents on the same drug, even for inventions, which do not fall under the country’s definition of innovation. This allows the pharma players to extend their respective patent lives, blocking competition and charging exorbitant prices.

The report also points out, while in 2008, South Africa granted 2,442 pharmaceutical patents, Brazil approved only 278 in the 5 years between 2003 and 2008.

Patents revoked in India:

Since November 2010 following 8 MNC patents have been revoked in India after respective patent challenges:

  • Combigan and Ganfort of Allergan (for specified eye conditions)
  • Tykerb of GSK (for breast cancer)
  • Sutent of Pfizer (for liver and kidney cancer)
  • Pegasys of Roche (for hepatitis C)
  • Iressa of AstraZeneca (Anti-cancer)
  • Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension of Merck & Co (Anti-asthma)
  • Dulera of Novartis (Anti-asthma)

China and Brazil revoked patents: 

In August 2013, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc.

Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

Top 10 ‘jaw-dropping’ most expensive medicines of the world:

No. Name Disease Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm 13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome 657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria 409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome 375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma 360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema 350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe 300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome 250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease 200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease 200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is, protests against such ‘immoral and obscene pricing’ have started mounting, which are expected to have a snow-balling effect in the years ahead.

Mounting global protests:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

Competition within MNCs is expected to be even more fierce in the coming years as the developed markets continue to slow down, as follows, due to various reasons:

No. Country

USD Bn.

% Share

Val. Gr.
Global Pharma Market

961

100

5
USA

329

38

-1
Japan

112

13

0
China

82

10

24
Germany

42

5

-6
France

37

4

-8
Brazil

29

3

6
Italy

27

3

-8
13. India

14

1

11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

This compelling scenario is prompting a change in the dynamics of competition within  MNCs in the emerging pharmaceutical markets. The intents of Fresenius Kabi and Mylan, as enunciated above, I reckon, are just very early signals of this challenge of change.

All these would probably help turning the tide in favor of a seemingly win-win solution to bring down the prices of patented medicines at an affordable level, improving their access to vast majority of patients in the world.

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded:

“This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Therefore, this process is expected to gain momentum in the years ahead as more MNCs join the fray of patent challenges, though driven primarily by business interests, but nevertheless, would benefit the patients, in the long run.

Further, as indicated in my previous columns, a study indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today. If challenged, some experts envisage, these patents may not be able to stand the scrutiny of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

In that sense, if the pharma MNCs with deep pockets, challenge these patents, there stands a good chance of making generic equivalents of those products at affordable prices for the Indian patients.

However, considering different degree and elements of market entry barriers, it appears, most of the patent challenges in India by the MNCs would probably be for biologics, as compared to small molecule chemicals.

Flow of newer drugs in the Indian market is now irreversible:

Taking stock of the emerging scenario, it appears, India will continue to see newer drugs coming into the market at a lower price in the years ahead, come what may. This flow seems to be unstoppable due to the following reasons:

  • Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.
  • More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.
  • If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.
  • If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

Hence, considering all these points, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the Indian Patents Act and are not launched with responsible pricing, the possibility of their generic entry at much lower prices is almost inevitable.

Conclusion: 

Legal battle is expensive, even in India, and patent challenges are perhaps more expensive. All those new products, which are not patentable in India or may otherwise be challenged against other statutes of the Patents Act, will carry risks of getting caught in protracted litigations or generic competition.

MNCs with deep pockets coming forward with such intent, though may be based purely on their business interest in India, would ultimately offer spin-off benefits of affordable pricing, especially, to the patients suffering from life threatening and fast debilitating illnesses like, cancer.

That said, do all these developments unravel yet another way to improve access to newer medicines in India, signaling a boon for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on by
Reply

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others,  a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

  • “Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”
  • “Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A 23% to 34%
R&D 12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients. 

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI, on paper, has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities related to CMEs and others, from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession or any medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It is expected that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials would possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented  and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country. 

Another article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010. 

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country  without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?  

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.