Tag Archives: Government

Have the successive ‘Drug Policies’ of India delivered? If not, why not?

Posted on by
Reply

January 11, 2011 edition of ‘The Lancet’ in its article titled, “Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities” commented as follows:
“India’s health financing system is a cause of and an exacerbating factor in the challenges of health inequity, inadequate availability and reach, unequal access, and poor-quality and costly health-care services. The Government of India has made a commitment to increase public spending on health from less than 1% to 3% of the gross domestic product during the next few years…. Enhanced public spending can be used to introduce universal medical insurance that can help to substantially reduce the burden of private out-of-pocket expenditures on health.”
The “Drug Policy “of India:
The new ‘Drug Policy’ of India, which is long overdue, should address all these key issues, as articulated by ‘The Lancet’. Unfortunately, outdated ‘1995 Drug Policy’ is still operational, since last fifteen years. The reason for inordinate delay in putting a new, robust and more reform oriented ‘Drug Policy ’in place is still not known to many, as it is probably languishing in the prison of indecision of the bureaucracy of the country.
The ‘Drug Policy 1986’ clearly enunciated the basic policy objectives relating to drugs and pharmaceuticals in India. After around 25 years, should not the government, at the very least, ponder to assess whether the successive drug policies have delivered to the nation the desirable outcome or not?
In my view, the objectives of the new ‘Drug Policy’ should help accelerating the all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to make it a force to reckon with in the global pharmaceutical space. The drug policies are surely not formulated just to implement rigorous price control measures for drugs. The policy should also formulate other key measurable initiatives, assigning specific accountabilities, to contribute significantly towards achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation. The policy should also encourage working closely and in tandem of all the related ministries of the government.
Financial protection against medical expenses for all is very important:
One of the very major issues in the healthcare space of the country is high out of pocket expenses by the majority of our population. “Financial protection against medical expenditures is far from universal with only 10% of the population having medical insurance” in India. (Source: Lancet Jan 11, 2011).
A comparison of private (out of pocket) health expenditure: (Source: Lancet)
1. Pakistan: 82.5% 2. India: 78% 3. China: 61% 4. Sri Lanka: 53% 5. Thailand: 31% 6. Bhutan: 29% 7. Maldives: 14%
The key issue remains unresolved:
The above edition of ‘The Lancet’ has highlighted that outpatient (non-hospitalization) expenses in India is around 74% of the total health expenses in India and the drugs account for 72% of this total outpatient expenditure. The study has also highlighted that 47% and 31% hospitalization in rural and urban areas respectively are financed by loans and sell of assets.
Drug Prices in India:
The cost of medicines, especially the essential medicines in India, is one of the lowest in the world, even more economical than our neighboring countries like, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Moreover, as per DIPP data the inflation index of medicine in 2009 was much lower at 112.32 against the same for all commodities in the same year at 127.47. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) also indicated that there was almost no rise (+0.5%) of drug prices in 2010 over the previous year because of effective ‘Drug Price Monitoring mechanism’ by the regulator and fierce market competition.
Around 38% – 40% of Indian population can’t afford to spend on medicines:
While framing the ‘Drug Policy’, the government should also keep in mind that a population of around 38 to 40% of India, still lives below the poverty line and will not be able to afford any expenditure towards medicines. Adding more drugs in the list of essential medicines and even bringing them all under stringent price control will not help the country to resolve this important issue, in the prevailing situation.
The key focus area of successive ‘Drug Policies’ of India has been just ‘price’:
The reform initiatives enunciated by the government in the successive drug policies have been considered by the pharmaceutical industry, in general, as far from satisfactory. In the era of globalization, where market forces play a dominant role to control prices, including the essential commodities, the rigors of stringent price control on pharmaceuticals need to be addressed urgently. This was re-enforced even in the ‘National Economic Survey Report of 2009′.
Will continuation of the same focus be able to resolve the issue?
I do not think so. Continuation of the focus on price since last four decades has certainly enabled the government to ensure that drugs prices in India are cheapest in the world. However and very unfortunately the ‘Drug Policies’ with focus on price alone have not been able to ensure even today that 47% and 31% of hospitalization in rural and urban areas, respectively, are financed by robust healthcare financing systems and not by private loans and selling of assets by individuals.
Expectations from the new ‘Drug Policy’:
Adequate and immediate policy measures to respond to the needs of a robust healthcare financing model for all strata of the society are absolutely critical to address this pressing issue. Effective penetration of health insurance, will, therefore, be one of the key growth drivers not only for the Indian pharmaceutical industry, but also to ensure its inclusive growth, as desired by many.
Conclusion:
Unfortunately, the ‘Drug Policies’ of India have not been able to keep pace with the globalization process of the country as compared to even those industries, which are dealing with the essential commodities, like pharmaceuticals. The amended Indian Patents Act came into force in the country in January 2005. The drug policy of India, for various reasons, has not been able to articulate, as yet, specific key measures to encourage innovation, giving a new thrust to the pharmaceutical R&D space of the country, as much as it should have been.
The ‘New Drug Policy’ should have clear and transparent provisions of stringent drugs ‘price monitoring’ mechanism by the NPPA. The policy should also include an equally transparent system to ensure that errant pharmaceutical players, if any, who will be caught with profiteering motives, under any garb, at the cost of precious lives of the ailing patients, are brought to justice with exemplary punishments, as will be defined by law.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The importance of ‘Supply Chain Integrity’ in ‘Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM)’ process

Posted on by
Reply

Since the last decade with increasing pace of change, mostly in the western world has accelerated the globalization process in the Pharmaceutical Industry across the world. The key drivers to these changes are as follows:

1. A large number of patent expiration hugely impacting the top-line growth
2. Research pipeline is drying-up
3. The cost of bringing a new molecule from ‘the mind to market’ has now touched around US $ 1.75 billion
4. Regulatory requirement to get the marketing approval is getting more and more stringent, basically for patients’ safety, making clinical development more expensive and time consuming
5. Cost containment measures of various governments around the world is putting an immense pressure on product price, significantly affecting the profit margin

Changing Business Process:

All these factors are triggering other sets of consequential strategic events of enormous significance. Among those, following key corporate strategic steps indeed stand out:

1. More mergers and acquisitions of various size and scale to achieve both revenue and cost synergy, with new products and newer types of resources

2. Transformation in the fundamental operating models, e.g. R&D focused companies like Pfizer, GSK, sanofi aventis are extending their business interest in the pharmaceutical generics space, as well

3. Increasing globalization process and more focus on the emerging markets of the world like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Turkey, Mexico

4. Growing emphasis on partnering, as we see in India, like for example, between Pfizer and Aurobindo, Claris and Biocon, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL), AstraZeneca with Torrent, sanofi aventis with Zydus Cadila etc.

5. Global outsourcing in the ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMs)’’ space

Increasing importance of GSCM:

In today’s evolving scenario, Global Supply Chain Management (GSCM) process has assumed a key importance. The need to reduce costs significantly and minimize the risks associated with the procurement activities of the business, have compelled many innovator companies to extend the activities of their Supply Chain management process to the Global arena, instead of just confining to the local space.

The changing requirements of all hues and types in various areas of the business, like in sales and marketing, manufacturing, research and development etc., have created a challenging, if not a rather volatile operating environment.

Such an evolving scenario will make the GSCM to increasingly play a key role in the overall business process of an organization to ensure that the right products are available at the right place, at the right time, at a right price and following the right processes…Always.

Emerging GSCM hubs:

There is at the same time, a new trend emerging to provide world class outsourcing services, especially from countries like India and China. These initiatives, which in turn will make these two countries the key global outsourcing hubs, are definitely not due to just cost arbitrage. It encompasses increased integrated value proposition for the overseas customers. Cost is just one of the key factors, others being quality, speed and suppliers’ integrity and reliability. Nothing in this value chain is mutually exclusive. GSCM will need to go through a set of complex algorithms to strike a right balance between all these vital parameters.

Importance of GSCM integrity:

In the days to come by, one of the greatest challenges in GSCM will be to improve the supply chain integrity and security. An appropriate definition of integrity for supply chains could be:

“…the requirement that the system performs its intended function in an unimpaired manner, free from deliberate or inadvertent manipulation.”

A safe and secure supply chain is definitely not a new requirement. However, in the list of priority of importance, it has now come up significantly, compared to what it was just a few years back. Though the issue of improving supply chain integrity and security has now assumed global importance, unfortunately, any uniformity in national regulatory requirements for this vital parameter is glaringly missing. Such a lack of regulatory uniformity clearly highlights that the pharmaceutical companies, engaged in manufacturing, are still not aligned with each other on what will be the right way to ensure absolute integrity, safety and security in the supply chain operating process to guarantee patients’ safety.

Globally, many Pharmaceutical Companies are getting engaged in improving supply chain integrity, security and patients’ safety with the introduction RFID. This, as many may know, is an inventory tracking system for improved product traceability, which in turn extends some protection to its customers with genuine products from the genuine pharmaceutical manufacturers. It is worth noting that RFID is just one component of overall patients’ safety initiative.

Along with high tech measures like RFID, to improve supply chain integrity, I reckon, pharmaceutical companies will need to further enhance their respective ‘supplier qualification process’. The process of supplier audits should include all important and critical areas of manufacturing, testing and quality, related to each individual product.

Stringent supplier qualification standard is of prime importance:

Only a stringent supplier qualification process will be able to guarantee integrity, safety and the quality of outsourced products from the suppliers.

An example of a GSCM related tragedy:

Before I conclude, I would like reinforce my recommendation with the example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was violated and seriously challenged thereafter.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with over sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that his Heparin was supplied to Baxter by Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly-sulfated glycosaminoglycan as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Conclusion:

Let us all ensure that such a tragedy does not get repeated in future due to a breach in the supply chain integrity, anywhere in the world…for the patients’ sake.

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.

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on by
Reply

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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.

Why does the Government divert focus on to fringe issues to address critical healthcare concerns of the nation?

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Government of India has recently initiated a public debate through a ‘Discussion Paper on Compulsory Licensing (CL) of Patented Pharmaceutical Products’.

The key intent of the discussion is presumably to improve access to quality medicines at an affordable price to the people of the country.

Could such debate serve any meaningful purpose?

Since the issue of CL involves only patented products, I wonder, whether this debate would in any way help sorting out the issue of poor access to modern medicines in our country or this is just another ‘hog wash’ or ‘diversion ploy’ of the decision makers to divert the attention of the stakeholders from the core issues of poor access to healthcare for the common man of India.

Will CL be able to address abysmally poor access to medicines issues in India?

A quick analysis of the prevailing situation related to access to modern medicines in India suggests that the usage of patented pharmaceutical products account for much less than 1% of the sum total of all medicines consumed in India in value terms. In volume terms it will be even more miniscule in terms of percentage.

As per IMS (MAT July, 2010) Indian Pharmaceutical Market size is Rs. 44,476 Crore, even 1% market share of the patented pharmaceutical products will mean Rs. 445 Crore, which is quite far from reality.

Thus, CL of patented medicines would have no sustainable and meaningful impact on improving access to modern medicines for the common man of the country. Moreover, around 40% of the population of India live below the poverty line (BPL). These ‘Children of a lesser God‘ very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicine, however cheap these could be. Vast majority of the such population who lack the financial capability to pay for even the cheapest off-patent generic medicines, which comprise more than 99% of the total medicines consumed within the country, will continue to be left in the lurch.

65% of Indians do not have access to WHO list of essential medicines, which surpasses even the African countries:

Our government also admits that 65% of Indians do not have access to even WHO list of essential medicines, none of which holds a valid patent in the country. This should be the key concern in the country. Moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that during 2000-2007, India had poorer access to essential medicines than even many African countries. It is worth noting that many of these African countries has a patent life for pharmaceuticals for around 30 years, against of 20 years in India. What are we then talking about?

Provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are robust enough:

In any case, the provisions of CL in the Indian Patents Acts are not only quite clear and well articulated, but also at the same time offer flexibility in the decision making process to the Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) to invoke CL in a justifiable situation. Thus proposed guidelines related to CL would possibly invite more questions than answers. Consequently, it will be an extremely complicated process for the IPOs to categorize all the situations related to CL. Therefore, in my view, such initiatives, as initiated by the DIPP to frame guidelines for CL could prove to be totally counterproductive, as such guidelines, as stated above, would seriously limit the flexibility of the IPOs to take appropriate action, even when it would require to do so.

Moreover, it is absolutely imperative for the Government to ensure that the primacy of the patent statutes is not disturbed in any way, as such guidelines related to CL would only be consistent with the appropriate provisions within the statute and cannot be used beyond the Patent Law of the land. It goes without saying that any dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of the provisions within the statute related to CL, should only be resolved by the judiciary.

Conclusion:

How could then CL possibly offer answers to the vexing healthcare access issues of the nation? Is the Government not wasting its precious little time, instead of trying to ‘take the bull by the horns’ and resolve the critical ‘access to affordable quality medicines’ issue of India through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives?

By Tapan Ray

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

Making quality medicines available at an affordable price – Are we ‘missing woods for the trees’?

Posted on by
Reply

On August 4, 2010 the Parliamentary standing committee for Health and Family Welfare in its 45th report, recommended the following to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Parliament of India for ‘Making quality medicines available at an affordable price’ to the common man:

1. Blanket caps on the profit margins of all medicines across the board, as these are the ‘only items’ where the purchasing decision is taken by a doctor – a third party and not by the patients who will actually pay for such medicines. In such a situation, a possible’ unholy nexus’ between the prescribing doctors and the pharmaceutical companies could put the patients at a disadvantage and in a helpless situation.

2. This blanket cap on profit for ALL drugs will discourage pharmaceutical companies to shift the balance of their product portfolio from schedule (price control) to non-schedule (outside price control) formulations.

3. This action will make the administration of the ‘Price Control’ mechanism by the Government much simpler by eliminating the current practice of price monitoring and the government preference of substitution of generic drugs for the branded pharmaceuticals

4. MRP of ALL medicines should be determined by the NPPA based on an open and transparent process and considering interests of all stake holders, as is currently being followed in other areas like, electricity tariff, bus, auto rickshaw and taxi fares, insurance premiums and various interest rates.

5. The Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Department of Pharmaceuticals should work out a system through the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee to put a blanket cap on profit margins of ALL drugs across the board, immediately.

6. Despite amendment of the MCI guidelines for the doctors in December 2009, banning the acceptance of all kinds of gifts, trips to foreign destinations and availing various types of hospitality by them from the pharmaceutical companies, nothing much has changed on the ground related to such ’unethical practices’. Since MCI has no jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical companies, the government should formulate similar punitive steps through the DCGI, CBDT etc. against the erring pharmaceutical companies.

7. The Committee indicated that it desires to be kept apprised of the action taken in this regard by the Government.

The key factors influencing affordability of medicines:

All the above steps will remain as good intent by the policy makers, if the issue of access to medicines is not addressed simultaneously. As we know that affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even access to medicines.

In my view, there are five key factors, which could ensure smooth access to medicines to the common man across the country; affordable price being just one of these factors:

1. A robust healthcare infrastructure
2. Affordable healthcare costs including pharmaceuticals
3. Rational selection and usage of drugs by all concerned
4. Availability of healthcare financing system like, health insurance
5. Efficient logistics and supply chain support throughout the country

High out of pocket expenditure could push a section of population below the poverty line:

In India ‘out of pocket expenditure’ as a percentage of total healthcare expenses is around 80%, being one of the highest in the world.

A study by the World Bank conducted in May 2001 titled, “India – Raising the Sights: Better Health Systems for India’s Poor” indicates that out-of-pocket medical costs alone may push 2.2% of the population below the poverty line in one year.

‘Missing woods for the trees’?

Affordability is indeed a relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population even above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines. In a situation like this, putting a blanket profit cap on all medicines will not be just enough. There is a crying need to put in place an appropriate healthcare financing model by the policy makers, covering all sections of the society. Are we then ‘missing woods for the trees’?

Create a robust healthcare provider group through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives to offer quality healthcare at an affordable price:

To resolve the issue of affordability of healthcare in general including medicines, the policy makers should take immediate steps to put in place the ‘Healthcare Financing’ initiatives through a robust PPP model in the country. A highly competitive ‘Health Insurance’ sector, created through PPP, could emerge as a powerful and key healthcare provider in the country. The power that such stakeholders will then assume in deciding for their respective clientele, types of doctors, hospitals, diagnostic labs and even what types of medicines that will be dispensed to them to offer quality healthcare at an affordable price, could indeed be a game changer having an immense influence in bringing the cost of overall healthcare for the common man, including medicines, very significantly.

The ‘Health Insurance’ companies can then decide through the Third Party Administrators (TPA), based on public interest, what types of fees should be charged by the following to offer quality healthcare services at an affordable price to their clientele, if these groups would like to avail the huge business potential for a long period of time:

1. Doctors
2. Hospitals
3. Diagnostic laboratories
4. Other related service providers

For making centralized purchase of medicines, these insurance companies or payors may enter into a hard negotiation with the pharmaceutical companies directly to bring down the price of medicines for the use of their respective clientele.

A recent incident:

To illustrate the above point let me quote an important and related news item, which was published in almost all the leading national daily newspaper, just in the last month.

In July 2010, it was reported that about 18 health insurance companies, who were providing cashless services to the policy holders at over 3,000 hospitals across India, found out that only 350 of them constituting around 11% of the total, were consuming more than 80% of the total claims.

It was also reported that the patients were overcharged by these hospitals for each hospitalization irrespective of the treatment provided and were left with them very little funds for their next treatment. This prompted the said insurance companies to bring some order out of the chaos, as it were.

As a result, at least 150 hospitals only from Delhi and the National Capital region were taken out of their designated list for the cashless facility, keeping the facility available at around 100 hospitals where none belonged to any corporate chain. Similar action was taken against hospitals in other cities, as well.

Thereafter, these insurance companies also decided to convey to the invidual policy holders the fresh list of hospitals for cashless facilities, working out new treatment packages depending on the quality of available healthcare infrastructure of each hospital and a lower or a higher rate was worked out for implementation, accordingly.

This illustration will vindicate how powerful and assertive the health insurance companies could be with the effective use of the TPAs for the sake of public health interest, if they wish to and at the same time to protect their respective bottom lines, creating a win-win situation for all.

Conclusion:

It is indeed an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals and catering to the needs of 20 per cent of the global requirements for the generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to modern medicines to around 650 million population of the country (The World Medicine Report, WHO 2004). Like in many other emerging economies of the world, in India too, access to modern medicines along with their affordability, is the key macro healthcare issue of the nation.

In a situation like this, as stated above, when the payors or health insurance companies will start exerting immense performance pressure to all concerned to provide quality healthcare at an affordable price, even the alleged ‘unholy nexus’ between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession, perhaps will not have any practical relevance.

It is worth pondering, whether the Government is now sending confusing signals to the civil society at large by propagating ‘non-regulated pricing’ for Petroleum Products and ‘regulated pricing’ for pharmaceutical products?

By Tapan Ray

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

 

My thoughts on the world IPR day, April 24

Posted on by
Reply

Ushering in the Product Patent Regime in India, effective January 1, 2005, heralds the dawn of a new era… an era that is expected to add speed to the wheels of progress of the nation. The new paradigm vindicates the importance of encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation to meet the unmet needs of the population. At the same time this change instills new hope in our mind that India will now compete with the bests in the world, more innovatively and effectively, to curve out a significant share of the global economy.

Criticism continues, unfortunately though…

However, it is quite unfortunate that the pharmaceutical product patents that protect today’s innovations and drive research and development to create tomorrow’s life-saving treatments, are under criticism from some quarters. India chose to follow an alternative to Product Patent regime for many years. In 1970, the Government of India amended its IP laws with a clear objective in mind to reduce the prices of medicines to improve their access to the ailing population of the country.

A panacea:

As a result, some drugs were made cheaper. However, the moot question that we need to address now: was it a panacea? While looking back, it does not really appear so. On the contrary, the situation remained as gloomy thereafter, so far as the access to medicines is concerned. After almost four decades of continuation with the above policy, around 65% of Indian population still does not have access to cheaper off-patent medicines against comparative figures of 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

Children still go without routine vaccinations, though the Government has made the primary vaccination programs free in our country, for all. Even in a situation like this, where affordability is no issue, only about 44% of infants (12 – 23 months) are fully vaccinated against six major childhood diseases – tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles. Moreover, as we know, despite distribution of cheaper generic HIV AIDS drugs by the Government and others mostly free for years, only 5% cent of India’s AIDS patients were receiving any drugs by the end of 2006.

The above two important examples prove the point very clearly that addressing the issue of price alone will not help our country to solve the issue of poor access to medicines to the ailing population of India. Only a sharp focus on rejuvenation of our fragile healthcare delivery system, healthcare financing and rapid development of healthcare infrastructure of the country by the Government or through Public Private Partnership (PPP), will help address this pressing issue.

 

Paving way for innovation…issues of affordability and access need to be addressed differently :

Indian Patents Act 2005 has paved the way for innovation and hi-tech research and development within the country. Contrary to adverse forecasts from some quarters, prices of medicines have not gone up.

However, while medicines play a relatively small role in rising overall healthcare spending including hospitalization, it is important to ensure that individuals with large healthcare expenses have affordable access to required medicines. Thus a good affordable insurance coverage (both Government and Private) available to all Indians belonging to various socio-economic strata, together with the above measures, will help address the key issues of both access and affordability of medicines to all, in a holistic way.

IPR regime…is it more robust in China?

India is continuously compared with China in various parameters both within and outside the country. It is known to all that China is now attracting more Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), be it Pharmaceutical R&D or Clinical developments of the new drugs. The moot question is why?

India restricts incremental innovation with section 3(d) of the Patents Act, but China has no such restrictive provisions. India does not protect regulatory data of the innovators, but China does. India does not have any patent linkage system with the marketing approval of the generic versions of the patented molecules, but China has put in place such system in their country.

With all these has India been able to improve affordability and access to medicines better than China or as even much as China? No, unfortunately, it has not. In China about 85% of the population has access to medicines, in India the equivalent figure will read as just 35%. Why then are such restrictions in the Patents Act of India? Have the drug prices gone up disproportionately in India post 2005? No… Not really. Unfortunately, the share of voice of the generic industry on these issues being much shriller, the voice of the innovator companies, be it Indian or global, is getting lost in the din, on all these important issues.

Conclusion:

The attack on patents is not a defense of patients or the poor. Such attacks help diverting attention from the core healthcare issues, as mentioned above. Health of our nation will depend on how well these key issues are being addressed by the policy and decision makers. Our country cannot afford to ignore the fact that intellectual property is one of the keys to prosperity of a great nation like India and it should be encouraged, protected and rewarded under a robust patents act of the country for inclusive growth.

By Tapan Ray

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

Access to affordable healthcare to 65% of Indian population still remains a key issue even after six decades of independence of the country.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines, as compared to just 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore arises, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population of India, even after sixty years of independence of the country?This vindicates the widely held belief that in India no single minister or ministry can be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare in the country. Is it then a ‘system flaw’? May well be so.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India falls far short of its minimum requirements towards basic public healthcare infrastructure. The records indicate, as follows:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% of China and 1.6% of Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good sporadic public healthcare initiatives to improve access:

The government allocation around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure in the country with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India may encourage the skeptics.

PPP to improve access to medicines:

At this stage of progress of India, ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives in the following four critical areas could prove to be very apt to effectively resolve this issue

1. PPP to improve affordability:

It appears that in earlier days, the policy makers envisaged that stringent drug price control mechanism alone will work as a ‘magic wand’ to improve affordability of medicines and consequently their access to a vast majority of Indian population.

When through stricter price control measures the access to medicines did not improve in any significant measure, the industry associations reportedly had jointly suggested to the government for a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model way back in December 2006. The comprehensive submission made to the government also included a proposal of extending ‘concessional price for government procurement’ under certain criteria.

In this submission to the government, the industry did not suggest total price de-regulation for the pharmaceutical industry of India. Instead, it had requested for extension of the price monitoring system of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, which is currently working very effectively for over 80 percent of the total pharmaceutical industry in India. Balance, less than 20 percent of the industry, is currently under cost-based price control.

However, the argument of the NPPA against this suggestion of the pharmaceutical industry is that the market entry price of any formulation under the ‘price monitoring’ mechanism is not decided by the government. Hence without putting in place any proper price control/negotiation system to arrive at the market entry price of the price decontrolled formulations, the existing ‘price monitoring’ mechanism may not be as effective, as in future more and more high price patented non-schedule formulations are expected to be introduced in the market.

However, the government seems to have drafted a different drug policy, which has now been referred to a new Group of Ministers for approval. It is worth noting that to make the PPP proposal of the industry effective, the Ministry of Health, both at the centre and also at the state levels, will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises in the primary and also in the secondary healthcare infrastructural facilities. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds for similar capacity building exercises.

Frugal budgetary allocation towards healthcare could well indicate that the government is gradually shifting its role from public healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to help building the required capacity. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure leave aside other financial incentives, could impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, as well.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the healthcare delivery system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is a well recognized strength that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be leveraged through PPP to improve the process weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

3. PPP in ‘Telemedicine’:

‘‘Telemedicine” is another IT enabled technology that can be widely used across the nation to address rural healthcare issues like, distant learning, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ailments.
Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by properly utilising the Government controlled public distribution outlets like, ration shops and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

4. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

While out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered and the balance 800 million is not covered by any insurance, in India total number of population who have some healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and the penetration of health insurance is just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to their better response to healthcare needs of the country.

As the government has announced ‘Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ for the BPL families, an integrated and robust healthcare financing model for all, is expected to address the affordability issue more effectively.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of population cannot afford to required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

An integrated approach by creating effective healthcare infrastructure across the country, leveraging IT throughout the healthcare space and telemedicine, appropriately structured robust ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society, supported by evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserve consideration of the government to improve access to affordable healthcare to a vast majority of population of the country, significantly.

Well researched PPP models in all these areas, involving the stakeholders, need to be effectively implemented, sooner, to address this pressing issue.

By Tapan Ray

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