Tag Archives: implementation

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.  

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc  while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible. 

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.  

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

  • Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.
  • Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’  The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’.  It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

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.

 

Why D&I Is A Powerful Growth Driver For Pharma Industry

Posted on by
Reply

‘Diverse India’ now needs an ‘inclusive society’, vowed the Prime Minister of India, after his massive electoral win on May 23, 2019. Many may consider a part of it as rhetoric, notwithstanding, as and when the government policy of Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) gathers wind on its sail, the realization of its importance would reverberate – even in the corporate world, including the pharma industry, especially in India.

I discussed this subject in my article of June 25, 2018 ,in the context of transforminga pharma company to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization, with implementation D&I within the organization. However, in this article, I shall deliberate, over and above, the current status of D&I in the pharma industry, why most drug companies are still not leveraging it as one of the powerful business growth drivers. While opening this discussion, let me recapitulate what these two words mean to us, and their importance in the drug industry.

Recapitulating D&I:

As there are several, but similar definitions of D&I, I am quoting below just one – from the Ferris State University. It goes, as follows:

  • “Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical value system, national origin, and political beliefs.”
  • “Inclusion is involvement and empowerment, where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.”

The relevance and importance of D&I as a corporate growth policy for the drug industry is immense. It will not just, help them recognize and create business policies, based on diversity in people – a wide range of human differences in their consumers or potential consumers. In tandem, it will also help promote, and sustain a sense of belongingness with the society and communities where it operates – their values, beliefs, expectations and desire for a healthy living.

D&I begins within the company, and for the customers:

There are clear indications that many pharma companies are slowly, but surely realizing that for a consistent and sustainable financial performance the whole approach to business needs to undergo a metamorphosis. One such area of transformation, is a sharp focus on effectively satisfying a set of well-defined expectations of both their external and internal customers.

This journey begins with the creation of a Diverse and Inclusive (D&I) workplace. Nevertheless, the key goal remains – meeting expectations of the society where the drug companies operate, including a diverse set of customers – by saving and improving their quality of life, with affordable and accessible medicines.

While talking about diversity to Business Insider on January 10, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley also reiterated, for a future facing employer in an industry, D&I should be a priority corporate strategy – for aggressively modernizing the business.

D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry’:

This has been well-articulated even in the Workforce – a multimedia publication, where it says: D&I ‘may be most important in the health care industry, where the workforce needs to be both business savvy and socially empathetic to serve their increasingly diverse communities.’

Quoting another CEO, a different article titled, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the pharma industry’, published in PMLiVE on June 27, 2018, emphasized: ‘The global Biopharma industry is one of the most powerful and important industries today, directly affecting the lives of billions of people around the world on a daily basis. In order to understand and meet the critical unmet medical needs of patients, the industry must represent the population it serves.’

D&I is a growth driver for an organization:

“Many successful companies regard D&I as a source of competitive advantage. For some, it’s a matter of social justice, corporate social responsibility, or even regulatory compliance. For others, it’s essential to their growth strategy.” This was highlighted in the January 2018 research paper of McKinsey titled, ‘Delivering through Diversity.’

The article further elaborates: ‘D&I is a powerful growth strategy for an organization because it creates ‘a diverse and inclusive employee base – with a range of approaches and perspectives – would be more competitive in a globalized economy.’

Importantly, this research established a statistically significant correlation between greater levels of diversity and inclusion in company leadership and a greater likelihood of outperforming the relevant industry peer group on a key financial performance measure – profitability.

Some drug companies are moving in this direction:

That some drug companies are gearing up to adopt this growth strategy, but still there is a lot of ground to cover in this area, gets reflected in the December 2018 ‘Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarking Survey’ of PwC. The survey included 183 corporate respondents from 5 regions and 15 countries. As many healthcare organizations have publicly declared their commitment to D&I, the study wanted to measure how they have translated strategy into execution and what impact it is leaving on the employee experience. The following are some of the key findings

  • While D&I is a stated value or priority area for 68 percent of organizations, only 51 percent of respondents disagree that diversity is a barrier to progression at their respective companies. Thus, ‘Diversity still remains a barrier to progression.’
  • Only 4 percent of healthcare organization’s D&I programs reach the highest level of maturity.
  • D&I program goals are quite varied. For about 38 percent it’s a way to attract and retain talent – 25 percent – a way to comply with legal requirements – 17 percent to achieve business results – 13 percent to enhance the external reputation and 8 percent to respond to customer expectations.
  • Interestingly, in 39 percent of cases there was no D&I program-leader in place, 32 percent cases the person reports to senior executives, 19 percent of cases the responsibility was assigned to staff with non-D&I responsibilities and only in 10 percent of cases – the leader is a peer to C-suite.
  • Only 29 percent leaders are tasked with specific D&I goals.

These may not be the points to cheer about – not yet, nonetheless, the survey findings send a clear signal about the beginning of D&I in the pharma industry.

Two facets of D&I for a pharma company:

As I said before, D&I is more important in the health care space, especially for drug companies, where the employees across the organization not just be business savvy with patient orientation, but also be inclusive and socially compassionate to benefit the diverse communities.Thus, there are two clear facets, I reckon, around which organizational D&I policies, especially for pharma players, should be formulated, as follows:

  • For employees within the organization.
  • For stakeholders outside the organization – putting patients at the core of the business strategy.

The above PwC survey is on the first one – D&I for employees within the organization. However, a holistic D&I policy requires dovetailing business savviness with a socially empathetic mindset to serve increasingly diverse communities, is even more challenging.

More challenging is dovetailing business savviness with social empathy: 

To serve increasingly diverse communities, dovetailing business savviness with socially empathetic mindset, appears to be more challenging for the pharma industry, in general. Its manifestations are varied, such as, dented image or its declining reputation – leading to trust deficit with many stakeholders, including patients. Likewise, one of primary causative factors that give rise to such manifestations is considered to be in the drug pricing area.

The current scenario in this area has been captured in a paper titled, ‘Curbing Unfair Drug Prices’, published by The Yale Global Health Justice Partnership (GHJP), Yale Law School, Yale School of Public Health, National Physicians Alliance and Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut. The article unambiguously states, the high cost of prescription drugs is unsustainable, wherever it is. Spending on prescription drugs is increasing, either for different payers, or directly to patients through ‘out of pocket’ expenditure – at a faster pace than any other component of health care spending. Consequently, it is forcing many patients to skip doses of critical medicines, and several others to choose between their health and necessities, like food and rent.

The paper adds: “Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry continues to launch new drugs at exorbitant prices, increase prices of many old drugs without justification, and reap record profits. Evidence has unequivocally shown that high drug prices are not linked to the actual costs of research, development and manufacturing. Instead, inflated drug prices are a result of drug manufacturers’ power to charge whatever price the market will bear. The need for legislative action is urgent.”

One of the most recent examples of such jaw-dropping drug price was reported by Reuters, along with many others, on May 25, 2019 as: “Swiss drug maker Novartis on Friday won U.S. approval for its gene therapy Zolgensma for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), the leading genetic cause of death in infants and priced the one-time treatment at a record $2.125 million.”

That said, achieving this facet of D&I, is not just desirable, but also necessary to gain a sharp and well-differentiated competitive edge in sustainable financial performance. It is noteworthy that to be successful in this area, one of the key requirements is to assign specific accountability for D&I to that individual, where the bucks stop.

Assigning specific accountability for D&I implementation:

Yet another article titled, ‘Diversity and Inclusion: A Pharma 50 Perspective’, published in PharmExec on June 23, 2016, asserted that there is little point in tackling diversity without solving for inclusion.

It underlined: ‘Whereas diversity is the hardware bringing different machines together, inclusion is the software that brings the system to life.’ The authors suggested, as many others would: ‘Hiring a chief diversity officer can help, accelerating the process at the highest levels.’

Conclusion:

The good news is, the above McKinsey research study also found: ‘Corporate leaders increasingly accept the business imperative for D&I, and most wonder how to make it work for their firms and support their growth and value creation goals.’ The article reiterated the correlation between D&I and company financial performance. Thus, to effectively leverage this factor, developing a robust corporate D&I strategy aimed at both – the employees and the society, at large, appears to be the right choice.

From this perspective, a diverse and inclusive pool of employees, with varied range of approaches and perspectives are expected to meet both business expectations and the health needs of the society with more innovative ideas. Consequently, this deserves to be an organizational growth strategy, having a sharp competitive edge. It is mainly because, the initiative will uncover newer and unconventional pathways for providing greater access to affordable medicines, to save and improve the quality of many more lives. As the process rolls-out, it will keep gathering critical momentum, with support from all around and, more importantly, the enormous goodwill that the D&I strategy will attract from public, in general.

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.

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

The last Drug Policy of India was announced in 2002, which was subsequently challenged by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of the Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain in operation, pending formulation of a new drug policy as directed by the honorable court.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the New National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as the new policy would require to pass the judicial scrutiny.

In this article, I shall try to explore whether the new DPCO 2013 is directionally right in improving access to medicines for a vast majority of population in the country .

An overview:

As stated above, the new DPCO 2013 has just been notified after an agonizing wait of about 18 years, bringing all 652 formulations under 27 therapeutic segments of the National List of Essential Medicines under price control.

As prescribed in the Drug Policy 2012, in the new DPCO the cost based pricing mechanism has been replaced with a market-based one, where simple average price of all brands with a market share above 1% in their respective segments will be considered.

Only decrease in price and no immediate increase:

Companies selling medicines above the new Ceiling Prices (CP), as will be notified by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) soon, would have to slash prices to conform to the new CP level. However, those selling these scheduled drugs below the ceiling price will not be allowed to raise prices, resulting in significant price reduction of most essential drugs with price increases in none. Prices of all these formulations will be frozen for a year. Although a silver lining is that manufacturers will be permitted an annual increase in the CPs in line with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).

The span:

The span of DPCO 2013 will cover approximately 18% of US$ 13.6 billion domestic pharmaceutical market. However, the total coverage will increase to around 30%, for a year, after coupling it with existing price controlled medicines, as these will continue with the current prices for a year.

No change in retail margin:

DPCO 2013 continues with the provision of DPCO 1995, fixing margin for the Retailers at 16% of Ceiling Price, excluding Taxes.

Benefit to consumers:

Indian consumers will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiaries of the new DPCO, as ceiling prices will now be based on roughly 91% of the pharmaceutical market by value, resulting upto 20% price reduction in 60% of the NLEM medicines. The prices of some drugs will fall by even upto 70%.

Overall impact:

In the short-term, Indian pharma market may shrink by around 2.3 per cent on implementation of the new policy, according to an analysis by market research firm AIOCD AWACS. The impact could be more pronounced for multinationals, given their premium pricing strategy for key brands. For the patients, anti-infective, cardio-vascular, gastro-intestinal, dermatology and painkillers would witness relatively steeper drop in prices.

However, despite initial adverse impact, higher volume growth over the next few years may help the pharmaceutical companies to recover and pick-up the growth momentum.

More transparent and less discretionary:

Moreover, the industry reportedly feels that the shift in the methodology of price control from virtually opaque and highly discretionary cost based system to relatively more transparent market based one, is directionally right and more prudent. They point out, even WHO in its feedback to the Department of Pharmaceuticals welcomed the intent to move away from cost-based pricing as it has been abandoned elsewhere.

The drafting of DPCO 2013 also appears to have reduced the discretionary criteria for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to bare minimum.

Check on any essential drug going out of market:

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.” 

Patented Products:

DPCO 2013 does not include pricing of patented products, as the Department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) has already circulated the report of an internal committee, specially constituted to address this issue, for stakeholders’ comments.

Encourages innovation:

The new DPCO encourages innovation and pharmaceutical R&D offering significant pricing freedom. It states all locally developed new drugs, new drug delivery systems and new manufacturing processes will remain exempted from any price control for a five-year period.

Implementation:

Interestingly, the changes in prices will be effective after 45 days (15 days in the earlier DPCO 1995) from the date of  respective CP notifications. This increased number of days is expected to allow the trade to liquidate stocks with existing prices.

However, the industry feels that its hundred percent implementation at the retail level, even within extended 45 days, for previously sold residual stocks lying in remote locations, could pose a practical problem.

The Government reportedly answers to this apprehension by saying, the provisions and wordings for implementation of new CPs in DPCO 2013 are exactly the same as DPCO 1995. Only change is that the time limit for implementation has been extended from 15 days to 45 days in favor of the industry. Hence, those who implemented DPCO 1995, on the contrary, should find effecting DPCO 2013 changes in the CPs much easier.

Opposite views:

  • 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.
  • A large section in the industry reportedly does not co-operate with the NPPA in providing details, as required by them, to make the cost based system more transparent.
  • Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data, which will form the basis of CP calculations.

Key challenges:

I reckon, there will be some key challenges in the implementation of DPCO 2013. These are as follows:

  • Accuracy of the outsourced market data based on which Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the NPPA.
  • In case of any gross mistakes, the disputes may get dragged into protracted litigation.
  • Outsourced data will 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?
  • The final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the Public Interest Litigation (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 the NPPP  2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one.

Conclusion:

Thus, DPCO 2013 should achieve the objectives of the Government in ensuring essential medicines are available to those who need them most by managing prices in the retail market and balancing industry growth on a longer term perspective. Interestingly, it also encourages indigenous innovation and R&D.

Thus, DPCO 2013, at long last, seems to be a well balanced one.

That said, making drug prices affordable to majority of population in the country is one of most important variables to improve access to medicines. This is an universally accepted fact today, though not an end by itself.

It is worth noting, price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut-throat market competition. Unfortunately, this solitary measure is not good enough to improve desirable access to modern medicines for the common man due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion and gusto as price control.

Therefore, industry questions, why despite so many DPCOs and rigorous price control over the last four decades, 47% of hospitalization in rural area and 31% of the same in urban areas are still financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals?

Others reply with equal zest by saying, the situation could have been even worse without price control of medicines.

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.

 

 

 

Robust implementation of Biosimilar Guidelines could help India earn leadership status in ‘Biosimilar World’

Posted on by
Reply

Across the world, biologic drugs, in general, have a successful record in treating many life threatening and other complicated ailments. Expiration of product patents of the first major group of originators’ biologic molecules has led to the development of products that are designed to be ‘similar’ to the originators’ products, as it is virtually impossible to replicate any protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs.

These are known as ‘Follow-on Biologics’ or more commonly ‘Biosimilar Drugs’, which rely in part, on prior information obtained from the innovators’ products and demonstration of similarity with the originator’s molecule based on detailed and comprehensive product characterization, for their marketing approval.

The bedrock: 

India seems to have a good potential to become one of the key players in the development and manufacture of biosimilar drugs, not only to serve the needs of the local population, but also for exports to large developed and other developing markets. However, for this dream to materialize science-driven ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ are absolutely necessary and should form the bedrock in the development process of all such drugs.

Paving the way: 

These guidelines will provide a regulatory framework or pathway to ensure that biosimilar Drugs approved in India are of good quality and demonstrably similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to the original reference products.

Paving the way for such regulatory framework in the country with comprehensive sets of guidelines is of utmost importance, especially in the light of prevailing sub-optimal pharmacovigilance system in India.

Setting ground rules: 

Considerable developments have occurred across the globe in the scientific and regulatory understanding of biosimilar drugs. Nearly all developed nations and many developing countries have now defined or in the process of defining appropriate regulatory framework for the same.

However, due to lack of such guidelines in India, until recently, there have been instances of so called ‘biosimilar drugs’ being approved for marketing, reportedly with sub-optimal testing and dossiers, thereby putting into question the product quality, comparability and patient safety.

With the above backdrop, the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare and the Science and Technology have now set the ground rules and released India’s first “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India”. These Guidelines are already in place effective September 15, 2012.

A step in the right direction: 

Long awaited new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ of India, demonstrating an overall similarity in the philosophy and approach with the those in the U.S and Europe, though a belated move by the Government, but certainly a step in the right direction.

The global potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, biosimilar drugs are considered to be a threat to fast growing high value innovative global biotech industry.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to effectively address the global concern for cheaper and more affordable biologic medicines for patients across the world. To achieve this objective, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Biosimilar drugs will, therefore, have immense global potential to improve access to life saving biologic medicines for the ailing population across the continents.

First ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US: 

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

Having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Despite this event, very few people at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world.

Global initiatives:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are the examples of some relatively recent biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, as we move on. 

In India: 

  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • Reliance Life Science is also a potential player in the biosimilar market, though it has reportedly faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its version of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now.

Many other developments are also taking place in tandem in the space of biosimilar drugs, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, as mentioned above, India has already started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

The global market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for biosimilars drugs is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of biosimilar drugs will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent. 

Major Indian players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the western world is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of biosimilar drugs like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-alpha, which are not only being marketed in India, but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the global biosimilar drugs market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations. 

The domestic market:

According to IMS Health March 2012, the biosimilar drugs market in India is around US$ 700 million with the main categories being as follows:

Therapy Area US $ Million
Insulin 250
Hepatitis-B Vaccine 200
Heparin 70
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 50

Moreover, as per available reports, till March 2012 about 91 clinical trials have been lined-up in India for 20 recombinant therapeutics, as approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.

Brand proliferation offering wider choices: 

Currently there has been huge brand proliferation for biosimilar products in India with around 250 brands in 20 therapeutic areas. Some examples are as follows:

Therapy Area No. of Brands
Insulin 40
Erythropoietin 55
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 48
Streptokinase 33
Interferon 10
Heparin 10

Increasing demand:

The demand of such drugs even in India is increasing at a rapid pace. The focus of the government on various immunization programs is also getting sharper simultaneously. For example, during 2011-12, the government spent around US$ 115 million for routine immunization covering reportedly about 25 million pregnant women and children and nearly US$ 140 million towards pulse polio vaccination initiatives. This trend, though may not still be enough for the size and scale of a country like India, but praiseworthy nonetheless.

The focus on Oncology: 

Within bio-pharmaceuticals many companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest emerging segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion in 2010 growing over 17%.

As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world every year only due to cancer. May be for this reason, the research pipeline for NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend being on this particular disease area.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products: 

Current size of the Indian oncology market is reportedly around US$ 75 million.

Biocon has launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumors with intent to introduce this product in the western markets as soon as they can get necessary regulatory approvals. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like, Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Government support: 

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for biosimilar drugs through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same.

Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$ 200 million annually towards biotechnology related projects. 

Areas of concern:

According to a research report from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new biosimilar drugs, especially from India, will be how quickly the specialists accept them.

The report also noted a high level of concerns, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications. To allay this concern robust implementation of the recent biosimilar guidelines in India will play a very critical role.

Conclusion: 

As the R&D based global innovator companies are expanding into the biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to invest on biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this area. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the oncology therapy area, as it has now emerged as the fastest growing segment in the global pharmaceutical industry.

With around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent national and international regulatory standards, the domestic biosimilar players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for biosimilar drugs.

Experience in conformance to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside U.S, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India.

Having progressed thus far, with adequate additional investments for similar biologics and ensuring robust implementation of new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’, India has the potential to earn the leadership status even in the global biosimilar segment, just as it did in the generic pharmaceutical space of the world.

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.

Quick implementation of the undiluted ‘Central Drug Authority (CDA)’ Bill is essential for emerging India

Posted on by
Reply

Many industry experts after having evaluated the provisions of the original draft proposal for forming a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) in the country, commended and supported this laudable initiative of the Government. This Bill also known as, “The Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill No.LVII of 2007 to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940” was introduced in the ‘Rajya Sabha’ on August 21 2007 and was thereafter referred to ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Health and Family Welfare’ for review. The Committee also has submitted its recommendations to the Government since quite some time. However, the fact still remains that the proposed CDA Bill has not seen the light of the day, as yet.
Mashelkar Committee Recommendation:
It is high time to consider the recommendations of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in Act to facilitate creation of a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) and introduce centralized licensing for manufacturing for sale, export and distribution of drugs.
Seven reasons for the dire need of the CDA in India:
I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following benefits to the Industry and also the Government:
1. Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
2. Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
3. Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
4. Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
5. Implementing uniform enforcement action for banned and irrational drugs
6. Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
7. Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.
Major countries have similar set up even within a federal system:
All major countries of the world have a strong federal drug control and administration system in place for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Like for example, despite strongly independent states within the federal structure of the U.S., the US – FDA is a unified and fully empowered federal government entity.
Similarly, coming together of many independent countries in Europe had led to the need for a pan-European drug control agency. This responsibility was vested on to the ‘European Medicine Agency (EMEA)’ with overriding pan-European authority and powers within the European Union (EU).
Thus, a single Central Authority that administers and regulates both pharmaceutical manufacturing and research is an absolute necessity in India’s bid to be a global hub for drug discovery.
The interim measure:
In my view, till CDA is formed, registration and marketing authorization for all new drugs and fixed-dose combinations should only be granted by Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). I would emphasize, it is essential that a smooth transition takes place from the existing regulatory environment to the proposed CDA, carefully tightening all the loose knots in the process. All necessary infrastructures along with the required personnel must be in place, so that all permissions are granted to applicants within stipulated timeframe.
The watershed regulatory reform initiative should not get diluted:
The CDA Bill is widely considered as a watershed regulatory reform initiative in the pharmaceuticals space of India. This reform process, besides offering all other benefits as discussed above, would also be able  to update the legislation, considering significant advances the country has made since the last five decades, especially in the areas of clinical research, treatment methods, and sophisticated diagnostic and medical devices.
Conclusion:
It now appears, the Government could revive the CDA Bill and reintroduce it in the Parliament, sooner. It was to be introduced in its monsoon session. However, the plan did not fructify, as the Parliament could not function due to a logjam created by our politicians.
It is worth noting that the proposed centralize drug licensing mechanism was vehemently opposed by the state drug authorities and some section of the industry. The stated position of the opponents to the CDA Bill apprehends that the centralized structure will not be able to deliver, as the requisite infrastructure and manpower for the same are not in place, as yet.
This development bring out to the fore the lurking fear that the proposal to centralize drug licensing as a part of the proposed law, very unfortunately, may eventually get quite diluted because of vested interests.

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.

Quick implementation of the UNDILUTED ‘Central Drug Authority (CDA)’ Bill is essential for emerging India

Posted on by
Reply

Many industry experts after having carefully evaluated the provisions of the original draft of the proposal of forming a CDA in the country commended and supported this praiseworthy initiative of the Government. This Bill also known as, “The Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill No.LVII of 2007 to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940” was introduced in the ‘Rajya Sabha’ on August 21 2007 and was thereafter referred to ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Health and Family Welfare’ for review. The Committee also has submitted its recommendations to the Government since quite some time. However, the fact still remains that the proposed CDA Bill has not seen the light of the day, as yet.

Mashelkar Committee Recommendation:

It is high time to consider the recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in the Act to facilitate the creation of a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) and introduce centralized licensing for the manufacture for sale, export or distribution of drugs.

Seven reasons for the dire need of the CDA in India:

I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following seven significant benefits to the Industry and also to the Government:

 1.    Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs &  Cosmetics Act & Rules

 2.    Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country

3.    Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs

4.    Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India

 5.    Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs

 6.    Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration

7.    Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

Major countries have similar set up even within a federal system:

All major countries of the world have a strong federal drug control and administration system in place for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Like for example, despite strongly independent states within the federal structure of the U.S., the US – FDA is a unified and fully empowered federal government entity. 

Similarly, the coming together of many independent countries in Europe has led to the need for a pan-European drug control agency and that responsibility has been vested on the ‘European Medicine Agency (EMEA)’ which has overriding pan-European powers, that is within the European Union (EU).

Thus, a single Central Authority that administers and regulates both pharmaceutical manufacturing and pharmaceutical research is an absolute necessity in India’s bid to be a global hub for drug discovery.

The interim measure:

In my view, till CDA is formed, registration and marketing authorization for all new drugs and fixed-dose combinations should only be granted by Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI).  I would like to emphasize, it is essential that there a smooth transition takes place from the existing regulatory environment to the proposed CDA, carefully tightening all the loose knots in the process. All necessary infrastructures along with the required personnel must be in place so that all permissions are granted to applicants within stipulated time frame.

The watershed regulatory reform initiative should not go waste:

Thus the CDA Bill is considered to be a watershed regulatory reform initiative in the pharmaceuticals space of India. This reform, besides all others as discussed above, would have updated the legislation considering the advances the country has made, especially, in the last five decades in clinical research, treatment methods, and sophisticated diagnostic and medical devices.

Conclusion:

It now appears that the Government could revive the CDA Bill and reintroduce in the Parliament. It was to be introduced in its monsoon session. However, the plan did not fructify because of various political reasons.

Centralize drug licensing has also been highly opposed by the state drug authorities and some section of the industry. The stated position of these opponents to the CDA Bill highlights that the proposed centralized structure will not be able to deliver as the requisite infrastructure for the same is not in place, as yet.

All these developments bring out the apprehension that the proposal to centralize drug licensing as part of the proposed law, very unfortunately, may get quite diluted because of vested interests.

By Tapan Ray

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