Tag Archives: Health

Is Drug Innovation As Critical As Access To Medicines For All? [Augmented By A Video]

Posted on by
Reply

To make important medicines available to all in a sustainable way, the renowned philosopher Thomas Pogge in this very interesting video clipping titled “Medicines For The 99 Percent” suggested the following three simple, yet critical, steps to effectively run the healthcare system of any nation with a cost-effective and patient-centric approach:

  • Access to important medicines for all
  • A robust drug innovation model to meet the unmet needs of patients
  • Transparent and efficient systems to make medicines affordable to all, eliminating wastage of all kinds

To translate this process into reality Pogge proposed an out-of-box model, not just to incentivize companies for drug innovation, but also to produce those drugs in a cost-effective way . In his submission, Pogge recommended a US$ 6 billion ‘Health Impact Fund’ to revolutionize the way medicines are developed and sold. He strongly argued that the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential “Health Impact” on patients over the equivalent available generics in the respective disease areas.

As you will see in the video, the model is interesting and deserves wholehearted support from all stakeholders, despite possible resistance from some powerful quarters prompted by vested interests.

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

As the good old saying goes, “Health is Wealth”. When a person falls sick, regaining health is all-important. Medicines play a very critical role there, for all. In the ongoing battle against various types of diseases, addressing unmet needs of the patients is also equally important. For this reason, drug innovation plays just as critical a role.

However, it is now a well-known fact that medicines, as such, are not very expensive to manufacture on a relative yardstick. Abundant availability of cheaper generic medicines, post-patent expiry, with as much as  90 percent price erosion over the concerned patented drug price, would vindicate this point.

Current R&D model:

Astronomical mark-ups on the cost of goods for the innovative-patented drugs coming out of the current R&D model, restrict access to these medicines mostly to rich people of both poor and rich countries of the world, depriving majority of the have-nots. Although in an ideal situation, all these medications should be accessible to those who need them the most.

Is the model sustainable?

Innovator companies attribute ‘astronomical’ high prices of patented drugs to hefty R&D expenditure, which probably includes high cost of failures too. Unfortunately, despite ongoing raging debates, R&D expense details are still held very close to the chest by the innovator companies, with almost total lack of transparency. Many experts, therefore, believe that this opaque, skewed and unsustainable drug R&D model of the global pharma majors needs a radical makeover now, as you would yourself see by clicking on the ‘video clipping’, as mentioned above

To ensure full access to important drugs for all, there are other R&D or innovation models too. Unfortunately, none of those appears to be financially as lucrative to the innovator companies as the one that they are currently following, thus creating a challenging logjam in the inclusive process of drug innovation.

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

Some experts in this area argue that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are overstated, as the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicated that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large pharmaceutical industry association of the United States, though with dubious credibility as considered by many.

The authors of the above article had also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪   Tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D

▪   Tax write-offs that amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40 percent of the R&D cost

▪   Cost of basic research should not have been included as those are mostly undertaken       by public funded universities or laboratories

The article observed that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made, if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In line with this deliberation, in the same article the authors reinforce the above point, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from the traditional model?

Echoing philosopher Thomas Pogge’s submission, another critical point to ponder today is:

Should the pharmaceutical R&D now move away from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players?

If this overall collaborative approach gains broad acceptance and then momentum sooner, with active participation of all concerned, it could lead to substantial increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser expenditure, eliminating wastage by reducing the cost of failures significantly, thus benefiting the patients community at large.

Choosing the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Making drug innovation sustainable: 

Besides Thomas Pogge’s model with ‘Health Impact Fund’ as stated above, there are other interesting drug R&D models too. In this article, I shall focus on two examples:

Example I:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports: “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

The concept underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients again through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

Android smart phones with huge commercial success are excellent examples of ‘Open Source Innovation’. So, why not replicate the same successful model of inclusive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry too?

Example II - “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)” initiative:

This laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in he arena of collaborative R&D, where 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.

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”: 

As if to reinforce the concept, a recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access.

Conclusion:

Taking these points into perspective, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to all patients absolutely robust and sustainable as we move on.

Philosopher Thomas Pogge, in his above video clipping, has also enunciated very clearly that all concerned must ensure that medications get to those who need them the most. He has also shown a win-win pathway in form of creation of a “Health Impact Fund’ to effectively address this issue. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as Open Innovation and Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), to choose from.

That said, a paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of drug innovation. Dove tailing business excellence with the health interest of all patients, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Bringing this transformation sooner is extremely important, as drug innovation would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity.

However, to maintain proper checks and balances between drug innovation and access to medicines for all, the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential ‘Health Impact’ on patients over equivalent available generics in that disease area and NOT by how much money, including the cost of R&D failures, goes behind bringing such drugs to the market, solely driven by commercial considerations.

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.

 

 

Would ‘Empowered Patients’ Hold The Key For Rapid Progress of Healthcare In India?

Posted on by
Reply

Empowered patients would eventually hold the key of rapid progress of healthcare all over world. It has to happen in India too and is just a matter of time.

One such approach has recently been initiated in America. ‘The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)’, established through 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of the United States, helps its people in making informed healthcare decisions to significantly improve healthcare delivery and outcomes. Active promotion of high integrity, evidence-based information that comes from intensive research, ably guided by patients, caregivers and the broader healthcare community, forms the bedrock of this Institute.

PCORI ensures that, patients and the public at large have information that they can use to make decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes.

This initiative can be termed as one of the key steps towards ‘Patients Empowerment’ in the United States, setting a good example for many other countries to follow, across the world.

Come May 2014, the new Union Government of India, with its much touted focus on healthcare, would probably find this Act worth emulating.

Changing doctor-patient relationship:

In good old days, well before the accelerated use of Internet became a way of life for many, patients used to have hardly any access to their various health related information. As a result doctors used to be the sole decision makers to address any health related problem of patients, sitting on a pedestal, as it were.

Any patient willing to discuss and participate in the decision making process of his/her ailments with the doctors, would in all probability be frowned upon with a condescending question – “Are you a doctor?” Clearly indicating – ‘Keep off! I am the decision maker for you, when you are sick”. This situation, though changing now even in India, rather slowly though, needs a radical transformation with clearly established individual ‘patient empowerment’ mechanism in the country.

Individual ‘Patient Empowerment’:

Just as PCORI in the US, Government of India too needs to encourage individual ‘Patient Empowerment’ by making him/her understand:

  • How is the healthcare system currently working on the ground?
  • What are the key drivers and barriers in getting reasonably decent healthcare support and solution in the country?
  • What should be done individually or collectively by the patient groups to overcome the obstacles that come on the way, even in rural India?
  • How should patients participate in his/her healthcare problem solving process with the doctors and payor?

The essence of ‘Patient Empowerment’:

‘Natural Health Perspective’ highlighted ‘Patient Empowerment’ as follows:

  • Health, as an attitude, can be defined as being successful in coping with pain, sickness, and death. Successful coping always requires being in control of one’s own life.
  • Health belongs to the individual and the individuals have the prime responsibility for his/her own health.
  • The individual’s capacity for growth and self-determination is paramount.
  • Healthcare professionals cannot empower people; only people can empower themselves.

It started in America: 

Much before PCORI, the movement for ‘Patient Empowerment’ started in America in the 70’s, which asserts that for truly healthy living, one should get engaged in transforming the social situation and environment affecting his/her life, demanding a greater say in the treatment process and observing the following tenets:

  • Others cannot dictate patients’ choice and lifestyle
  • ‘Patient Empowerment’ is necessary even for preventive medicines to be effective
  • Patients, just like any other consumers, have the right to make their own choices

Thus, an ‘Empowered Patient’ should always play the role of a participating partner in the healthcare decision making or problem solving process.

‘Patient empowerment’ is a precursor to ‘Patient-Centric’ approach:

In today’s world, the distrust of patients on the healthcare system, pharmaceutical companies and even on the drug regulators, is growing all over the world. Thus, to help building mutual trust in this all important area, the situation demands encouraging ‘Empowered Patients’ to actively participate in his/her medical treatment process.

In India, as ‘out-of-pocket’ healthcare expenses are skyrocketing in the absence of a comprehensive, high quality and affordable Universal Health Coverage (UHC) system, the ‘Empowered Patients’ would increasingly demand to know more of not only the available treatment choices, but also about the medicine prescription options.

‘Patient Empowerment’ is the future of healthcare:

Even today, to generate increasing prescription demand and influence prescription decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies provide them with not just product information through their respective sales forces, but also drug samples and a variety of different kinds of gifts, besides many other prescription influencing favors. This approach is working very well, albeit more intensely, in India too.

Being caught in this quagmire, ‘Empowered Patients’ have already started demanding more from the pharma players for themselves. As a result, many global majors are now cutting down on their sales force size to try to move away from just hard selling and to gain more time from the doctors.  Some of them have started taking new innovative initiatives to open up a chain of direct web-based communication with patients to know more about the their needs in order to satisfy them better.

In future, with growing ‘Patient Empowerment’ the basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies are expected to undergo a paradigm shift. At that time, so called ‘Patient-Centric’ companies of today would have no choice but to walk the talk.

Consequently, most pharma players will have to willy-nilly switch from ‘hard-selling mode’ to a new process of achieving business excellence through continuing endeavor to satisfy both the expressed and the un-expressed or under-expressed needs of the patients, not just with innovative products, but more with innovative and caring services.

In the years ahead, increasing number of ‘Empowered Patients’ are expected to play an important role in their respective healthcare decision making process, initially in the urban India. Before this wave of change effectively hits India, the pharmaceutical players in the country should pull up their socks to be a part of this change, instead of attempting to thwart the process.

‘Empowered Patients’ can influence even the R&D process:

Reinhard Angelmar, the Salmon and Rameau Fellow in Healthcare Management and Professor of Marketing at INSEAD, was quoted saying that ‘Empowered Patients’ can make an impact even before the new drug is available to them.

He cited instances of how the empowered breast cancer patients in the US played a crucial role not only in diverting funds from the Department of Defense to breast cancer research, but also in expediting the market authorization and improving market access of various other drugs.

Angelmar stated that ‘Empowered Patients’ of the UK were instrumental in getting NICE, their watchdog for cost-effectiveness of medicines, to change its position on the Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) drug Lucentis of Novartis and approve it for wider use than originally contemplated by them.

Patient groups such as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) reportedly fund directly to develop novel therapies that benefit patients in partnership with industry.

Meeting with the challenge of change:

To effectively respond to the challenge posed by the ‘Empowered Patients’, some pharmaceutical companies, especially in the US, have started developing more direct relationship with them. Creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks may help addressing this issue properly.

Towards this direction, some companies, such as, Novo Nordisk had developed a vibrant patient community named ‘Juvenation’, which is a peer-to-peer social group of individuals suffering from Type 1 diabetes. The company launched this program in November 2008 and now the community has much over 16,000 members, as available in its ‘Facebook’ page.

Another example, Becton, Dickinson and Co. had created a web-based patient-engagement initiative called “Diabetes Learning Center” for the patients, not just to describe the causes of diabetes, but also to explain its symptoms and complications. From the website a patient can also learn how to inject insulin, along with detailed information about blood-glucose monitoring. They can even participate in interactive quizzes, download educational literature and learn through animated demonstrations about diabetes-care skills.

Many more Pharmaceutical Companies, such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and Merck are now directly engaging with the customers through social media like Twitter, Facebook etc.

Technology is helping ‘Patient Empowerment’:

Today, Internet and various computer/ iPad and smart phone based applications have become great enablers for the patients to learn and obtain more information about their health, illnesses, symptoms, various diagnostic test results, including progress in various clinical trials, besides product pricing.

In some countries, patients also participate in the performance reviews of doctors and hospitals.

Conclusion:

Increasing general awareness and rapid access to information on diseases, products and the cost-effective treatment processes through Internet, in addition to fast communication within the patients/groups through social media like, ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ by more and more patients, I reckon, are expected to show the results of ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiatives, sooner than later, even in India.

Accelerated ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiatives with modern technological support, would help the patient groups to have a firm grip on the control lever of setting truly patient centric direction for the healthcare industry.

Working in unison by all stakeholders towards this direction, would herald the dawn of a new kind of laissez-faire in the healthcare space of India, the sole beneficiary of which would be the mankind at large.

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 by
Reply

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

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.

 

 

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models

Posted on by
Reply

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, the key factor of significantly high ‘Out of Pocket (OOP)’ expenditure on healthcare in India is that people are pushed into seeking costlier private care services due to imbalanced infrastructure of healthcare workers, medicines and facilities.

Currently, 74 percent of patients in ‘Out-Patient (OP)’ care and 65 percent in ‘in-Patient (IP)’ care seek healthcare in the private channels. In private inpatient care, the average cost of treatment exceeds the average monthly household income at 121 percent for the affording population and 217 percent for the poor population, forcing many families to borrow money or sell assets.

Thus, the affordability challenges for healthcare of the country, as manifested by high OOP spend, is mostly a consequence of a large patient population using the private healthcare channel due to still inadequate availability of public healthcare services.

The situation is looking up:

According to IMS study 2012, currently, on an average about 54 percent of the patients are receiving free medicines from the Government hospitals. In progressive states like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka this number goes up to 85 percent. At the same time, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for OP care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

Consequently, this increase will also have significant impact in reducing OOP healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Medicines constitute highest component of OOP:

Medicines still constitute the highest component of OOP expenses in OP care, though its percentage share has decreased from 71 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012.  Similarly for IP care, the share of medicines in total OOP has also decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, still 46 percent of the patients seeking healthcare in public channels had to purchase medicines from private channels. Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation and distribution of those drugs free of cost from Government hospitals and health centers, could address this issue effectively.

Further scope to reduce OOP:

The study highlights that OOP spend could be lowered by 22 percent with:

  • Improved availability of healthcare facilities at public hospitals and health centers, which can be achieved through effective implementation of “National Health Mission” with higher budgetary allocation.
  • Improved availability of medicine at the public channels, which is feasible through effective implementation of already announced “Free Medicine” scheme of the Government across the country.

A total reduction of ~40% in overall OOP spend appears to be possible, the study reiterates, when more people would get confidence that public healthcare can meet all their needs.

The roadmap to achieve the goal:

Fundamentally there are five ways to deal with the affordability issue:

1. Reduction in demand: Creating a better health environment,

2. Reduction in costs: Through price control, increased competition, group purchasing power

3. Increase in financial support from government

4. Increased penetration of health insurance programs

5. Increase per-capita income of households

All these five areas, I reckon, would not be difficult to address through well-structured and strategic Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

It is increasingly recognized that there are many other healthcare challenges, which do not fall exclusively under either the public or the private sectors. These challenges need to be addressed with combined efforts… with well structured Public Private Partnership (PPP) models.

Private sector should play its role:

The private sector is already a major provider of health services in India. Hence, it has the wherewithal to support implementation of Government’s flagship healthcare programs, especially in the area of service delivery, to enhance their overall effectiveness.

As the Universal Health Care (UHC) proposal made by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) to the Planning Commission of India highlighted, the government would provide the budget, while the private sector would take the responsibility for delivery of healthcare services.

Accountability for PPP should not fall through the systemic cracks:

The above study indicates, the private parties could include individual physicians, commercial contractors, large private and corporate super-specialty hospitals, not-for-profit agencies (NGOs), pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers. Expertise of all these stakeholders should be appropriately leveraged.

It is absolutely essential to make sure that the accountability of the PPP initiatives does not fall through the cracks now existing in the system.

To control costs and ensure required standards are met, all contractual agreements for PPPs, as recommended, must have adequate built-in monitoring and supervision mechanisms of the highest order, assigning clear roles and responsibilities for each party.

Similarly, NGOs need to be given a larger role of monitoring the activities or services rendered at such facilities to make sure the designated institutions are fulfilling their obligations to the public.

Conclusion:

To make healthcare affordable in India, well-strategized PPP initiatives would have critical roles to play.

Thus, instead of resorting to blame games with Government accusing the private sector to be exploitative and the private sector continuously moaning for ‘unfriendly’ business policies of the government, there is a fundamental need for both the constituents working closely together.

As a result, patients will have greater access to quality healthcare at an affordable price, the industry will grow faster in a sustainable way and the government will have its public healthcare obligations fulfilled to a reasonable extent.

Some of the major sectors in India where PPP has been quite successful are infrastructure, telecom, irrigation, power and airports. So, why should it not work for the healthcare sector of the country, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

He further added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inaction on CT related deaths:

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

An independent investigation:

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

Stringent regulatory action followed:

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

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

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

Consequent industry uproar and recent Government response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ Seriously Questioned

Posted on by
Reply

The news struck as an anticlimax, close on the heels of high decibel product launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ in India, being hyped as the first in the world, bringing much needed relief to many diagnosed breast cancer patients for their economical pricing.

At the same time, this legal challenge has now come as an acid test for the regulator to prove that ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’ for any new drug approval and especially if it is a complex biosimilar used for the treatment of patients suffering from dreaded diseases, such as, breast cancer.

It’s not patent this time:

Interestingly, this is not a patent infringement case, as Roche has reportedly given-up its patent on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in India last year.

Alleged violations: 

The above media report highlights, in Delhi High Court Roche has sued Biocon of India and its US based generic partner – Mylan along with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) related to launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilar’ versions in India.

The allegation against Biocon and Mylan is that their recently launched drugs are being misrepresented as ‘biosimilar Trastuzumab’ or ‘biosimilar version of Herceptin’ without following the due process in accordance with the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics‘, necessary for getting approvals of such drugs in India.

‘Caesar’s wife’ under suspicion too:

The DCGI has also been sued by Roche for giving permission for launch of this product allegedly not in conformance with the above biosimilar guidelines, which were put in place effective August 15, 2012.

Roche reportedly argued that the above guidelines on similar biologics laid down a detailed and structured process for comparison of biosimilar with the original product and all the applications for manufacturing and marketing authorization of biosimilars are necessarily required to follow that prescribed pathway before obtaining marketing approval from the DCGI. Roche has also stated that there is no public record available, in the clinical trial registry India (CTRI) or elsewhere to show that these two players actually conducted phase-I or II clinical trials for the drug.

According to report Roche claims that DCGI has approved the “protocol and design study for testing” of Biocon related to the proposed drug just before the above regulatory guidelines were made effective, predominantly for patients’ health and safety reasons.

Interim restrain of the Delhi High Court:

In response to Roche’s appeal, the Delhi High Court has reportedly restrained Mylan and Biocon from “relying upon” or “referring to Herceptin” or any data relating to it for selling or promoting their respective brands Canmab (Biocon) and Hertaz (Mylan) till the next hearing.

The relevance of ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’:

The ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ clearly articulated:

“Since there are several biosimilar drugs under development in India, it is of critical importance to publish a clear regulatory pathway outlining the requirements to ensure comparable safety, efficacy and quality of a similar biologic to an authorized reference biologic.”

Thus for patients’ health and safety interest the above regulatory pathway must be followed, the way these have been prescribed without any scope of cutting corners. This is even more important when so important pharmacovigilance system is almost non-functional in India.

Attempts to dilute the above guidelines from some quarters:

It was earlier reported that strong representations were made to the drug regulator in writing by powerful domestic players in this area urging to dilute the above ‘Guidelines’, otherwise it will be difficult for them to compete with the pharma MNCs.

This argument is ridiculous by any standard and smacks of putting commercial considerations above patients’ health interest.

The key issue:

As I see it, four quick questions that float at the top of my mind are as follows:

  • If the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ have not been followed either by the applicants or by the DCGI, how would one establish beyond an iota of doubt that these drugs are biosimilar to Trastuzumab, if not ‘Biosimilar to Herceptin’?
  • If these drugs are not proven biosimilar to Trastuzumab, as specified in the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’, how can one use Trastuzumab data for their marketing approvals and the DCGI granting the same?
  • If these drugs were not biosimilars to Trastuzumab, would these be as effective, reliable and safe as Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer?
  • Further, how are references related to Herceptin being used to promote these drugs both pre and post market launch?

Conclusion:

I guess, predominantly commercial considerations prompted Roche to sue Biocon, Mylan and also the DCGI on ‘Trastuzumab biosimilars’, launched recently in India.

Be that as it may, for the interest of so many diagnosed breast cancer patients in the country, there is crying need for the facts to come out in the open, once and for all. Are these drugs truly Trastuzumab biosimilars with comparable safety, efficacy, quality and reliability of Herceptin?

If the answer comes as yes, there would be a huge sigh of relief from all corners inviting millions of kudos to Biocon and Mylan.

However, if by any chance, the allegations are proved right, I do not have an iota of doubt that the honorable Delhi High Court would ferret out the truth, unmask the perpetrators and give them exemplary punishments for playing with patients’ lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

“Big Pharma’s Satanic Plot is Genocide”: South Africa Roars

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent interview, the Health Minister of South Africa (SA) Mr. Aaron Motsoaledi reportedly made the above comment.

The background:

As reported in the interview and also indicated in an article in this blog, the Trade and Industry Department of SA, on September 4, 2013, published a long-awaited draft national policy on Intellectual Property (IP) in the Government Gazette. In that draft policy, the department recommended, besides others, the following:

  • Provision should be made for the Compulsory Licensing (CL) of crucial drugs.
  • Provision should be made for the parallel importation of drugs.
  • Grant of drug patents should ensure that the drug is new or innovative.
  • “Patent flexibility” for medicine should be made a matter of law.
  • The holders of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as drug companies, should be encouraged to protect their own rights rather than depending on state institutions, such as the police or customs.
  • SA should seek to influence the region, and the world, to move towards its vision of Intellectual Property (IP) protection.

The draft does not have the status of a policy, as yet, and was open for public comment.

Pharma MNC moved surreptitiously: 

Pharma MNCs having local operations being flabbergasted by this development, almost immediately, started working on a plan to change the direction of the policy radically, the report states. Instead of optimal protection for drug patents, they planned to seek stronger protection. 

Having finalized the counter strategy this month, the local MNC pharma association, ‘Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (Ipasa)’, reportedly selected a Washington DC-based lobbying firm ‘Public Affairs Engagement (PAE)’, headed by a former US ambassador – Mr. James Glassman, to lead the charge against the policy. PAE, by now, has put forward a proposal on how it would effect radical changes to the policy, the report stated.

The same article mentions, PAE intends to launch a persuasive campaign throughout Africa and in Europe with an aim to convince the South African Government to further strengthen, rather than weaken, patent protection for drugs. The grand plan of PAE contains elements, which could seriously bother many right thinking individuals, as it includes:

  • Setting up a “coalition” with an innocuous name such as “Forward South Africa (FSA)”, which will be directed from Washington DC, while appearing to be locally run in SA.
  • Encouraging other African countries, especially Rwanda and Tanzania, to help convincing SA that it could lose its leadership role in the continent, if it decides to push ahead with the draft policy.
  • Distracting NGOs from their own lobbying by changing the nature of the debate.
  • Commissioning seemingly “independent” research and opinion pieces for broad public dissemination – but vetting all such material before publication to ensure those fit the messages. 

Creation of surrogate public faces:

It is worth noting from the report that the so called coalition ‘FSA’, the proposed public face of the campaign, would be “led by a visible South African, most likely a respected former government official, business leader or academic”. However, at the same time, it would be “directed by staff from PAE and its South African partner”.

Majority funding by an American association in SA:

The report also highlights, nothing in the document suggests that the funding for FSA – estimated at  mind-boggling numbers of U$ 100,000 from IPASA and another US$ 450,000 from an ‘American Association’ of pharmaceutical companies – would be disclosed.

The report concluded by quoting the American lobbyists hired to launch a counter campaign, which states, “Without a vigorous campaign, opponents of strong IP will prevail, not just in South Africa, but eventually in much of the rest of the developing world.”

This is not a solitary example:

The Guardian reported another such incident 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 to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database for patients’ interest.

While some pharma players agreed to share the CT data as required, important global 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), have drawn out a strategy to combat this move.

The strategy reportedly demonstrates, as the article highlights, how have the Big Pharma associations drawn the patient groups, many of which receive funding from drugs companies, into this battle.

Conclusion: 

As I had articulated several times in the past, newer innovative drugs are extremely important in the fight against diseases and this flow must continue, actively supported by a well-balanced Patents Act of the country, as India has already implemented.

That said, the moot question continues to remain, who are these innovations and innovative medicines for? Are these to save precious lives of only a small minority of affluent nations, their populations and other wealthy people elsewhere, depriving a vast majority, across the world, of the fruits of innovation? Would repeated harping on the much hyped phrase, “meeting unmet needs of patients”, negate such gross indifference?

If that is the case, it becomes the responsibility of a Government, keeping the civil society on board, to formulate effective remedial legal measures. The draft national policy on ‘Intellectual Property’ of SA is one such initiative that needs to be applauded.

Surreptitious reported attempts of pharma MNCs, repeatedly, through their respective associations, backed by bagful of ‘resources’ of all kinds to thwart such patient centric moves of Governments, should be deplored with contempt that they deserve.

As Indian scenario is no different, it would perhaps be good to fathom, whether similar surreptitious and high resource-intensives moves are in progress in this country as well.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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.