Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?

Posted on May 19, 2014 by Tapan Ray

On May 13, 2014, The New York Times reported, while major pharmaceutical companies have been facing increased scrutiny of their marketing practices from governments around the world, last Wednesday the Chinese authorities sent a strong warning to the pharmaceutical industry implicating Mark Reilly, the former head of Glaxo’s China operations, of ordering his subordinates to form a “massive bribery network” that resulted in higher drug prices and illegal revenue of more than US$150 million. Mr. Reilly, a Briton, and two Chinese-born Glaxo executives, Zhang Guowei and Zhao Hongyan, had allegedly arranged to bribe government officials in Beijing and Shanghai.

The Chinese police has reportedly said that its 10-month investigation has found that under Mr. Reilly, Glaxo had pushed its staff to meet aggressive sales targets and that the company had conducted “false transactions” through its financial department to transfer “illegal gains” made in China to overseas companies. The authorities also said Mr. Reilly and other senior executives at Glaxo had bribed officials to stop investigations of wrongdoing at the company.

The report also states, although bribery is common in China, it is rare for foreign-born executives from MNCs to be prosecuted. In 2009, a Chinese-born Australian executive at the British-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto was arrested in a bribery and money-laundering case.

“Ethics Matter” – A Chinese warning to MNCs:

On May 16, 2014, Xinhua – the official news agency of China wrote in an editorial that Chinese probe into GSK’s local sales practices should send a warning to other foreign companies doing business in the country that “Ethics Matter”.

This stern action by China is indeed another body blow on the so called ‘ethical image’ of Big Pharma, despite its sophisticated global ‘Public Relations’ machinery working overtime under the respective pharma associations across the world.

Drug price manipulation:

While citing the example of a hepatitis B drug – Heptodin, Xinhua editorial said that GSK “manipulated prices to disguise real costs”, as Heptodin is declared as 73 Yuan to customs in China even though the actual cost is 15.7 Yuan and is sold at 26 Yuan in Canada or 30 Yuan in the U.K.

Quoting a Ministry of Public Security official at a briefing on May 14, it stated that Glaxo charged prices in China that in some cases were seven times as high as in other countries, and used the extra money to pay bribes.

According to this media report, in June last year, “Chinese authorities began investigating allegations that Glaxo had funneled money through local travel agencies to pay bribes to doctors in return for prescribing its drugs. They last year detained some executives on suspicion of economic crimes involving 3 billion Yuan of spurious expenses and trading in sexual favors.”

Not a first time allegation:

This is not the first of such cases and most probably won’t be the last also. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In this context July 4, 2012, edition of The Guardian reported a similar astonishing story on Big Pharma. When you click on this short video clipping, which was published on September 29, 2012 you would see that Big Pharma’s Medicaid fraud penalties had reached a record high with GlaxoSmithKline fined $3 Billion in the United States at that time.

It is widespread:

Following are a few more recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

There are many more of such examples.

The situation is alarming in India too:

Back home in India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is now being increasingly reverberated on every passing day, as it were. It has also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government, Planning Commission and even the Parliament.

An article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading daily, the author highlighted that the absence of regulatory oversight in the healthcare industry needs urgent attention.

The quality of the pharmaceutical marketing in India has touched a new low, causing suffering to patients. Unethical drug promotion is increasingly becoming an emerging threat to society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.

To counter the problem of ‘Unethical Drug Promotion’ to a great extent, the author broadly recommended the following:

Preparing treatment guidelines,
Conducting periodic prescription audits,
Generating consumer awareness and empowering consumer with relevant information in an user friendly way
Regulating entertainment of doctors in the garb of Continuing Medical Education (CME)

Moreover, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report strongly indicted the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) on this score. It observed that the DoP should take prompt action in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks and balances could be brought-in on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Even the Planning Commission of India has reportedly recommended strong measures against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices as follows:

“Pharmaceutical marketing and aggressive promotion also contributes to irrational use. There is a need for a mandatory code for identifying and penalizing unethical promotion on the part of pharma companies. Disclosure by pharmaceutical companies of the expenditure incurred on drug promotion to be made mandatory, ghost writing in promotion of pharma products to attract disqualification of the author as well as penalty on the company, and vetting of drug related material in Continuing Medical Education (CME) should be considered.”

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has been done in India to effectively address such malpractices in a comprehensive manner, as yet, to protect patients’ interest.

A pending PIL:

Despite deplorable inaction by the government on the subject, frequent reporting by Indian media has triggered a national debate on this issue. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is also now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for the patients.

Ethical marketing conduct in India – A Survey:

A survey report of Ernst and Young titled, “Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct”, carried out in September 2011 on the UCMP and MCI guidelines, highlighted the following:

Two-third of the respondents felt that the implementation of the UCPMP would change the manner in which pharma products are currently marketed in India.

More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.

Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.

90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

72 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI is not stringently enforcing its medical ethics guidelines for the doctors.

36 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines could have an impact on the overall sales of pharma companies.

Conclusion:

Increasingly many companies across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavily for ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments.

Intense quarterly pressure for expected business performance by stock markets and shareholders could apparently be the trigger-points for short changing such codes and values.

Be that as it may, I reckon, the need to announce and implement the UCPMP by the Department of Pharmaceutical under the new Modi Government, assumes critical importance in today’s chaotic pharmaceutical marketing scenario. At the same time, demonstrable qualitative changes in corporate ethics and value standards in this regard should always be important goals for any pharmaceutical business corporation in India.

Though late, China has at least started cracking down on the perpetrators of this alleged crime. As corruption conscious Modi-Government assumes office in the country, would India wake-up now to stop this growing menace by enacting and then strictly enforcing the rule of 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.

Is The New ‘Market Based Pricing’ Model Fundamentally Flawed?

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Tapan Ray

After a long wait of close to two decades, when the Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) followed the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) last year, it appeared that the new pharma price control regime is more acceptable to the industry than the previous, resulting in better over all implementation and compliance.

However, just within a year, the reality seems to be quite different. Not only the Ceiling Price (CP) calculation process of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) based on DPCO 2013 appears to be fundamentally flawed, its misuse and abuse by some pharma players have also been the subject of great concern and consumer aghast.

The eternal ‘Cat and Mouse’ game continues:

Probably there would be many instances of pharmaceutical companies dodging the DPCO 2013. However, FDA, Maharashtra, has unearthed the following two instances, so far:

1. Favorable consumer expectations with well-hyped DPCO 2013 received a body blow for the first time, when the general public came to know through media reports, that too after almost a year, that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, has planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to the patients . GSK Consumer Healthcare claims that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ is currently the fifth largest brand among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months ending in February 2014.

2. The second instance of evading DPCO 2013 has also been reported by the media. In this case some other pharmaceutical companies have reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form. Quoting the Maharashtra FDA, the report states: “Atorvastatin may face a similar kind of action from the state FDA as other overpriced brands of drugs as this drug has been overpriced five to 10 times more than the DPCO price. This kind of overcharging is a subject for investigation. Atorvastatin of 40 mg dosage is generally recommended for senior citizens.”

Tip of an Iceberg?

All these seem to be just the tip of an iceberg related to evasion of DPCO 2013 by some pharma black ships, raising costs of essential medicines for the patients. Ironically, what is happening now is an exact replica of the same old strategy that many pharma players got involved into to avoid price control under earlier DPCO 1995. Continuation of the same act of deceit with DPCO 2013 confirms that the ‘cat and mouse game’ to avoid price control is eternal in India, in the absence of any strong and exemplary deterrent.

Better late than never:

When Maharashtra FDA brought it to the notice of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the later asked GSK to immediately reduce the market price of ‘Crocin Advance’, as there is no proven additional therapeutic efficacy for the product. The price regulator also sought confirmation of the action taken by the company in this regard. Additionally, GSK Consumer Healthcare now faces consequential punitive measures from the NPPA for price overcharging. This action on the part of NPPA, in all probability, would get lost in the quagmire of litigation, as usually happens in India.

Be that as it may, I expect NPPA taking similar action for Atorvastatin too and increasing its vigil for such scant respect on patient-centric laws and policies of the country.

A brief recapitulation:

Just to recapitulate, DPCO 2013 has been fundamentally different from its ‘predecessor’ DPCO 1995, mainly on the following two counts:

1. Methodology of Price Control:

This has changed from earlier ‘Cost Based Pricing (CBP)’ to ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ based on simple average of all products having 1 percent or more market share.

2. Span of Price Control:

In DPCO 1995, all formulations of 74 bulk drugs, selected based on specified criteria, were under cost based price control, covering over 1700 formulations. Whereas, in DPCO 2013 all essential drugs as mentioned in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) come under price control applying the above new methodology of MBP. DPCO 2013 brings around 652 formulations of 348 drugs under 27 therapeutic segments of the NLEM 2011, under price control.

Significant benefits of DPCO 2013 to the industry:

DPCO 2013 offers following three key advantages to the industry, both in the short and longer term:

MBP methodology in DPCO 2013 is considered by the industry as more transparent and less ‘intrusive’ than CBP methodology.

Span of price control with DPCO 2013 came down to 18 percent of the total pharmaceutical market covering around 610 formulations, as against 20 percent in DPCO 1995 covering over 1700 formulations.

Opportunity for automatic annual price increase for controlled formulations based on WPI, which was not there in DPCO 1995, is now available to the industry. Thus, in keeping with the relevant provision of DPCO 2013, NPPA has recently allowed the drug companies to increase the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the price controlled medicines, contributing 18 percent of the total market, by 6.32 percent effective April 1, 2014, while prices of balance 82 percent of drugs, that are outside price control, can go up by 10 percent every year.

Check on essential drugs going out of market:

Interestingly, DPCO 2013 has tried to prevent any possibility of an essential drug going out of the market without the knowledge of NPPA by incorporating the following provision in the order:

“Any manufacturer of scheduled formulation, intending to discontinue any scheduled formulation from the market shall issue a public notice and also intimate the Government in Form-IV of schedule-II of this order in this regard at least six month prior to the intended date of discontinuation and the Government may, in public interest, direct the manufacturer of the scheduled formulation to continue with required level of production or import for a period not exceeding one year, from the intended date of such discontinuation within a period of sixty days of receipt of such intimation.”

However, it is still not clear, whether or not GSK Consumer Healthcare had followed this stipulated provision for price controlled conventional Crocin formulations. At least, I do not remember having come across any such public notice, as yet.

Key concerns expressed with DPCO 2013:

The MBP methodology seems to be unique to India as CBP is more common in countries that follow drug price control. Hence the following concerns were expressed with DPCO 2013.

Reduction in drug prices with market-based pricing methodology is significantly less than the cost based ones. Hence, consumers will be much less benefitted with the new system.

Earlier cost based pricing system was not more transparent only because a large section from the industry reportedly did not co-operate with the NPPA in providing cost details, as required by them.

Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data lacking adequate confidence level across the board, which now forms the basis of CP calculations.

Additionally, outsourced data would provide details only of around 480 out of 652 NLEM formulations. How will the data for remaining products be obtained and with what level of accuracy?

It is, therefore, believed now by many that DPCO 2013 is more of an outcome of a successful lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry in India, rather than a robust pricing policy supported by a flawless methodology for CP calculations.

DPCO 2013 faces challenge in the Supreme Court:

As a result of the above apprehensions, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing challenging DPCO 2013.

Ground Zero of the quality of outsourced market data:

While assessing from the ‘Ground Zero’, keeping aside instances of hoodwinking DPCO 2013 with tweaked formulations, the core issue of the quality of outsourced market data forming the bedrock of CP calculation by the NPPA, undoubtedly becomes more fundamental, creating huge discomfort for many pharma players .

Unlike DPCO 1995, where NPPA used to calculate the CP based on its own audits, data provided by the concerned companies and from many other reliable market sources, the calculations to arrive at the CP for DPCO 2013 products are based predominantly on data outsourced from IMS Health, if not solely.

IMS data does not always capture correct brand prices:

As stated above, many leading pharmaceutical companies are now reportedly pointing out repeatedly that the CP fixation by the NPPA is not accurate, as the IMS Health data does not represent the real prices in many cases.

This is not a new issue either. I have been hearing similar complaints since ages in different forum, wearing different hats and also from various other reliable industry sources. Moreover, NPPA and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) have indicated several times in the past that IMS data do not capture the requisite details as needed for over 100 products featured in NLEM 2011.

According to Pharmabiz of April 2, 2014, some of the companies expressing the above apprehensions are Sun Pharma, Unichem Labs, Panacea Biotec, Win-Medicare, Albert David, Baxter (India), Indi Pharma and Gland Pharma.

Responding to such widespread complaints, the DoP has directed NPPA to revalidate the IMS data, now being used for CP calculations, for all notified medicines. Accordingly, NPPA has sought the relevant details from respective companies. However, till such data validation takes place, pharma players must comply with all CPs, as notified by the NPPA from time to time.

Difficulty in data validation:

In my view, it would not be easy for the NPPA to revalidate the IMS data due to the following reasons:

Those companies, whose prices are showing higher than the current ones in the IMS Health data, may not report to NPPA, as that could ultimately affect them adversely.

Pharma companies’ response, in general, to requests from NPPA for furnishing cost and price related information has traditionally been much less than encouraging.

The logjam to continue:

With this evolving scenario, I reckon, till the Supreme Court intervenes responding to the PIL on DPCO 2013 related issues, the dissatisfaction of the industry and the constraints of the NPPA would continue, patients being the primary sufferers.

Conclusion:

Despite the reported concern expressed in the 2014 National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers over the Indian drug price control mechanisms as a deterrent to foreign investments, government price control for essential medicines in India is here to stay for a long haul, to uphold the patients’ health interest.

That said, the final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the PIL on the NPPP 2012, based on which DPCO 2013 has been worked out, is yet to come. Any unfavorable decision of the Honorable Court on the subject may push both the NPPP 2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one, yet again.

In this backdrop, considering the key fundamental flaw in the CP calculation process of DPCO 2013 with associated loud hiccups as evidenced by the GSK Consumer Healthcare episode and others, would a well-considered verdict of the Supreme Court on the subject be more desirable for greater access to more affordable essential drugs by the patients in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Just Born A Pharma Goliath: Would India Be Impacted?

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Just born a potential pharma Goliath, as Actavis – the Dublin-based one of the largest global generic drug makers, in its biggest ever purchase, acquires New York based R&D based pharma major – Forest Laboratories, for a whopping US$ 25 billion.

It is worth noting that as on date Actavis has grown mainly through Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) route. In 2012, the company took over American generic drug major Watson Pharma for €4.5 bn and then Ireland’s Warner Chilcott, marketing patented drugs for gastrointestinal and urological conditions, for US $8.5 bn. Post buy out of Forest Laboratories, Actavis would have annual sales turnover of US$15 bn.

So far, mostly R&D based Pharma players acquired generic drug makers:

This acquisition is interesting. The reason being, since the last few years, mostly research based global pharmaceutical companies are taking over generic pharma players in the emerging markets with a reasonable speed. To cite a few examples:

In June, 2010, British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced acquisition of ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing and marketing of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $253 million. With this acquisition, GSK planned to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly, Paris based Sanofi with the acquisition of Zentiva, became an important player in the European generic drug market. Zentiva, is also a leading generic player in the Czech, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, Slovak and Russian markets, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

In February 2014, the German Drug major Bayer reportedly announced that it would buy Dihon Pharmaceutical Group Co of China, expanding the German company’s footprint in a key growth country. Dihon’s products are also sold in Nigeria, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia. Privately held Dihon specializes in ‘Over-The-Counter (OTC)’ and herbal ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)’ products.

Back home, MNCs acquired the following generic companies from 2006 to 2011:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type of Deal
2006	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
2008	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
2009	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2010	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Acquisition
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Acquisition
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benckiser	726	Acquisition
2011	Universal Medicare	Sanofi	110	Acquisition
2013	Mylan	Agila Specialities	1750	Acquisition

Key drivers for generic acquisition:

From 2012 to 2015 patented drugs with a combined turnover of US$ 183 billion have already faced or would face intense generic competition resulting in, as high as, around 90 percent price erosion for those products. It is not just patent expirations that are exerting pressure on innovator companies. Added to this, a relatively weak R&D pipeline and increasing focus of various governments to reduce healthcare costs, have forced many research based global pharma players to imbibe the inorganic growth strategy in the generic space to quickly grab a sizable share of this large and fast growing market, especially in the emerging economies of the world.

Actavis acquisition is different:

In the above light Actavis’s acquisition of Forest Laboratories is quite different. Here, instead of a predominantly research-based company’s acquiring a generic player, a basically generic drug major has bought a research based global pharmaceutical player.

Interestingly, Forest Laboratories follows a unique R&D model. It is focused on, instead of discovering on its own, identifying strong medically relevant product candidates and guiding them through the complex development lifecycle, from proof-of-concept through post-marketing.

Strong global portfolio of both generic and patented drugs:

Post buy out, Actavis would have a strong combo-portfolio of generic drugs together with a relatively robust line-up of a diverse range of patented products, spanning across therapy areas such as Anti-Infective, Respiratory, Cardiovascular, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal, Obstetrics and Pain Management and that too not just in the emerging markets, but globally, unlike many others.

In addition, acquisition of Forest Laboratories would also provide Actavis access to former’s large US sales teams, transforming the merged entity a formidable force to reckon with in the topmost pharmaceutical market of the world, besides many others.

An intriguing recent decision:

That said, it is interesting to note that in January 2014, Actavis, then the second-biggest generic drug maker by market capitalization, announced that it would quit China as “It is not a business friendly environment… China is just too risky”. This is indeed intriguing, because by 2015, China’s generic market is expected to be close to US$ 82 billion.

Be that as it may, post acquisition Actavis would be in a position to offer all its customers in all the markets of the world a rainbow of products from patented to generics, carving out a critical strategic advantage for itself in the global pharmaceutical market.

Impact in India:

The question now boils down to what would be the impact of the just born Goliath on the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India.

Differentiated generic business:

The generic drugs market is usually classified as simple generics, super-generics and biosimilars. To differentiate, by adding value in the generic medicines, many domestic players are gradually entering into the ‘Super Generic’ and ‘biosimilar’ category of drugs. For example, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories has reportedly chosen to go for a difficult to copy drug formulation with its blood-thinner Fondaparinux. Sun Pharma, on the other hand, is focusing on innovative delivery platforms for its ophthalmic drugs and oral contraceptives. Cadila is looking at newer drug delivery modes for its painkiller Diclofenac. So is Lupin in other areas. In the biosimilar arena, Biocon has already developed Trastuzumab formulation of Roche. Moreover, the biosimilar business of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories continues with its impressive growth trend, besides many other Indian players in the same fray.

Simultaneously, India is improving its effectiveness in ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) space. As we have recently witnessed in India the alliances between Merck & Co and Cipla and earlier with Sun Pharma. Even prior to that, collaborative agreements of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma; GSK with Dr Reddy’s Laboratories; Abbott India with Cadila and many more, would vindicate this point.

Merck Serono of Germany also announced a partnership to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions. Mylan has also signed similar agreement with Biocon.

Glenmark Pharma has chosen yet another route, by entering into collaboration with Forest Laboratories (now Actavis) in 2013, for the development of a novel mPGES-1 inhibitor for chronic inflammatory conditions, including pain management.

Advantage India, provided…

Global generic drugs market would get its next booster dose with reportedly around 46 drugs going off patent opening a market of another US$ 66 billion from monopolistic to intense generic competition in 2015.

Details of ANDA status from the US-FDA source, as I indicated in my earlier blog post, probably indicate that several Indian players have already started moving in that direction at a brisk pace, keeping their eyes well fixed on the crystal ball. Over 30 percent of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and around half of the total Drug Master Filings (DMF) now come from the Indian Companies. In 2013 alone, the US-FDA granted 154 ANDAs and 38 tentative ANDAs to the Indian companies.

Despite all these, a serious apprehension does creep in, which finds its root in much-publicized fraudulent behavior of a few large Indian drug manufacturers, seriously compromising with the cGMP standards of some high profile global drug regulators. This challenge has to be overcome, sooner, to reap rich harvest out of the emerging global opportunities in the space of generic drugs.

Conclusion:

Geographically, North America is the largest consumer of generic drugs followed by Europe and Japan. However, the highest growth of the generic drugs market is observed in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides Actavis, some of the major generic drugs manufacturers of the world are Mylan, Apotex, Hospira, Par Pharmaceutical., Sandoz International and Teva Pharmaceutical.

From India, Ranbaxy Laboratories (before the recent fiasco), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin and Sun Pharma, besides many others, are competing quite well in the global generic drugs market with success.

Though Actavis has its manufacturing operations in India with its registered office located in Mumbai, the company is not yet engaged in serious local marketing operations in the country. In 2006 as Watson Pharma Pvt Ltd., the company acquired Sekhsaria Chemicals in a move to push forward its generic drug agenda globally. In 2005, it acquired a manufacturing facility in Goa from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories to produce solid dosage generic drugs for the US market.

Taking all these into considerations, if much deliberated cGMP issues with the foreign drug regulators are resolved sooner, Actavis is not expected to make any major difference for Indian pharma players either in the domestic market or for that matter globally, any time soon.

Thus Indian pharma players are unlikely to be adversely impacted with the emergence of this new potential Goliath in the global pharmaceutical landscape.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on February 17, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

Same old contentious example of ‘Glivec Access Program’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visible ‘Chink in its Armor’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chink:

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

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

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

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

The Chink:

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

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

The Chink:

A. Merck Sereno:

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

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

Patentability:

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

Access:

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

Pricing:

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

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

Another Chink:

B. GlaxoSmithKline:

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

Pricing:

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

Patented medicines:

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

IP:

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

Conclusion:

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The ghost of ‘Patent Cliff’ has been haunting the ‘Big Pharma’ since quite some time. This situation has been further aggravated by cost containment pressures of various Governments both in the developed and the emerging markets together with contentious issues on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The ‘dream run’ that the innovator companies enjoyed in launching patented products so frequently and making many those blockbuster drugs of billions of dollars, is no longer a reality.

According to the findings of ‘Pharmaceutical R&D returns performance’ by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters of December 2012, the R&D Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of leading pharmaceutical companies had fallen to 7.2 percent in 2012 from 7.7 percent in 2011.

Many would, therefore, tend to believe that the paradigm is changing significantly. The new paradigm in the brand new millennium throws some obnoxious challenges, including some related to IPR, triggering a process of churning in the global pharma industry. Some astute CEOs of ‘Big Pharma’, having a deep introspection, are bracing for restructuring, not just in the business processes, but also in the process of organizational behavior, mindset, ethics and values. Unfortunately, there are many who seem to believe that this giant wheel of change can be put on the reverse gear again with might.

A new PPP initiative in pharma research:

This trying situation calls for collaborative initiatives to achieve both knowledge and cost synergies for a quantum leap in harnessing R&D output.

One such big laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in this arena. Having experienced something like the ‘law of diminishing return’ in pursuit of high resource intensive R&D projects aimed at critical disease areas such as Alzheimer’s, 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

Not the first of its kind:

AMP is not the first PPP initiative of its kind. The Biomarkers Consortium was also another initiative, not quite the same though, of a major public-private biomedical research partnership managed by the Foundation for the NIH with broad participation from a variety of stakeholders, including government, industry, academia, patient advocacy groups and other not-for-profit private sector organizations.

Open innovation strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example, where GSK collaborated with the European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US$ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain, involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility.

Nearer home, ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ project of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

Challenges in going solo:

In this context, it is worth mentioning that the CEO of Sanofi, Chris Viehbacher reportedly said in an interview on April 15, 2013 that his company “Won’t push hard to find an Alzheimer’s treatment because the science isn’t advanced enough to justify the costs to develop a drug. Therefore, Sanofi definitely won’t commit major resources seeking to discover an Alzheimer’s therapy.” He further stated, “I think we have to do a lot more basic science work to understand what’s going on. We really, at best, partially understand the cause of the disease. It’s hard to come up with meaningful targets.”

The above report also mentioned that the first Alzheimer’s drugs, should they prove successful, would lead to a market worth US$ 20 billion as estimated in 2012.

Long desired OSDD model:

The new AMP R&D model in the United States seems to have derived its impetus from the “open-source” wave that has swept the software industry. Keeping that spirit unchanged, in this particular ‘open source’ model too, the participants would share all scientific findings with the public and anyone would be able to use these results freely for their own research initiatives.

The collaborators of this PPP project are expected to gain a better understanding of how each disease type works, and thereafter could make use of that collaborative knowledge to discover appropriate new molecules for the target disease areas.

AMP is also expected to arrive at methods to measure a disease progression and its response to treatment much more precisely. This will enable the pharma participants getting more targets right and early, thereby reducing the high cost of failures. Just to cite an example, there have been reportedly 101 failures since 1998 in late-stage clinical trials by Pfizer, J&J and Elan Corp.

Commendable initiative in the uncharted frontier:

The ‘open source’ AMP initiative of ‘Big Pharma’ in the uncharted frontier is indeed very unusual, as the innovative drug companies are believed to be not just quite secretive about the science that they are engaged in, but also near obsessive in pursuing and clinging-on to the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) through patents for each innovative steps related to potential new drugs.

It is worth noting that like any OSDD model, this PPP agreement also denies the participating players from using any discovery for their own drug research up until the project makes all data public on that discovery.

However, as soon as the project results will be made public, fierce competition is expected all around to develop money-spinning winning drugs.

Participating companies:

Ten pharma companies participating in AMP are reportedly, AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Pfizer, Sanofi and Takeda. It is good to find within the participants some staunch business rivals. According to a report, a number of foundations, including the American Diabetes Association and the Alzheimer’s Association have also agreed to get involved in the project.

Some key non-participants:

For various different reasons some key pharma majors, such as, Amgen, Roche and AstraZeneca have decided not to participate in AMP.

AMP project and cost:

AMP reportedly has reportedly articulated its intent to: “Map molecular paths that each disease follows and to identify key points that could be targets for treatment. In Type 2 diabetes, for instance, researchers hope to catalog the genetic changes that raise or lower a person’s risk for developing the disease. It also will seek novel methods to measure each disease’s course while assessing if a potential drug is working. Being able to measure a disease’s progress in that way, could speed drug development by raising a company’s confidence that an experimental drug is working, or let it more quickly end a project if a drug isn’t working.”

The participating companies and the NIH have jointly agreed that the AMP would put together a research system on cost sharing basis by pooling the brightest minds who are experts on each disease, along with the best drug discovery laboratories, relevant data and samples from clinical trials to decipher the diseases in ways, which none of these pharma players has been able to achieve just yet on its own.

To achieve all these, the total cost has been estimated at roughly just US$ 230 million, as compared to US$135 billion that the global drug industry claims to spend in a year on R&D.

This should also be seen in context of a study of December 2012 carried out by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), UK with a grant from AstraZeneca, which estimated that the cost of developing new medicine has risen by ten times from US$100 million in the 1970s to as high as US$ 1.9 billion in 2011.

As a head honcho of a global pharma biggie had put it earlier, a large part of these R&D expenses are the costs of failure, as stated above.

Criticism:

As usual, criticism followed even for this path-breaking project. Critics have already started questioning the rationale of the choice of the above four disease areas, with an exception perhaps for Alzheimer’s and wondered whether the participating players are making use of the federal fund to push hard the envelope of their respective commercial intents.

Another new collaborative approach:

In another recently announced collaborative initiative, though not of the same kind, where Merck & Co has reportedly entered three separate collaboration agreements to evaluate an immunotherapy cancer treatment that is part of a promising new class of experimental drugs that unleash the body’s immune system to target cancer cells.

Conclusion:

There could still be some hiccups in the process of effective implementation of the AMP project. Hope, all these, if any, will be amicably sorted out by the participants of stature for the benefits of all.

Be that as it may, ‘open source’ model of drug discovery, as believed by many, would be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source’ philosophy by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world for newer and innovative drugs.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘open source’ model would be substantial reduction in the high cost of failures of R&D projects, which coupled with significant saving in time would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines affordable to many more patients.

Thus, PPP initiatives in pharmaceutical R&D, such as AMP, are expected to have immense potential to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders, harvesting substantial benefits both for the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients, across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Tapan Ray

“ARE there different and more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”

“TRY and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing.”

Those are some introspective outlooks of Sir Andrew Witty – the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) related to much contentious pharmaceutical prescription generation processes now being practiced by the drug industry in general, across the world.

The ‘Grand Strategy’ to effectively address these issues, in all probability, was still on the drawing board, when Sir Andrew reportedly announced on December 16, 2013 that GSK:

Will no longer pay healthcare professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.

Will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to number of prescriptions the doctors write.

Will stop providing financial support to doctors to attend medical conferences.

These iconoclastic intents, apparently moulded in the cast of ethics and values and quite possibly an outcome of various unpleasant experiences, including in China, is expected to take shape worldwide by 2016, as the report indicates.

Acknowledgment of unbefitting global practices:

Reacting to this announcement, some renowned experts, as quoted in the above report, said, “It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products.”

The world envisages a refreshing change:

A December 11 article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) stated that there exists a serious financial ‘Conflict of Interest (COI)’ in the relationship between many Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and the drug and medical device industries spanning across a wide range of activities, including:

Promotional speakers
Industry-funded ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs
Free access of sales representatives to its faculty, trainees and staff
The composition of purchasing and formulary committees

Such types of relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies across the world, including in India, as studies revealed, have been custom crafted with the sole purpose of influencing prescription behavior of doctors towards more profitable costlier drugs, many of which offer no superior value as compared to already available cheaper generic alternatives.

Cracking the nexus is imperative:

Yet another report says, “Ghost-writing scandals, retracted journal papers, off-label marketing settlements, and a few high-profile faculty dust-ups triggered new restrictions at some schools.”

To address this pressing issue of COI, cracking the Doctor-Industry alleged nexus, which is adversely impacting the patients’ health interest, is absolutely imperative. An expert task force convened by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’ in 2012, made recommendations in 15 areas to protect the integrity of medical education/training and the practice of medicine within AMCs.

Some of those key recommendations involving relationships of medical profession with pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

No gifts or meals of any value
Disclosure of all industry relationships to institutions
No industry funded speaking engagement
No industry supported Continuing Medical Education (CME)
No participation at industry-sponsored lectures and promotional or educational events
No meeting with pharmaceutical sales representative
No industry-supported clinical fellowships
No ghostwriting and honorary authorship
No ‘Consulting Relationship’ for product marketing purpose

The above report also comments, “if medical schools follow new advice from a Pew Charitable Trusts task force, ‘No Reps Allowed’ signs will soon be on the door of every academic medical center in the United States.”

MNC pharma associations showcase voluntary ‘Codes of Marketing Practices’:

Most of the global pharma associations have and showcase self-regulating ‘Codes of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’. However, the above GSK decision and hefty fines that are being levied to many large global companies almost regularly in different countries for marketing ‘malpractices’, prompt a specific question: Do these well-hyped ‘Codes’ really work on the ground or are merely expressions of good intent captured in attractive templates and released in the cyberspace for image building?

Global status overview:

In this context an updated article of December 11, 2013 states that Medical Faculty, Department Chairs and Deans continue to sit on the Board of Directors of many drug companies. At the same time, many pharma players support programs of various medical schools and teaching hospitals through financial grants. Company sales representatives also enjoy free access to hospital doctors to promote their products.

In most states of the United States, doctors are required to take accredited CMEs. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial part of billions of dollars that are spent on the CME annually, using this support as marketing tools. This practice is rampant even in India.

The above article also highlights incidences of lawsuits related to ‘monetary persuasion’ offered to doctors. In one such incidence, two patients reportedly fitted with faulty hips manufactured by Stryker Orthopedics discovered that the manufacturer paid their surgeon between US$ 225,000 and US$ 250,000 for “consultation services,” and between US$ 25,000 and US$ 50,000 for other services.

However, since August 2013, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands full disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses. Effective March 31, 2014, all companies must report these details to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), or else would face punitive fines as high as US$1 million per year. CMS would publish records of these payments to a public website by September 31, 2014. India needs to take a lesson from this Act to help upholding ethics and values in the healthcare system of the country.

Overview of status in India:

As reported by both International and National media, similar situation prevails in India too.

Keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the medical profession of India. The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’.

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

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

Learning from other self-regulatory ‘Codes of Pharma Marketing Practices’, in my view, a law like, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States, demanding public disclosure of gifts and all other payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses, would be much desirable and more meaningful in India.

Conclusion:

Research studies do highlight that young medical graduates passing out from institutions enforcing gift bans and following other practices, as mentioned above, are less likely to prescribe expensive brands having effective cheaper alternatives.

The decision of GSK of not making payments to any doctor, either for participating or speaking in seminars/conferences, to influence prescription decision in favor of its brands is indeed bold and laudable. This enunciation, if implemented in letter and spirit, could trigger a paradigm shift in the the prescription demand generation process for pharmaceuticals brands.

However, this pragmatic vow may fall short of stemming the rot in other critical areas of pharma business. One such recent example is reported clinical data fabrication in a large Japanese study for Diovan (Valsatran) of Novartis AG. Had patient records been used in their entirety, the Kyoto Heart Study paper, as the report indicates, would have had a different conclusion.

That said, if all in the drug industry, at least, ‘walk the line’ as is being demarcated by GSK, a fascinating cerebral marketing warfare to gain top of mind brand recall of the target doctors through well strategized value delivery systems would ultimately prevail, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the moot point to ponder now:

Would other pharma players too jettison the decades old unethical practices of ‘paying to doctors for prescriptions’, directly or indirectly, just for the heck of maintaing ethics, values and upholding patients’ interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The ‘TINA Factor’: A Hotspot for Patented Drugs

Posted on December 16, 2013 by Tapan Ray

An article published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 mentioned that Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer AG reportedly has said at the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference held this month that:

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

The head honcho deserves kudos for revealing his mind upfront, while inviting two quick questions, as follows:

If that is so, why did Bayer launch Nexavar in India?
Did Bayer have any other alternative or choice for not doing so, other than negotiating for a ‘Voluntary License’?

As Bayer already had decided against any ‘Voluntary License’ for Nexavar in India, the simple answer to both the questions is : There Is No Alternative (TINA). And…that’s my ‘TINA Factor’, now a hotspot for patented drugs in India.

I shall dwell on it below, just in a short while.

Bellicose stance for high drug prices and more stringent patent regime:

Everybody acknowledges, beyond even an iota of doubt, that the contribution of the global pharmaceutical industry in the ongoing fight of mankind against diseases of all kinds, is commendable and exemplary.

However, over a period of time, as the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D are in the process of getting all plucked, raw commerce mainly driven by likes of “The Wall Street” quarterly expectations, have started overriding public health considerations involving a large section of the society, across the world, including India.

In this evolving scenario, healthcare has to be extended to almost everybody in the society by the respective Governments in power with strong support from the pharma industry. Instead, to utter dismay of many, the later seems to have opted for a bellicose stance. Their lobby groups appear to be power playing with all might in the corridors of power, to make the product patent regime of faster growing emerging markets more and more stringent, restricting smooth entry of affordable generic or biosimilar drugs increasingly difficult.

Underlying reasons for Big Pharma’s near obsession to have in place an ever stringent patent regime, defying all public health interest particularly of the developing countries, I reckon, are mainly three-fold:

Grant of product patent for any innovation irrespective of triviality
To have absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs for unlimited profits
To enjoy and extend product monopoly status as long as possible

Probably, to camouflage these intents, the reasons for high prices of patented drugs are attributed to the over-used buzz-words – fostering and re-investing in innovation, which is more often underscored as frightfully expensive.

Fair enough, in that case, let the high cost of R&D be appropriately quantified involving independent experts and made known to public. It will then not be like a jig saw puzzle for people to understand the real intent or the truth behind high drug prices. Thereafter, practical solutions need be fleshed-out putting the bright brains and minds together to make new medicines affordable to patients, across the world.

Most probably, that is not to happen, unless a legally binding system of disclosure of expenses is made mandatory for R&D, just as the ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands public disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses.

On the contrary, incessant efforts by vested interests still continue to keep the patented drug prices beyond the reach of common man. The following are just some very recent examples:

Another ‘defiant move’ in drug pricing:

In another recent development, US-FDA on December 6, 2013 approved Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. This new drug is reported to be a cure for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus, without co-administration of interferon.

According to the report of July 2013 of the World Health Organization (WHO), about 150 million people are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus, and more than 350, 000 people die every year from hepatitis C- related liver diseases, across the world.

Most interestingly, Gilead Sciences have reportedly decided to keep the price of Sovaldi at a staggering US$ 1,000 (Rs. 62,000) -a-day for one tablet to be continued for 12 weeks. Thus the cost of a three month course of treatment with Sovaldi would be a mind boggling sum of US$ 84,000 (Rs.L 5.21), just for one patient.

It is worth noting that the above price/table of Sovaldi, as decided by Gilead Sciences, has started culminating into a storm of protest, almost immediately, even in the United States (US). The biggest drug benefits manager in that country – Express Scripts Holding Co. in a decisive move to drive down spending on the medicines, reportedly plans to start a price war when Sovaldi comes to market next year or early in 2015 wearing a price tag of US$ 1,000 a pill.

Further, on this seemingly defiant pricing strategy, that too for a life saving drug affecting patients belonging to all strata of the society, ‘Doctors Without Borders’ have reportedly commented: “Using patents to block affordable versions of sofosbuvir and pricing this drug out of reach of the most vulnerable groups who need it most is simply putting profits before people’s lives.”

Brewing a fresh initiative for more stringent high drug price regime:

To foist stricter pharmaceutical patent regime, making access to affordable drugs for the world’s poor increasingly challenging, an initiative is reportedly brewing afresh led by the United States (US).

Ministers of Trade from 12 countries initiated a discussion on December 6, 2013 at Singapore to meet the US deadline of forging a deal on the proposed ‘Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP)’ before the end of 2013.

These twelve countries – Australia Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, USA and Vietnam, contributing 40 percent of the world economy, are expected to hammer out the TPP deal first, though other countries may hitch on thereafter.

However, after 4 days of intense negotiation, the US-led TPP talks ended on December 10, 2013, without beating into shape any deal. These countries would reportedly meet again on January 2014, in contrast to earlier plan.

The global human right groups like ‘Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF)’ and ‘Doctors Without Borders’ have reportedly commented, “The ‘Data Protection’ period will prevent drug regulatory agencies in TPP signatory countries from referencing data needed to approve lower-cost generic versions of a protected drug, delaying competition that would lead to cheaper prices”.

In a poll commissioned by ‘Avaaz’ – a global advocacy group, reportedly 62 percent of Americans, 63 percent of Australians, 70 percent of New Zealanders, and of 75 percent Chileans opposed limiting access to generic medicines through the patent proposal in TPP.

Quite expectedly, the powerful US pharma lobby group ‘Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)’ said, “It was necessary for companies to recover investments and conduct further research into new cures”.

Breath of fresh air:

The good news is that some prudent developments are also seen around in the midst of a monopolistic drug pricing scenario, offering a breath of fresh air. Some countries around the world, including an important payor in the Unites States, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of UK which assesses the value of drugs for NHS use, and even ‘National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ of China, have now started taking note and proactive measures in different ways on monopolistic high drug prices.

A recent report highlighted that ‘National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)’ of China would examine and regulate the price-related monopolistic practices of six industries operating in the country, including pharmaceuticals and would crack down wherever they find excessively high prices.

Can India insulate itself from pricing onslaught?

Despite growing global pressure against ‘putting profits before people’s lives’, one may arguably expect more such initiatives spearheaded by Big Pharma to make the patent regime, of especially the emerging markets, more stringent in the years ahead.

That said, ‘The TINA Factor’, which I shall now dwell upon, would probably help reinforcing the protective shield of Indian patent regime against foreseeable assaults with strategies quite similar to as cited above, denying access to new life saving drugs to most of the general population of the country.

‘The TINA Factor’ and three ‘Alternatives’ available to MNCs:

Since enactment of patient-friendly patent laws by the Parliament of India effective January 1, 2005, many global pharma companies and their lobby groups have been continuously expressing immense displeasure and strong anger in many ways for obvious reasons, just as the CEO of Bayer AG did recently.

There are, of course, a few exceptions, such as Sir Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), who has been publicly expressing balanced views on this subject in several occasions, so far.

Being driven by anger and possibly desperation any MNC may wish to choose one of the following three ‘Alternatives’ available to them:

Alternative 1: Do not apply for the product patent in India at all.

‘The TINA Factor’: In that case the product will be made available in a platter for the generic players to copy.

Alternative 2: Obtaining the relevant patent from the Indian Patent Office (IPO), do not launch the patented product in India.

‘The TINA Factor’: After three years from the date of grant of patent, as per the statute, the said product could become a candidate for CL on the ground that the patented invention has not been worked in India.

Alternative 3: Launch the product only at the international price.

‘The TINA Factor’: If any patented new product is not available to patients at a ‘reasonably affordable price’ or ‘reasonable requirements’ of patients with respect to the patented invention are not satisfied, again according to statutes, interested parties are free to apply for CL to the IPO, following the steps as specified in the Act. Moreover, the Government itself may issue CL in national emergencies or ‘extreme urgency’ for non-commercial use.

Considering the ‘TINA Factor’, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the ‘Indian Patents Act’ and are NOT launched with ‘reasonably affordable prices’ or ‘reasonable requirements’ of patients are NOT met with these new drugs, the possibility of their legal generic entry at much lower prices is rather high in India. CL granted by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to NATCO vindicates this point.

Summing-up effects of the ‘TINA Factor’:

Many would now reckon that the ‘TINA Factor’, being a hotspot for patented drugs in India, has the potential for getting adopted by many other countries in not too distant future. Two of its palpable effects, as felt in the country so far, may be summed-up as follows:

It leaves no option to any MNC, other than launching their new products in India, especially after obtaining relevant patents from the IPO.

It also squashes apprehensions of many that discontented Big Pharma would be able stop launching patented new products in India, depriving a large number of patients of the country.

Conclusion:

‘The TINA Factor’, thus created by the lawmakers, is expected to remain undiluted, unless commensurate changes are made in the Indian Patents Act.

Not withstanding the reported anger expressed by the CEO of Bayer AG or recently reported ‘absurd pricing’ of Sovaldi, or even for that matter, fresh attempts that are now being made to cobble together a TPP deal, patented new products would continue to be launched in India, as they will receive marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).

Any possibility of dilution of the ‘TINA Factor’ seems remote now, though powerful overseas pharma lobby groups are investing heavily for a change to take place in various ways.

It also does not seem likely, at least in the near to mid-term, that India would be a party to its ‘Patents Act’ diluting any ‘Free Trade Agreement’ or remain unmoved with high drug prices like, US$ 1000/tablet for life saving drugs like sofosbuvir, more so, if those are considered essential medicines in the country.

Come 2014, it appears improbable that any new Union Government would be able to garner enough numbers in the Parliament to amend Indian Patents Act, buckling under pressure of powerful lobby groups, directly or indirectly, and daring to ignore public sentiment on this sensitive issue.

Considering all these, the point to ponder now:

While abhorring pro-patients ‘Patents Act’ of India, can the Big Pharma come out with any viable alternative today for NOT launching their life saving patented new drugs in the country with the ‘TINA Factor’ prevailing?

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

Posted on November 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The ‘Big Pharma’ prowls faltered yet again exposing the ‘fault line’ to all, when the GSK global head honcho, a pharma icon in his own right, Sir Andrew Witty supported the pharmaceutical policy of India, while in the country earlier this month. This support is quite in contrary to arrogant displeasure being expressed by his MNC counterparts against the pharma regime in India up until now.

Sir Andrew reportedly spoke against the usual pharma MNC practices of charging very high prices for patented medicines during an interview and said that multinationals need to look at things from India’s perspective.

The above comment, when analyzed especially in context of one of the recent actions of Big Pharma MNCs complaining in writing to President Obama against India’s prevailing pharmaceutical regime, the fault line gets clearly visible.

In this context, a recent report captured the anger and desperation of Big Pharma. This hostility vindicates the general apprehensions in India that MNCs are once again pushing for a stringent patent regime in the country, against the general health interest of Indian patients for access to affordable newer medicines.

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report reconfirmed the impatient prowl of the mighty lobby group in the corridors of power. This piece states, “Recent policy and judicial decisions (Glivec judgment and Nexavar) that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate.”

The ‘fault line’, thus surfaced, triggers off yet another critical debate, especially related to the slugfest on a stringent pharmaceutical product patent regime in India, as follows:

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

Global innovator companies strongly argue that stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and stricter enforcement of IP laws have strong link with fostering innovation leading to a robust economic growth for any nation.

However, another group of thought leaders opine just the opposite. They argue that strong IPR and IP laws have little, if any, to do with fostering innovation and economic growth, as there are no robust research findings to drive home the above point.

It has been noticed that the MNC lobby groups quite often very cleverly use their magic word ‘innovation’ on a slightest pretext with an underlying desire of having a ‘very strict patent regime’ in India. Thus they seem to be trying to mislead the common man, as if India is against innovation.

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India, Chairman of the National innovation Council and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development. I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable. We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

Recent Indian stand:

On March 5, 2013, the Government of India made a profound statement on the subject of ‘Innovation and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)’ at the TRIPS Council meeting covering the following points:

There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.

The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.

The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.

After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.

Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.

It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

As the Wharton professor of Healthcare Management Mark V. Pauly has been quoted saying that the link between patent protection and innovation has never been definitely proven.

However, Pauly reportedly is aware that the innovator global pharma companies do say, ‘If you don’t allow us to reap the benefits of our R&D expenditure, we won’t put as much into it, and we won’t invent as many great things’.

However, the Wharton Professor counters it by saying, “The problem is that nobody really knows how much less innovation there would be if there were less patent protection. We just don’t know what the numbers are.”

The above report says, according to Pauly, the onus to prove that patent protection matters should be on the drug industry itself.

He argues, “Rather than always just insisting you should never limit intellectual property protection, they really ought to develop some evidence to show that without that protection, there would be an impact on the rate of adoption of new products. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts.“

A French Professor’s view:

In another WIPO seminar held on June 18, 2013, Margaret Kyle, a Professor at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Université de Toulouse I in France, reportedly presented preliminary findings of a study.

This paper explored in detail the impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in various areas related to the speed of launch, price, and volume of sales of drugs across countries and across different drug products.

In this study, as the above report states, Kyle analyzed the trade-off between the dynamic and static effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The dynamic effect of IPRs was considered as an incentive for innovation based on the general belief that patent protection, through granting market exclusivity, incentivizes companies to invest in the research and development (R&D) to develop new drugs.

On the other hand, the static effect of IPRs in the short term is that granting market exclusivity often leads to innovator companies pricing their products at levels, which will be unaffordable by a large number of patients, especially in lower-income countries.

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.

The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

While highlighting that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property protection is passed by some developing countries in order to implement FTA obligations, another recent paper presents the following examples in support of the argument that there no correlation between strong IP laws and fostering innovation:

UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…Strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System. LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…No consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally. Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI. At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.” Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier. 2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies. Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier. 2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage. What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.” International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

“TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as ‘important, but not essential’ for attracting investment. Many other factors matter like, taxes, human capital, clustering, etc.”

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent article on this subject states as follows:

“Compulsory licensing and stricter patentability standards allow domestic manufacturers to produce lower-cost versions of patented NCD medications and break into lucrative therapeutic areas, such as oncology, in which multinational drug firms are heavily invested.”

The paper clearly highlights, “If patients are pitted against patents, international support for IP protection—upon which drug firms and many other developed country industries now heavily rely—will again diminish.”

Yet another article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 states:

“Patents are government-granted monopolies. As monopolies, they can drive the prices of drugs up dramatically. For example, in 2000, when only patented antiretroviral drugs for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection were widely available, they cost approximately $10,000 per person per year, even in very poor countries. Today, these same medicines cost $150 or less if they are purchased from Indian generics companies…. patents cause especially acute problems for access to medicines in developing countries – not only because of low incomes but also because insurance and price-control systems are often absent or inadequate.”

A WHO Report:

To chart the way forward at the backdrop of ongoing global debate elated to the relationship between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health, the World Health Assembly decided in May 2003 to give an independent Commission the task of analyzing this key issue. Accordingly, the Director-General of WHO established the Commission in February 2004. This report titled, “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” was published in 2006 and articulated that neither innovation nor access depend on just intellectual property rights and highlighted, among others, the following:

Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where ﬁnancial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which proﬁtable markets exist.

In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientiﬁc and technological capability inadequate.

In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.

Although the balance of costs and beneﬁts of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientiﬁc and technological infrastructure, the ﬂexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to ﬁnd a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

Trashing the anger and displeasure of pharma MNCs, as per the latest international survey, India reportedly has emerged as the most attractive global investment destination followed by Brazil and China. It is worth noting that even recently, during April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in the FDI landscape of India.

Conclusion:

In the Indian context, a 2013 paper titled, “Intellectual Property Protection and Health Innovation: Concerns for India” published by Center for WTO Studies highlights that the regime change in the patent system has not been very supportive for improving access to medicines in India. It reiterates, it has not been established yet that a stricter patent regime in the developing countries like India, has helped health innovation and access to medicines at economically viable prices.

The paper recommends, although India is trying to incorporate all the flexibilities under TRIPS in its Patents Act, the ‘Indian Policy Makers’ should not give in to the pressure of western powers to make IPR more stringent in the country.

In the backdrop of arrogance exhibited by Big Pharma MNCs, in general, against Indian policies and judicial verdicts on this subject, the comments made by Sir Andrew on the issue, as deliberated above, are indeed profound and far reaching. However, it clearly exposes the fault line in the collective mindset of pharma MNCs, without any ambiguity.

I shall not be surprised either, if clever attempts are made now by the MNC lobby groups to negate or trivialize the profoundness of this visionary statement not just in India, but beyond its shores, as well.

Further, as stated above recent emergence of India as the most attractive global investment destination with pharma leading the deck is a point worth noting, more in the context of policy and statutes that India has decided to follow.

Be that as it may, it is beyond the scope of any doubt that innovation or for that matter encouraging innovation still remains the wheel of progress of any nation.

However, have we garnered enough evidence yet, to establish that stringent IPR regime with absolute pricing freedom would lead to fostering more innovation leading to well-being of people of the developing countries, like India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: GSK

Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?

Is The New ‘Market Based Pricing’ Model Fundamentally Flawed?

Just Born A Pharma Goliath: Would India Be Impacted?

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

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

The ‘TINA Factor’: A Hotspot for Patented Drugs

Ministers of Trade from 12 countries initiated a discussion on December 6, 2013 at Singapore to meet the US deadline of forging a deal on the proposed ‘Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP)’ before the end of 2013.

These twelve countries – Australia Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, USA and Vietnam, contributing 40 percent of the world economy, are expected to hammer out the TPP deal first, though other countries may hitch on thereafter.

However, after 4 days of intense negotiation, the US-led TPP talks ended on December 10, 2013, without beating into shape any deal. These countries would reportedly meet again on January 2014, in contrast to earlier plan.

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate