Tag Archives: ground

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Posted on by
Reply

The incessant pressure of the developing countries on India, from 2005 to date, to include various restrictive conditions in the Indian Patents Act 2005, still continue. This demand spans across the inclusion of even those provisions, which many experts term as TRIPS-Plus, as these are not required by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. More interestingly, the pressure group also insists on the simultaneous deletion or dilution of some existing important provisions in the statute that guarantee public health interest of the nation.

This pressure is expected to mount in the G20 summit of September 4-5, which is now being held in China.

Refreshingly, on 30 August 2016, just ahead of this summit, the eminent economist Dr. Arvind Panagariya, who is also the incumbent Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog of India, and India’s Sherpa at the G20 summit reiterated, as follows, in an interview to a leading National English Business Daily:

“India has strongly opposed the language of the draft on Intellectual Property Protection (IPR) to be taken up at the upcoming G20 meeting in Beijing.”

In the interview, having re-emphasized the critical point that “there is a certain flexibility that we have under the TRIPS agreement and anything that dilutes that flexibility is not acceptable to India,” Dr. Panagariya clearly reaffirmed, yet again that ‘Indian IPR laws and policies are absolutely TRIPS compliant’.

This statement indeed sends a very positive signal to all on the ground, regarding the robust position maintained by the Government, to ward off any move by the overseas vested business interest to derail the flexibility that Indian well-balanced patent regime offers today, not just for public health, but also to foster innovation ecosystem in the country.

At the same time, India’s Sherpa at G20 summit also reportedly clarified that the IPR framework being proposed at the G20, in its strictest sense, cannot be construed as TRIPS-Plus. Nevertheless, some language used in the proposed G20 draft could be subject to interpretation, and India feels that it should not leave any room for ambiguity that has the potential to stretch this demand further, as we move on.

According to Dr. Panagariya: “Right now, these documents have some language where people in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) feel that it impinges a bit. We have to fight it out at the summit.”

The basis of apprehension:

There are many reasons for the recent apprehension that India may buckle under the US pressure to dilute its IP laws and policies. One of the reasons could well be a possibility that India has come to an understanding with USTR in this area.

An interesting article published in the ‘spicyip’ on March 14, 2016 also captured this scenario pretty well. I am reproducing below in verbatim a paragraph of this paper, just as an example:

“Last month, the Indian government privately assured the US-India Business Council (“USIBC’’) that it would not invoke compulsory licensing for commercial purposes, as reported in their submissions (available here) to the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for the 2016 Special 301 Review. The USIBIC stated that it would be “further encouraged” if the government of India were to make a public commitment, or a written declaration to only issue compulsory licenses in the event of public health emergencies, and not for commercial purposes. This, in their eyes, would “greatly enhance legal certainty for innovative industries”. While such a private assurance doesn’t give rise to any legal commitments, it may well be indicative of a policy shift.”

Prior to this, among many others, a March 3, 2016 ‘The Wire’ report captioned “India Assures the US it Will Not Issue Compulsory Licenses on Medicines”, also raised the same red flag.

The pressure continues even post engagement:

Be that as it may, America has been, repeatedly, raising its concerns over India’s patent regime, driven by its powerful pharma lobby groups.

To keep the kettle boiling, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in its 2016 Special 301 Report released this year on April 12, continued to keep India, along with 11 countries, on the Priority Watch List (PWL) for the current year.

USTR reportedly expressed serious concern about Indian IP policies stating that the regime apparently ‘favor’ indigenous manufacturing or Indian innovators. It also alleged that such direction ‘damages’ the patent infrastructure not just in India, but across the world.

It is believed by many that the Special 301 Report is, in fact, a formal posturing of the country on their unilateral IP related business hurdles for the year, exhibiting the power to implement unilateral trade sanctions when the US demands are not met.

In that context, the 2016 Special 301 Report caught many by surprise, as the Indian ‘IPR Think Tank’ (a body of the Union Government-selected experts) was also working closely with the United States to identify and address their issues of concern, such as, patent system, copyright infringement, trademark and counterfeiting, among others.

At that time, this discussion was possibly in its final stage as, just a month after, on May 12, 2016, the Union Cabinet approved the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR) of India, as proposed by the ‘Think Tank’, in consultation with, among others, especially the United States, which reportedly expressed its overall satisfaction with the final IPR policy.

Key concerns:

From the pharma industry perspective, the key IP concerns are centered, primarily, in the following three areas, besides a few others:

  • Patentability
  • Compulsory Licensing (CL)
  • Data Exclusivity

I would, therefore, concentrate briefly on these three areas to argue how reasonable is the Indian Patents Act 2005 to create a win-win situation both for the patients and the industry while fostering pharma innovation in the country.

Patentability:

One of their key concerns on patentability, revolves round an important provision in the statute – Section 3 (d).

Pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and their trade associations have been going overboard, since long, to lobby hard to make all concerned believe that section 3 (d) is a stumbling block for pharma innovation, as it does not allow patent protection on known chemical substances lacking any significant improvement in clinical efficacy.

This provision of the statute prevents ever-greening of patents with frivolous incremental innovation. Consequently, it blocks the possibility of pricing such ‘me too’ new molecules, exorbitantly, and persuading the prescribers of the existing molecule switching over to the new brand, backed by contentious marketing campaigns, adversely impacting affordability and access to the majority of the patients in India.

Notwithstanding the shrill voices of vested interests, Section 3 (d) has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Glivec case of Novartis against Cipla.

The Submission of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to USTR for the Review of ‘2016 Special 301 Report’, categorically also states that the Indian Patent Act prescribes a higher threshold on inventive step for medicines, which is in keeping with the TRIPS Agreement, Paris Convention and the Doha Declaration. Hence, Section 3 (d) is sound in terms of the TRIPS, Public policy and Health policy.

Compulsory License (CL):

Besides the hard fact that India has, so far, granted just one CL in a span of more than the last ten years, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement related public health clearly provides the flexibility to all its member states to decide on the necessary grounds for granting CL. It is noteworthy that for public health interest, TRIPS flexibilities for CL has been used even by the developed countries, such as, Canada, United States and Germany, in the not too distant past.

Data exclusivity:

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having a critical impact on the public health interest of a nation.

In an article published in ‘ipHandbook’, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift, a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights, per se, for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to the TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS-Plus’.

In its new IPR Policy, India has successfully resisted the demands of TRIPs-Plus provisions, such as, data exclusivity, patent linkage and patent-term extension.

Even the draft IPR policy had reiterated that India accepts: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

Any near-term possibility of a change in the statute?

While the new IPR Policy of India focuses on consolidating institutional mechanisms to create a robust IPR ecosystem in the country, besides resolving some pressing issues, such as, expediting approval processes involving patents or trademarks, it does not indicate any possible change in the important provisions in the Patents Act 2005, including the much talked about Section 3 (d) and compulsory licensing, despite concerns expressed by the US and pharma companies.

Moreover, a May 13, 2016 Press Trust of India (PTI) report on the Union Cabinet approval of Indian IPR Policy quoted a Government official, as follows, negating the apprehensions that the government may yield to the pressure of developed countries with regard to its IR regime:

“India will never go beyond its current commitments in the TRIPS. Section 3 (d), patent linkage, data exclusivity and compulsory licensing are red lines.”

On the same day and in the same context, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also reportedly stressed that India’s IPR policies are TRIPS-compliant and encourage invention of life-saving drugs, while at the same time, “we must also be conscious of the need to make it available at a reasonable cost so that drug cost does not become prohibitive as has become in some parts of the world”, he articulated, unambiguously.

Conclusion:

Despite all these developments, reiterations and interpretations, a lurking fear on India’s diluting the current patent regime of the nation was refusing to die down in the country.

Many experts were also quite apprehensive about what would be India’s stand on IP in the G 20 summit on September 4-5, currently being held in China.

Is it, then, just a storm in a tea cup on the ground?

This is not a very easy question to answer, though, as many industry watchers sense. Nonetheless, yet another emphatic statement on the subject coming from a top Government echelon and none other than Dr. Arvind Panagariya, the Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog and India’s Sherpa at G20 summit, possibly sends a clear message, at least for now, to all those holding ground in the Indian IPR front:

‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’.

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. 

Revocation and Denial of Patents on Patentability Ground in India: The Fallout and the Road Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. Interestingly Pegasys was granted patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), which was granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

A twist and turn:

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedlyrestored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copy-cat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The key reason:

All these are happening, as the amended Patents Act 2005 of India includes special protections for both patients and generic manufacturers by barring product patents involving ‘incremental’ changes to existing drugs. This practice is called “evergreening” by many.

It is worth noting, such ‘incremental innovations’ qualify for the grant of patents across the world including, Europe, Japan and the USA and that reason prompted initiation of a raging debate throwing strong arguments both in favor and against of this issue, though the subject conforms to the law of the land.

‘Incremental innovation’ still a contentious issue in India:

As on today in the Indian Patents Act 2005, there is virtually no protection for ‘incremental innovation’, as the section 3(d) of the statute states as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

The apprehension:

A published report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that Indian Patents Act 2005 was formulated by the policy makers keeping the following points in mind:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industriy, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A robust patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Is it ‘MNC Interest’ versus ‘Indian Interest’ issue?

Many domestic stakeholders reportedly are looking at this particular subject as  ‘MNC Interest’ versus ‘Indian Interest’ in the realm of intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While others holding opposite view-points counter it by saying, this is a narrow and unfair perspective to address the much broader issue of fostering innovation within the Indian pharmaceutical industry helping capacity building, attracting talent and investments, while creating an IPR friendly ecosystem for the country in tandem.

Incidentally many MNCs, as reported by a section of the media, have demonstrated proven long-standing commitment to India, as they have been operating in the country with impeccable repute for a much longer period than most of the domestic pharmaceutical players, if not all, spanning across all scale and size of operations.

Are the patent challenges under section 3(d) being used as a ‘business strategy’?

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India.

This game seems to have just begun and may probably assume unhealthy dimension, if not openly debated and appropriate remedial actions are taken, as will deem necessary by the law makers keeping in view the long term, both global and local, implications of the same.

The beginning of the dispute:

As we know, way back in 2006 IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as imatinib. However, Novartis challenged the decision in the Supreme Court of India and in September, 2012, the final arguments in the Glivec case commenced. The matter is now sub judice.

Experts have opined that this interesting development has put Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 to an ‘Acid Test’ and the final verdict of the apex court will have the last say on the interpretation of this much talked about section of the statute.

Industry observers from both schools of thought – pro and against, are now waiting eagerly for the final outcome of this long standing dispute with bated breath, as it were.

Differing view points on impact:

Though the domestic stakeholders, including the local pharmaceutical industry, by and large, have expressed satisfaction with the law having taken its own course, the adversely affected companies articulated their strong disappointments with the developments. These companies argue, since valid patents were granted across the world for all these products, they had deployed significant financial and other resources starting from the regulatory approval process to market launch of such products in India with reasonable confidence.

Now with the such revocation and denial of patents, the concerned companies feel that  they will have to suffer significant financial losses besides high ‘Opportunity Costs’ for these molecules in India.

Interestingly, neutral observers have reportedly opined that this contentious issue, if not addressed appropriately and sooner by the government keeping in view the global business climate, will ultimately leave a lasting negative impression on the global community regarding the quality of IP ecosystem and investment climate in India, which consequently could lead to far reaching economic consequences extending even beyond the pharmaceutical industry of the country.

However, most of the local stakeholders advocate that there is no need to have a relook at it, in any way.

Opposition from the domestic industry:

It has been reported that a detailed study commissioned by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ and authored by Mr. T. C. James, Director, National Intellectual Property Organization, and a former bureaucrat in the ‘Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)’, articulated as follows:

“There is no clinching evidence to show that without a strong patent protection regime innovations cannot occur, that minor incremental innovations in the pharmaceutical sector do not require patent protection and that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act is not a bar for patenting of significant incremental innovations.”

In his report Mr. James also criticized large ‘Multinational Companies (MNCs)’ for “exploring strategies to extend their hold on the market, including through obtaining patents on minor improvements of existing drugs.”

The author continues to argue in favor of the section 3(d) the as follows:

  • It will be incorrect to conclude that Section 3 (d) is not compatible with TRIPS Agreement.
  • It has stood the test of time and does not introduce any unreasonable restrictions on patenting.
  • It is a major public health safeguard as it blocks extension of patent period through additional patents on insignificant improvements paving the way for introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.
  • Pharma companies need to be given incentives for undertaking more research and development, but removing section 3(d) will be counterproductive.
  • A good marketing strategy for the companies would be to concentrate on R & D in diseases which are endemic to countries like Brazil, China and India which are fast emerging as major economies.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) 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.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will indeed be a nightmarish situation for innovators of all caste, creed and colors, irrespective of national or multinational background.

Recapitulation of ‘Revised Mashelkar Committee Report’:

In August 2009, the Government accepted the revised report of the ‘Mashelkar Committee’, which observed the following:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology.”

2. “Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Could it have an impact on FDI?

Keen observers of these developments have reportedly expressed that revocation of granted patents or denial of patents on patentability criteria for the molecules, which hold valid patents elsewhere in the world, is sending a very negative signal to the global community and vitiating, among others, the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) climate in the country. However, many local experts interpret this observation as mere ‘posturing’ at the behest of the MNCs’ interest.

The point to ponder:

The innovator companies have been arguing since quite some time that innovation involving any New Chemical Entity (NCE) never stops just after its market launch. Scientists keep working on such known molecules to meet more unmet needs of the patients within the same therapeutic class.

They substantiate their argument by citing examples like, after the discovery of beta-blockers, incremental innovation on this drug continued. That is why, from non-cardio-selective beta-blockers like Propranolol, the world received cardio-selective beta-blockers like Atenolol, offering immense benefits and choices to the doctors for the well being of patients.

Thus, global innovators reiterate very often that such examples of high value ‘incremental innovation’ are important points to ponder in India.

Patent challenge is a legal process, but…:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue with gusto that ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process and the law should be allowed to take its own course.

However, the opposition counter-argues that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being that the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents and the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather difficult to accept. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling  a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Conclusion:

The spirit of ‘public health interest’ and avoidance of frivolous patents behind Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act is indeed commendable.

However, exclusion of almost all kinds of ‘incremental innovation’ for not meeting the very subjective and highly discretionary ‘efficacy’ criterion in the above section could prove to be counterproductive in the long run, even for the domestic players. The reason being, many such innovations will help enhancing safety, efficacy and compliance, besides other properties, of already existing molecules meeting various unmet needs of the patients.

Looking from a different perspective altogether, restrictive provisions in Section 3(d) could well go against the public health interest in the longer term, especially when the government is considering a mechanism of price negotiation for the patented drugs in India, as stated above.

Thus weighing pros and cons of both the arguments, in the finer balance of probability in terms of net gain to India as a nation, I reckon, appropriate legislative amendment in the section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 will give a much required boost and incentive to pharmaceutical research and development in India.

This long overdue course-correction, if dealt with crafty win-win legal minds, will be able to protect not only high value “incremental innovations” of all innovators, global or local, in pursuit of significantly better and better drugs for the patients of India, but at the same time will effectively address the genuine apprehensions of ‘evergreening’ through frivolous patents.

…Or else should we wait till the final verdict of the Supreme Court comes on the Glivec case of Novartis?… Keeping my fingers crossed.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on by
Reply

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of  ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

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

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

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

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

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

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps  navigating through the challenges of change.

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 concept of ‘Value Based Pricing (VBP)’ gaining ground to reduce cost of healthcare and improve access…but India is quite different

Posted on by
Reply

So far as the pharmaceutical pricing and increasing access to healthcare are concerned, year 2010 perhaps will be remembered as one of the very significant years, at least, in the recent times. In this year with new healthcare reform, President Obama expanded access to Health Insurance to additional around 40 million Americans, the Government in Japan brought in, not much talked about, “premium for the development of new drugs and elimination of off-label drug use” and the Governments in UK and European Union, including the largest market in the EU – Germany, introduced stringent cost containment measures for pharmaceutical products.

Pharmaceutical pricing model is changing across the world:

Overall scenario for pharmaceutical pricing model has undergone significant changes across the world. The old concept of pharmaceutical price being treated as almost given and usually determined only by the market forces with very less regulatory scrutiny is gradually but surely giving away to a new regime.

It started, especially in the developed world, with the generation and submission of pharmacoeconomics data to the regulators for pharmaceutical pricing, by the pharmaceutical companies. However, shortcomings in that system gradually became subject of a raging debate. The newer concepts of Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Health Outcomes Analysis (HOA) and Value Based Pricing (VBP), have started gaining grounds.

Value Based Pricing (VBP):

Value based pricing is basically offering the best value for the money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.
For pharmaceutical players, VBP perhaps would mean not charging more than the actual value of the product.

On the other hand, price being a function of value that a product would offer, it is also important for the regulators to understand what value in totality that the product would offer, not just for the patients’ treatment in particular, but for the civil society at large.

However, in India, the regulators are still far behind and groping in the dark to find out an appropriate solution to this critical issue. They seem to be quite contended with taking arbitrary, non-transparent populist decisions.

The concept is gaining ground:

The concept of ‘evidence-based medicine’ , as stated earlier, is gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations like, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this matter.

VBP could help in ‘freeing-up’ resources to go to front-line healthcare:

On November 11, 2010 ‘Pharma Times’ in a news item titled, “Government (UK) to consult on drug pricing in December’ reported the following:

“Consultation on the government’s plans to introduce value-based pricing (VBP) for medicines will begin next month, the Department of Health has announced.
The consultation will run until next March, the Department reveals in its newly-published business plan for 2011-15. The plan sets out the coalition government’s structural reform priorities for health care, which are to: – create a patient-led NHS; – promote better healthcare outcomes; – revolutionize NHS accountability; – promote public health; and -reform social care.
These reforms ‘will help to create a world-class NHS that saves thousands more lives every year by freeing up resources to go to the front line, giving professionals power and patients choice, and maintaining the principle that healthcare should be delivered to patients on the basis of need, not their ability to pay,’ says the Department”.

Global pharmaceutical companies using more ‘health outcome’ data to set pricing strategies:

Some global pharmaceutical majors have already taken pro-active measures on the subject. In early 2009, reported agreements between Sanofi-Aventis, Procter & Gamble and Health Alliance as well as Merck and Cigna vindicate this point. These agreements signify a major shift in the global pharmaceutical industry’s approach to gathering and using ‘health outcomes’ data

In the Sanofi-Aventis/Procter & Gamble-Health Alliance agreement, the concerned companies agreed to reimburse Health Insurance companies expenses incurred for patients suffering from non-spinal bone fracture while undergoing treatment with their drug Actonel.

In the Merck/Cigna agreement, Cigna will have the flexibility to price two diabetes drugs based on ‘health outcomes’ data.

‘Outcomes-based’ pricing strategies are expected to become the order of the day, in not too distant future, all over the world.

The ground realities in India are very different:

Medicines are very important and constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems, across the world. In India, overall healthcare system is fundamentally different from many other countries, even China. In most of those countries around 80% of expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through Health Insurance or similar mechanisms. However, in India situation is just the reverse, about 80% of overall healthcare costs including medicines are private or out of pocket expenses incurred by the individuals/families.

Since 1970, the Government of India (GoI) has been adopting various regulatory measures like cost based price control and price monitoring to make medicines affordable to the common man. For those products, which are patented in India, it has now been reported that the Government is mulling the approach of price negotiation with the respective companies.

However, we should keep in mind that making drugs just affordable in India, where a large number of population does not have access to modern medicines for non-price related factors, is indeed not a core determinant of either healthcare value or proven health outcomes or both.

Till VBP is considered, cost-effective ‘health outcome’ based medical prescriptions should get priority:

Expenditure towards medicines can be considered as an investment made by the patients to improve their health and productivity at work. Maximizing benefits from such spending will require avoidance of those medicines, which will not be effective together with the use of lowest cost option with comparable ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason, many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind. A day may come in India, as well, when the regulatory authorities will concentrate on ‘outcomes-based’ pricing. However, in the Indian context, it appears, this will take some more time. Till then for ‘health outcome’ based medical prescriptions, working out ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG)’ , especially for those diseases which are most prevalent in India, should assume high importance.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

STG is usually defined as a systematically developed statement designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment for specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment.” STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

For an emerging economy, like India, formulation of STGs will ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

In India, STGs have already been developed for some diseases by the experts. These are based on review of current published scientific evidence towards acceptable way forward in diagnosis, management and prevention of various disease conditions. STGs, therefore, will provide:

- Standardized guidance to practitioners.
- Cost-effective ‘health outcomes’ based services.

GoI should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis and refer to such ‘heath-outcomes’ based evidences, while prescribing medicines. This will ensure more cost effective ‘health outcomes’ for their patients.

Steps necessary for ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

1. Get Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG) prepared for the diseases more prevalent in India, based on, among other data, ‘health outcomes’ studies.

2. Put the STG in place for all government establishments and private hospitals to start with.

3. Gradually extend STG in private medical practices.

4. Make implementation of STG a regulatory requirement.

Conclusions:

Till VBP concept is considered appropriate for India by the regulators, STG model for drug usage would help both the doctors and the patients equally to contain the cost of treatment in general and the total cost of medicines in particular. Encouraging implementation of STGs in India, as a first step towards VBP, especially for prescription medicines, the country will require, above all, a change in the overall mindset of all concerned. The use of an expensive drug with no significant improvement in ‘health outcome’ should be avoided by the prescribers at any cost, initially through self-regulation and if it does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be strictly enforced for the same… for 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.