Tag Archives: in

Creating an IPR friendly robust ‘Echo-System’ and ‘Improving Access to Affordable Medicines’ are not either/or situation in India

Posted on by
Reply

Last year, though the growth of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry with a turnover of US$ 752 billion significantly slowed down to just 6.7% due to various contributing factors, the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry continued to maintain a robust of growth of 18% with a turnover of US$ 8.1 billion (IMS 2009).

Need to invest more in R&D:

On a longer term perspective, the domestic industry growth will be significantly driven by the newer products, which will be the outcome of painstaking innovative research and development initiatives. Keeping this point in mind, the fact that today India accounts less than one per cent of over US$130 billion of the worldwide spending on research and development for pharmaceuticals, despite its known strength in process chemistry and abundant talent pool, has started attracting attention of the government.

Robust IPR regime and addressing the needs of the poor both are equally important:

The Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh in his address at the Fortune Global Forum in New Delhi in October, 2007 clearly enunciated, “We have affirmed our commitment to the protection of intellectual property rights. But, the global economy, the global community cannot afford the complete privatization of research, of knowledge generation, especially in fields like medicine. We need to evolve mechanisms that protect intellectual property and at the same time, address the needs of the poor”.

Thus encouragement, reward and protection of IPR and addressing the crying needs of the poor are definitely not an either/or situation. The country needs to address both with equal importance and focus.

‘Vision 2020’ of the Department of Pharmaceuticals:

It is encouraging to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India through its ‘Vision 2020’ initiatives is planning to create a new echo-system in the country to promote new drug discovery platforms. This is expected to catapult the country as one of the top five global pharmaceutical hubs, by 2020 attracting additional investments of around US$ 20 billion to the GDP of the country.

The Primary role of the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, like in many other countries of the world, is to make significant contribution to the healthcare objectives of the nation by meeting the unmet needs of the ailing patients, with innovative affordable medicines. This role can be fulfilled by developing newer medicines through painstaking, time-consuming, risky and expensive basic research initiatives. To help translate this vision into reality appropriate echo-system needs to be created in the country, urgently, for the Pharmaceutical Industry in India to commit themselves to its one of the prime functions of discovering and developing newer medicines not only for the patients in India but for all across the world.

Ongoing efforts in Research & Development (R&D) would require a robust national policy environment that would encourage, protect and reward innovation. Improving healthcare environment in partnership with the Government remains a priority for the Research based Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

Need to tighten the loose knots:

However, in the new paradigm, which has been designed to foster innovation in the country, there are still some loose knots to be tightened up to achieve the set objectives for the nation, in the longer term perspective.

Uncertainty over weak enforcement of patent in the country should be dispelled, with efficient administration of the new patent regime. Regulatory Data Protection should be introduced to spur R&D investment and global collaborative opportunities. This will, in turn, help improving the competitiveness of India vis-à-vis countries like China to attract appreciable investments towards R&D of pharmaceutical and bio-pharmaceutical products. It is believed that the capacity of our judiciary should be expanded and specialized courts that can enforce Pharmaceutical patents be provided with requisite technical expertise.

How to address the core issue of ‘availability of quality medicines at affordable prices’?

India needs to address the root cause of the ‘pricing issue’ affecting ‘access to quality medicines at affordable prices’ to a vast majority of its population, in a holistic way, rather than superficially with a piecemeal approach, as is being done since long.

The policy of ‘stringent price control of medicines’ of the government since 1970, has certainly enabled India to ensure availability of medicines at the lowest price in the world, lower than even the neighbouring countries like, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. However, the core issue of ‘affordability of medicines’ has still remained elusive and will remain so, if we continue to tread this much beaten path, though not so successful in the perspective of the core issue, even today.

This is mainly because, around 40% of our population still costitutes of ‘Below the Poverty Line (BPL)’ families, who, very unfortunately, will not be able to afford any price of medicines. This is vindicated by the WHO report, quoted by even our government that 65% of Indian population has no access to modern medicines, as against 15% in China and 47% in Africa, despite medicines prices being the cheapest in India.

In such a situation, even if prices of all drugs featuring under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), anti-cancer and other drugs are brought under stringent price control, the same ‘affordability of medicines’ issue will continue to linger.

Moreover, the recent announcement by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), “as per the Secondary Stock Audit Report of ORG-IMS for the month of April 2010, which covers 60,000 packs, in the non-schedule category, the percentage of packs whose prices have increased on monthly basis during 2009-10, is only in the range of 0.0003 to 4.75%, while the remaining have shown stable to declining prices,” clearly vindicates that unusual price increase of medicines is also not a problem either, in India.

Considering all these points, as I have been suggesting since long, the government should, at least now, allocate adequate fund to cover all BPL families under “Rashtriya Bima Yojona’ and ensure its effective implementation by creating adequate healthcare infrastructure and measurable/transparent delivery systems. Similarly, the rest of the population of the country should be covered by encouraging opening-up and deep penetration of a variety of medical insurance products to suit all pockets together with appropriate tax incentives, as is currently being extended to the ‘Mediclaim’ policy holders.

In all developed countries and many emerging markets like China (where about 85% of the population are covered by different types of healthcare expenditure reimbursement schemes), the issue of ‘affordability of medicines’ has been addressed with such type of approach and other social security measures by their respective governments.

 

“Employers must take health cover for staff or lose tax gains”: Montek Singh Ahluwalia

It is indeed quite encouraging to note from the report of The Hindu Business Line dated September 9, 2010, as this critical issue is being regularly deliberated through this column, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, has “mooted denial of tax deductibility on wage payment if the employer in the organised sector does not take steps to enrol the employee in a group health insurance scheme. Mr Ahluwalia said employers in the organised sector should be encouraged to make it compulsory for their employees to join a group health insurance scheme, in which the employer and the employee make contributions. As an incentive for this, the insurance premium that is paid can be exempt from tax as India will never be able to expand insurance for which people pay unless an element of incentive-cum-compulsion is introduced”. Mr. Ahuluwalia further commented, “If you leave it to people, only rich people will buy insurance, even middle class people will not buy insurance,” He insisted that “his proposal is feasible and the Government should give it a very serious consideration”.
High incidence of mortality and morbidity burden of India can only be addressed by improving ‘Access to Healthcare’:

Therefore, improving access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular should be on the top priority agenda of the policy makers in our country. High incidence of mortality and morbidity burden in a country like ours can only be addressed by improving Access to healthcare through a concerted partnership oriented strategy. Thus, Pharmaceutical Industry in India should be committed to actively support all efforts from all corners towards this direction to improve Access to Medicines to a vast majority of population in India. Although sporadic, efforts to this direction are being made through various laudable Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives by both local and global pharmaceutical companies within the country.

Pharmaceutical Industry also needs to behave as a responsible corporate citizen:

Another area of focus should be on good corporate governance. This encompasses adherence to high ethical standards in clinical trials, regulatory and legal compliance, working to prevent corrupt activities, high ethical standard in promotion of medicines and addressing all other issues that support good healthcare policies of the Government. In addition, the Pharmaceutical Industry should take active measures to involve all concerned to fight the growing menace of counterfeit and spurious medicines which significantly harm the patients all over the country.

Conclusion:

It is obvious that the Pharmaceutical Industry alone will have a limited role to address the key healthcare issues of our nation. All stakeholders like the government, corporate and the civil society in general must contribute according to their respective capabilities, obligations and enlightened societal interests to effectively address these pressing issues.

However, it is worth reiterating that the Pharmaceutical Industry in India should continue to act responsibly and demonstrate commitment to work closely in collaboration with all stakeholders to make newer innovative medicines both preventive and therapeutic available and accessible adequately at an affordable price to the ailing population of the nation. Thus, in my view, for the progress of the nation, creating a robust IPR friendly ‘Echo System’ and ‘Improving Access to Quality Medicine at an Affordable Price’, are certainly not an either/or situation for the astute policy makers in India, as is being made out to be at some quarters.

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.

Prescribing medicines by generic names…a good intent… but is it a practical proposition in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare in their recommendation to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommended prescription of medicines by their generic names.

This recommendation appears to be based on the premises that the cost of ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, including varying degree of presumably ‘high sales and marketing expenditure’ incurred by the formulators towards such efforts, can be easily eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

In the following paragraphs, let me try to deliberate on this important issue.

Generics and Branded Generics:

As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand name offers a specific identity to the generic drug.

The prevailing situation in India:

In India, over 50% medicines prescribed by the physicians are for Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs), spanning across almost all therapeutic categories. Thus, it could be difficult for them to prescribe such medicines in the generic name and could equally be difficult for the chemist to dispense such prescriptions.

Moreover, in case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences. It is well known, the concentration of ingredients in the fixed dose combination of any two medicines, many a times, differs from manufacturer to manufacturer. There are over 50,000 odd formulations in the Indian pharmaceutical market and it would be almost impossible for any doctor to keep track of exact concentrations of each of these drugs and prescribe in their right strengths.

Current prescription practice:

Currently doctors use brand names to differentiate one such formulation from the others. Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

Other Patients related issues:

Patients also could face other difficulties due to generic prescribing. As is known, different brands of FDCs may have different proportions of same active ingredients. If chemists do not know or have the exact combination prescribed by the doctor in their shops, thye would possibly substitute with a different combination of same drugs, which could well be less effective or even harmful to the patients.

Conclusion:

Prescriptions by generic names instead of brand names could likely to lead to substitution of the medicines at the chemists’ outlets because of the reasons, as mentioned above.

Thus, the major concern with generic prescriptions is that a chemist will then make the choice of the manufacturer while dispensing a medicine. There could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select what gives them highest margin of profit. In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists, which could make the situation far worse for the patients. For the interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks.

Considering all these risk factors, in my view, if the prescriptions of medicines are made mandatory by their respective generic names in India, it could compromise with patients’ safety, very significantly.

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.

Patients’ Safety, regulatory approval of Biosimilar Drugs in India and WHO Biosimilar guidelines

Posted on by
Reply

Biopharmaceutical drugs are broadly defined as:

”Those medicines produced using a living system or genetically modified organism. These drugs are different from traditional chemical medicines in many ways. Size of the molecule is one of the most obvious distinctions: the molecules of a biopharmaceutical medicine are much larger, have far more complex spatial structures and are much more diverse (“heterogeneous”) than the chemical molecules which make up classical drugs.”

The Biosimilar drugs:

Biosimilar drugs are follow-on versions of original biopharmaceutical medicines. Biosimilar medicines are intended to have the same mechanism of action for the same diseases as the original biopharmaceutical drugs.

The term “bio generic” will be misleading for off patent biopharmaceutical products, as no two biopharmaceutical products could possibly be exactly identical. This is mainly because of the following reason:

“Whereas generics of chemistry based medicines are identical in the molecular structure and therefore copies of the original product, based on a strict definition of “sameness”, a corresponding definition cannot be established for biosimilar medicines because of their nature and the complexity of their manufacturing process. Here post-translational modifications are dependent of the host cell and the process.”

Thus the common terminologies used to describe such products when the original products go off-patent are follow-on biologics and biosimilars.

Manufacturing Conditions of biosimilars ultimately define the final product:

Unlike chemical drugs, the manufacturing conditions and the process followed to produce biopharmaceutical drugs largely define the final product and its quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product. Additionally proteins are relatively unstable. Thus additional measures in their storage, formulation and delivery are very critical.

Key concerns with the existing regulatory approval process for Biosimilar drugs:

• Small changes in the manufacturing process of biosimilar drugs could significantly affect the safety and efficacy of the molecule.

• Due to the very nature of a biologic it is virtually impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceutical drugs. Identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies need to be demonstrated in extensive comparability trials. Thus, as stated above, a ‘bio generic’ cannot exist.

• As against the situation applicable for generics of chemical molecules which can be replicated, biosimilar drugs cannot be replicated. At the most such biopharmaceuticals can be at the most “similar” but not “identical” to the original reference products. To ensure desired efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved after charting out a formal and well validated regulatory pathway for the biosimilar drugs in India.

• Currently biosimilar drugs are given marketing approval by the regulator without such guidelines for large molecule biological and following just the bioequivalence model as specified in the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India for small molecule chemical entities only, as the current Drugs and cosmetics Acts of India, very unfortunately, do not differentiate between large and small molecular drugs. This could, in turn, endanger patients’ safety with serious medical consequences.

Although, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) are responsible for approvals of the new drug applications, health being a state subject, respective state regulatory authorities are responsible for granting manufacturing license to the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers setting up facilities in the states, where regulatory oversight and incidences of weaker enforcement are common, will be able to market their products, including biosimilars, across the country. It is alleged that there are hardly any regulatory control over the mistakes or offences committed by the State Drug authorities who permit manufacture of drugs even unapproved by the DCGI. The existing issue of mushrooming of various irrational Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) products in India will vindicate this point.

The Government’s response to this public health concern:

Express Pharma in its June 30, 2009 edition reported Dr M K Bhan, Secretary, Government of India, DBT, saying, “The first question is do we have written guidelines available to people? Currently, we have a large committee of about 30 people in the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) which frequently discusses the current FDA and EMEA guidelines and makes sure that it is updated as per the guidelines in case by case approvals.”

He acknowledged, to make sure that the product is identical or original is harder for biological than for chemical entities and said, “So the next question is, what is the degree of difficulty you create to be sure that some of the products in the in vitro laboratories and the strength of the biomolecule, are to be characterized in details, and the other side is how expensive should the chemical evaluation be? At this moment, RCGM is seeing the issues and is in touch with both the FDA and the EMEA, and they are taking case by case decisions while trying to standardize the minimum information that is required to show how companies have characterized their products.”

“If we ask a big established company on this issue they will tell us to be strict, whereas a smaller company will suggest otherwise. What we are trying to do is being very scientific and come to a conclusion,” reported Express Pharma quoting Dr. Bhan.

The current practice:

Much water has flown down the bridge since the above interview was published. Nothing much has changed on ground regarding this critical issue, thus far. The industry sources allege that even today regulatory approval of biosimilar drugs (large molecules) are granted based on Phase III clinical trials, as specified in the schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts for the small molecules (chemicals) and that too conducted mostly on just 40 to 45 patients. At times the number of patients studied is even lesser. Immunogenicity study, which is so important for biosimilar drugs is, more often than not, overlooked. This could seriously compromise patients’ safety with such category of drugs.

Conclusion:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in our country there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs even when the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with the same and India had actively participated in that exercise.
The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India would conform to international quality and safety standards, like in the U.K or what has been recently announced in the USA? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients administering these life saving medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drugs regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drug’s manufacturing units in India, in not too distant past and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country. The recent example of WHO cancelling the pre-qualification of ‘Shan 5’ (Shanta Biotech) vaccines for quality related problems, perhaps may help opening the eyes of our regulators, on the related patients’ safety issues arising out of regulatory laxity.

This issue assumes even greater importance considering the very recent development of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) unfolding an interesting scheme to encourage development of biosimialr dugs in India by offering financial support to the domestic pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry.

The proposed new regulatory pathway for the marketing approval of Biosimilar drugs in India will immensely help paving the way for the Biopharmaceuticals drugs manufacturers in India to adequately prepare themselves to grab a significant share of the fast emerging Biosimilar drugs markets, particularly, in Europe and the USA, in the years to come.

The Ministry of Health and the Department of Biotechnology of the Government of India should, therefore, urgently and jointly consider amending the Drugs & Cosmetics Acts of India accordingly and establish robust regulatory guidelines for marketing approval of biosimilar drugs in the country, acknowledging the widespread concern for patients’ safety.

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.

 

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

To meet the unmet needs of the patients and improve access to healthcare in India mere discovery of a new pharmaceutical entity is not enough. The journey from mind to market is indeed an arduous one.

For the patients’ sake:

From the viewpoint of patients, proper evaluation of the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines are critical. Towards this direction, substantial clinical data needs to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials to satisfy the regulatory authorities for marketing approval of a New Molecular Entity (NME).

Reasons why the innovators data will need protection:

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, Data Protection (DP) is justifiable on the following grounds:

a. Generation of data by the originator to ensure safety and efficacy of the drugs for the patients involves considerable cost, time and efforts.

b. Submission of detail clinical data is a regulatory requirement for the interest of the patients. Without such obligation to the Government, the data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation for the Government to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure.

c. Since the data is proprietary during the patent period, any access to such data for commercial use by the second applicant without the concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.
d. Any failure by the Government to provide the required protection to the data would lead to “unfair commercial use”.

e. Without DP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair commercial disadvantage as compared to their generic counterparts. Generic players do not incur similar huge costs for meeting the mandatory requirements of the regulatory authorities for NMEs.

Patent Protection and Data Protection – two different IPRs:

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection or Data Exclusivity is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

Data Protection will provide substantial benefits to the stakeholders:

Benefits to Patients:

DP ensures stringent evaluation of overall safety and efficacy of drugs launched in the market. Mere proving of Bioequivalence/ Bioavailability (sometimes on as low as 12 healthy volunteers in India) does not guarantee drug safety as the impurities profile of the duplicator’s drug is likely to be different than that of the originator.

Benefits to Doctors:

Doctors continuously seek scientific information. Clinical evaluation becomes valuable from this perspective. Once provisions for DP are made, comprehensive and quality data can be collected and the detail scientific information be provided to the doctors to update their knowledge for the ultimate benefits of the patients.

Benefits to Researchers:

Clinical researchers in India can win substantial share of this global market with DP as an effective driver in the evolving scenario. There will be increased R&D collaborations. India’s cost arbitrage, speed and skills in clinical trial and research could be leveraged more effectively.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted the significance of DP, as follows:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

Benefits to Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPR. DP is one of the Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will help the developing economies, like India intensify its R&D efforts. More Indian pharmaceutical companies, while globalizing the business, will engage themselves in partnerships and collaborations with research based global companies.

Indian scientists would need DP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have already started increasing their R&D budgets.

Benefits to Governments:

Once India moves from a stand-alone position to one which aligns itself with the world in terms of IPRs, including DP, India is likely to increase trade not only in ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay & Uruguay) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but even in regulated markets like USA and Europe. There will be increase in scientific education, technology transfer and quality employment.

Could Data Protection affect the legal generics or delay their launch?

Unfortunately, a bogey is raised to create an impression that DP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, adversely affecting the domestic and export business of the local players. Following facts will prove the irrelevance of the arguments propounded by this lobby:

• DP refers only to new products patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

• USA is an outstanding example, which demonstrates that research based global companies and the generic industry can co-exist, offering dual benefits of innovative drugs and cheaper off-patent generic medicines to the patients.

• More number of patented medicines will ensure faster growth of the generic industry, after the former goes off-patent. In the USA which has a long standing DP regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at over half of all the prescriptions. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984 that provided for a 5 year period of DP in the USA, there were spurt of development of New Drugs together with quicker entry of generics into the market.

• The apprehension that growth of the generic market will slow down with DP, is ill-founded. Indian companies, on the contrary, are aggressively seeking growth opportunities for generics in markets like the USA and Europe where DP is already in place.

• Domestic Indian companies will be dependent upon implementation of a fully compliant TRIPs regime, including DP for their business growth in these markets.

• DP does not prevent generic manufacturers from submitting their own pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data within the period of DP and thus gain marketing approval for their products.

DP controversy is based on a narrow perspective, as it is not an issue of “Generics vs. R&D based companies”. It is a much larger issue. DP and patents are important for all research based companies irrespective of their Indian or foreign origin.

Data Protection is not ‘Evergreening’:

DP is not ‘Evergreening’ either. In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and DP will run concurrently.

During the debate on the subject some people argue that DP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not. Fundamentally, these two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. DP cannot extend the life of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, DP protects the clinical Dossier submitted to the regulatory authority from their unfair commercial use. The duration of DP is typically half or less than that of a patent.

Most WTO member countries have Data Protection:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of DP.
Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the Laws related to DP. The period of DP is typically between 5 to 10 years.

Conclusion:

Dr. Satwant Reddy Committee Report, dated November 30, 2006, submitted to the Government of India, very clearly recommends that DP will benefit India, as it has done in many other countries of the world, including China. Unfortunately, the report does not specify a timeline for its implementation. Thus having accepted the importance and relevance of the DP, the Government should implement the same in the country, without any further delay.

Data Protection should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs Act to bring India in conformity with the practices of other WTO Members of the developing and developed countries.

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.

Will Global Pharma Majors be successful in their foray into highly competitive generics pharma business offering no (patent) protection of any kind?

Posted on by
Reply

As reported by IMS Health, emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during the same period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this period.

Mega consolidation process in India begins in 2009:

Fuelled by the above trend, the year 2009 witnessed the second biggest merger, so far, in the branded generics market of India when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9 percent stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.2 billion.

This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both Ranbaxy and Daiichi Sankyo, when Daiichi Sankyo will leverage the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively while Ranbaxy will benefit from the innovative product range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also establishes Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.

Another mega acquisition soon followed:

Daiichi Sankyo – Ranbaxy deal was followed in the very next year by Abbott’s acquisition of the branded generic business of Piramal Healthcare in India. This deal, once again, vindicated the attractiveness of the large domestic Indian Pharma players to the global pharma majors.

In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?

Abbott had valued Piramal’s formulations business at about eight times sales, which is almost twice that of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott, the acquired business will report to him and will be run as a standalone business unit after conclusion of the merger process. Warmuth expects that the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion in the next decade.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.” This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right even for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.

For Abbott, is it a step towards Global Generics Markets?

It is believed that the Piramal acquisition is intended towards achieving a quantum growth of Abbott’s business in the IPM. However, it is equally important to note the widely reported quite interesting statement of Michael Warmuth’s, when he said, “we have no plans immediately to export Piramal products [to third-country markets] but we will evaluate that. You won’t be at all surprised that if we evaluate that.”

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:

Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.

If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global pharmaceutical companies to dig their feet deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 98% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.

Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies in India:

To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:

• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business
• Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business
• Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio
• Quality of the sales and marketing teams
• Valuation of the business

What is happening in other emerging markets? Some examples:

The most recent example of such consolidation process in other emerging markets happened on June 10, 2010, when GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that it has acquired ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $253 million. With this acquisition, GSK gains full ownership of ‘Phoenix’ to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly another global pharma major, Sanofi-aventis is now seriously trying to position itself as a major player in the generics business, as well, with the acquisition of Zentiva, an important player in the European generics market. Zentiva, is also a leading generic player in the Czech, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, Slovak and Russian markets, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi-aventis also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

With this Sanofi-aventis announced, “Building a larger business in generic medicines is an important part of our growth strategy. Focusing on the needs of patients, Sanofi-aventis has conducted a regional approach in order to enlarge its business volumes and market share, offering more affordable high-quality products to more patients”.

Faster speed of such consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India:

As the valuation of the large Indian companies will start attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the revolutionary speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India could slow down. The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market of the world.

Recent examples of Indian companies acquired by global companies:

1. Ranbaxy – Daiichi Sankyo
2. Dabur Pharma – Fresenius
3. Matrix – Myalan
4. Sanofi Pasteur – Shanta Biotech
5. Orchid – Hospira
6. Abbott – Piramal Healthcare

Indian Pharmaceutical companies are also in a shopping spree:

It has been reported that by 2009, around 32 across the border acquisitions for around US $2 billion have been completed by the Indian pharmaceutical and biotech players. Recently post Abbott deal, Piramals have expressed their intent to strengthen the CRAMS business to make good the drop in turnover for their domestic branded generics business, through global M&A initiatives.

Some of the major overseas acquisitions by the Indian Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:

1. Biocon – Axicorp (Germany)
2. DRL – Trigenesis Therapeutics (USA)
3. Wockhardt – Esparma (Germany), C.P. Pharmaceuticals (UK), Negma (France), Morton Grove (USA)
4. Zydus Cadilla – Alpharma (France)
5. Ranbaxy – RPG Aventis (France)
6. Nicholas Piramal – Biosyntech (Canada) , Minrad Pharmaceuticals (USA)

What is happening in other industries?

In spite of the global financial meltdown in 2009, the future of M&A deals in India looks promising across the industry. Some of the major offshore acquisitions by the Indian companies are as follows:

 

Mega acquisition of foreign companies by Indian companies:

• Tata Steel acquired 100% stake in Corus Group on January 30, 2007 with US$12.2 billion.
• India Aluminum and Hindalco Industries purchased Canada-based Novelis Inc in February 2007 for
US $6-billion.
• The Oil and Natural Gas Corp purchased Imperial Energy Plc in January 2009 for US $2.8 billion.
• Tata Motors acquired Jaguar and Land Rover brands from Ford Motor in March 2008. The deal
amounted to $2.3 billion.
• Acquisition Asarco LLC by Sterlite Industries Ltd’s for $1.8 billion in 2009
• In May 2007, Suzlon Energy acquired Germany’s- wind turbine producer Repower for US$1.7 billion.

Mega acquisition of Indian companies by foreign companies:

• Vodafone acquired administering interest of 67% owned by Hutch-Essar, on February 11, 2007 for US
$11.1 billion.
• The Japan based telecom firm NTT DoCoMo acquired 26% stake in Tata Teleservices for USD 2.7
billion, in November 2008.

An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:

It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has written a letter to the Department of Pharmaceuticals, highlighting, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.

The letter urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development initiatives of the Indian Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. To a great extent, I believe, this is true, as the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund the capital intensive R&D initiatives.

Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?

In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space.

The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.

It will not be a cake walk…not just yet:

Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratotries (DRL) have proven it over a period of so many years.

We witnessed that acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just 6.4% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation is in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, even post M&A.

Thus the pharmaceutical market of India will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and also the newer tough minded, innovative and determined domestic branded generic players having both cost arbitrage and the spirit of competitiveness.

Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.

Conclusion:

In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the generics business of any company. We have with us examples from India of some these acquisitions not working as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.

Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.

Could similar situation arise in India? Who knows? What happens to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country?

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.

Path-breaking medicines are just not enough… a comprehensive healthcare reform in India is long overdue

Posted on by
Reply

The Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh reiterated the following in his speech at the 30th Convocation of PGIMER, Chandigarh on November 3, 2009:

”As in economics, so as in medicine too, it is easy to get lost in high level research and forget the ground realities. A common perception among the public is that institutions running with public money end up as ivory towers. It is widely felt that the poor and under-privileged sections of our population do not have adequate access to the health care system. The system needs structural reforms to improve the quality of delivery of services at the grass-root level. It has to be more sensitive to the needs of our women and children. We must also recognize that a hospital centered curative approach to health care has proved to be excessively costly even in the advanced rich developed countries. The debate on health sector reforms is going on in US is indicative of what I have mentioned just now. A more balanced approach would be to lay due emphasis on preventive health care”.

Some key research findings on ‘Public Health’:

Interesting research studies on public health highlight two very interesting points:

- Health of an individual is as much an integral function of the related socio-economic factors as it is

influenced by the person’s life style and genomic configurations.
- Socio-economic disparities including the educational status lead to huge disparity in the space of healthcare.

WHO ranking of the ‘World’s Health Systems’:

The WHO ranking of the ‘World’s health Systems’ was last produced in 2000. This report is no longer produced by the WHO due to huge complexity of the task.

In this interesting report, the number one pharmaceutical market of the world and the global pioneer in pharmaceutical R&D, the USA features in no. 37, Japan in no. 10, UK in no.18 and France tops the list with no.1 ranking. Among emerging BRIC countries, India stands at no. 112, Russia in no.130 and China in no. 144.

In a relative yardstick, although India scored over the remaining BRIC countries in year 2000, one should keep in mind that China has already undertaken a major healthcare reform in the last year. Early this year, we all have seen how President Obama introduced a new healthcare reform for the USA, despite all odds. India’s major reform in its healthcare space is, therefore, long overdue.

Details of WHO ‘World’s Health Systems’ ranking of the countries are available at the following link:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

No need to reinvent the wheel:

When we look at the history of development of the developed countries of the world, we observe that all of them had invested and are continuously investing to improve the social framework of the country where education and health get the top priority. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas of any nation have proved to be the key drivers of economic growth. This is a work in continuous progress. Recent healthcare reforms both in China and the USA will vindicate this argument. In India we, therefore, do not require to reinvent the wheel, any more.

It has been observed that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important healthcare issues. Otherwise, the minority population with adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power will always have necessary resources available to address their concern towards healthcare, appropriately.

Path breaking medicines are just not enough:

Regular flow of newer and path breaking medicines in India to cure and effectively treat many diseases, have not been able to eliminate either trivial or dreaded diseases, alike. Otherwise, despite having effective curative therapy for malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhea/dysentery and venereal diseases, why will people still suffer from such illnesses? Similarly, despite having adequate preventive therapy, like vaccines for diphtheria, tuberculosis, polio, hepatitis and measles, our children still suffer from such diseases.

Reducing socio-economic inequalities is equally important:

All these continue to happen in India, over so many decades, because of socio-economic considerations, as well. Thus, together with comprehensive healthcare reform measures, time bound simultaneous efforts to reduce the socio-economic inequalities will be essential to achieve desirable outcome for the progress of the nation.

Proper focus on education is critical for a desirable health outcome:

Education is of key importance to make any healthcare reform measure to work effectively. Very recently we have witnessed some major reform measures in the area of ‘primary education’ in India. The right to primary education has now been made a fundamental right of every citizen of the country, through a constitutional amendment.

As focus on education is very important to realize the economic potential of any nation, so is equally relevant in the healthcare space of the country. India will not be able to realize its dream to be one of the economic superpowers of the world without a sharp focus and significant resource allocation in these two critical areas – Health and Education, simultaneously.

Progress in the healthcare space of India:

It sounds quite unfair, when one comments that nothing has been achieved in the area of healthcare in India, as is usually done by vested interests with a condescending attitude in various guises. Since independence, India has made progress, may not be highly significant though, with various government sponsored and private healthcare related initiatives, as follows:

- Various key disease awareness/prevention programs across the country, for both communicable and non-communicable diseases.
- Eradication of smallpox
- Excellent progress in polio eradication program
- Country wide primary vaccination program
- Sharp decline in the incidence of tuberculosis
- Significant decrease in mortality rates, due to water-borne diseases.
- Good success to bring malaria under control.
- The mortality rate per thousand of population has come down from 27.4 to 14.8 percent.
- Life expectancy at birth has gone up to 63 years of age.
- Containment of HIV-AIDS
- India has been recognized as the largest producers and global suppliers of generic drugs of all categories and types.
- India has established itself as a global outsourcing hub for Contract Research and Contract Manufacturing Services (CRAMS).
- The country has now been globally recognized as one of the fastest growing emerging markets for the pharmaceuticals

New healthcare initiatives in India:

There are various hurdles though to address the healthcare issues of the country effectively, but these are not definitely insurmountable. National Rural health Mission is indeed an admirable scheme announced by the Government. Similar initiative to provide health insurance program for below the poverty line (BPL) population of the country, is also commendable. However, effectiveness of all such schemes will warrant effective leadership at all levels of their implementation.

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare is inadequate:

Per capita public expenditure towards healthcare in India is much lower than China and well below other emerging countries like, Brazil, Russia, China, Korea, Turkey and Mexico.

Although spending on healthcare by the government gradually increased in the 80’s overall spending as a percentage of GDP has remained quite the same or marginally decreased over last several years. However, during this period private sector healthcare spend was about 1.5 times of that of the government.

It appears, the government of India is gradually changing its role from the ‘healthcare provider’ to the ‘healthcare enabler’.

High ‘out of pocket’ expenditure towards healthcare in India:

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, per capita healthcare spending in India is around Rs. 32,000 per year and as follows:

- 75 per cent by private household (out of pocket) expenditure
- 15.2 per cent by the state governments
- 5.2 per cent by the central government
- 3.3 percent medical insurance
- 1.3 percent local government and foreign donation

Out of this expenditure, besides small proportion of non-service costs, 58.7 percent is spent towards primary healthcare and 38.8% on secondary and tertiary inpatient care.

Role of the government:

In India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

Health being a state subject in India, poor coordination between the center and the state governments and failure to align healthcare services with broader socio-economic developmental measures, throw a great challenge in bringing adequate reform measures in this critical area of the country.

Healthcare reform measures in India are governed by the five-year plans of the country. Although the National Health Policy, 1983 promised healthcare services to all by the year 2000, it fell far short of its promise.

Underutilization of funds:

It is indeed unfortunate that at the end of most of the financial years, almost as a routine, the government authorities surrender their unutilized or underutilized budgetary allocation towards healthcare. This stems mainly from inequitable budgetary allocation to the states and lack of good governance at the public sector healthcare delivery systems.

Encourage deep penetration of ‘Health Insurance’ in India:

As I indicated above, due to unusually high (75 per cent) ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards healthcare services in India, a large majority of its population do not have access to such quality, high cost private healthcare services, when public healthcare machineries fail to deliver.

In this situation an appropriate healthcare financing model, if carefully worked out under ‘public – private partnership initiatives’, is expected to address these pressing healthcare access and affordability issues effectively, especially when it comes to the private high cost and high quality healthcare providers.

Although the opportunity is very significant, due to absence of any robust model of health insurance, just above 3 percent of the Indian population is covered by the organized health insurance in India. Effective penetration of innovative health insurance scheme, looking at the needs of all strata of Indian society will be able to address the critical healthcare financing issue of the country. However, such schemes should be able to address domestic and hospitalization costs of ailments, broadly in line with the health insurance model working in the USA.

The Government of India at the same time will require bringing in some financial reform measures for the health insurance sector to enable the health insurance companies to increase penetration of affordable health insurance schemes across the length and the breadth of the country.

A recent report on healthcare in India:

A recent report published by McKinsey Quarterly, titled ‘A Healthier Future for India’, recommends, subsidizing health care and insurance for the country’s poor people would be necessary to improve the healthcare system. To make the healthcare system of India work satisfactorily, the report also recommends, public-private partnership for better insurance coverage, widespread health education and better disease prevention.

Conclusion:

In my view, the country should adopt a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process:

1. The government should assume the role of provider of preventive and primary healthcare across the nation to ensure access to healthcare to almost the entire population of the nation.

2. At the same time, the government should play the role of enabler to create public-private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels.

3. The issue of affordability of medicine can best be addressed by putting in place a robust model of healthcare financing for all sections of the population of the country. Through PPP a strong and highly competitive health insurance infrastructure needs to be created through innovative fiscal incentives.

4. These insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate all fees payable by the patients for getting their ailments treated including doctors/hospital fees and the cost of medicines, with the concerned persons/companies, with a key objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the healthcare services regulatory authority.

8. Make this regulatory authority accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare services to the entire population of the country.

9. Make operations of such public healthcare services transparent to the civil society and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

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.

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on by
Reply

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

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.

Innovative Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Healthcare Financing is the way forward to improve ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to Healthcare’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

Despite various measures taken by the Government of India (GoI), around 65% of the population do not have access to modern medicines in the country. Such medicines do not include treatment just for ‘Tropical Diseases’ like, Malaria, Tuberculosis, Filariasis or Leishmaniasis or even anaemia in women. These medicines, in fact, cover much wider spectrum of the primary healthcare needs of the country and include antibiotics, anti-hypertensive, anti-diabetics, anti-arthritic, anti-ulcerants, cardiovascular, oncology. anti-retroviral etc. Many stakeholders in the country, including the policy makers feel that the reason for poor access to medicines to a vast majority of Indian population is intimately linked to the affordability of medicines.

A bold public measure to achieve the dual objectives:                           To make medicines affordable to the common man and at the same time to create a robust domestic pharmaceutical industry in the country, the Government took a bold step in early 1970 by passing a law to abolish product patent in India.

The changed paradigm, encouraged domestic pharmaceutical companies to manufacture and market even those latest drugs, which were protected by patents in many countries of the world, at that time. This policy decision of the GoI enabled the domestic players to specialize in ‘reverse engineering’ and launch the generic versions of most of the New Chemical Entities (NCEs) at a fraction of the innovators price, in India.
Simultaneously other low cost ‘essential medicines’ continued to be produced and marketed in the country.

‘Reverse Engineering’ – a huge commercial success in India:
From 1972 to 2005 domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies were replicating most, if not all the blockbuster drugs of the world, to their low price generic substitutes, just within a year or two from the date of their first launch in the developed markets of the world. These innovative drugs include quinolones. H2 Receptor anatagonists, proton pump inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, ace inhibitors, Cox2 inhibitors, statins, anti-coagulants, anti-asthmatic, anti-cancer, anti-HIV and many more.

In 1970, the Market share of the Indian domestic companies, as a percentage of turnover of the total pharmaceutical industry of India, was around 20%. During the era of ‘reverse engineering’, coupled with many top class manufacturing and marketing strategies, domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies wheezed past their multinational (MNCs) counterparts in the race of market share, exactly reversing the situation in 2010.

‘Reverse engineering’ was indeed one of the key growth drivers of domestic pharmaceutical industry. In its absence, during this period, the growth rate of branded generic industry may not be as spectacular.

India – now the ‘Eldorado’ of the pharmaceutical world:
This shift in the Paradigm in 1970, catapulted the Indian domestic pharmaceutical industry to a newer height of success. India in that process, over a period of time, could establish itself as a major force to reckon with in the generic pharmaceutical market of the world. Currently, the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India caters to around one third of the global requirement of generic pharmaceuticals and is a net foreign exchange earner for the country.

Currently, within top ten pharmaceutical companies of India, eight are domestic companies. All those global pharmaceutical companies who had left the shores of India and many more, have returned to the country after India signed the WTO agreement in January 1995 with great expectations.

Government feels quite confident and exudes a sense of accomplishment with its pharmaceutical policies:
The government therefore believes that a combination of these policy measures resulting in the stellar success of the domestic pharmaceutical companies since last four decades has helped the country earning the global recognition as one of the most attractive emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world, with commensurate and sustainable ascending growth trend.

Has stringent Price Control/Monitoring of Medicines worked in India?
Be that as it may, from 1970 to 2005, India could produce and offer even the latest NCEs at a fraction of their international price, to the Indian population. There are as many as 40 to over 60 Indian branded generic versions for each successful blockbuster drug of the world. Competition has been intense and cut-throat, which keeps the average price well within the reach of common man. Average price of medicines in India is even lower than that of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Thus the combination of price control, price monitoring, fear of price control and cut throat competition within branded generics have been able to drive down the prices of medicines in India.

Has the focus mostly on ‘Price’ been able to resolve the issue of poor access to modern medicines by the common man?                       Although the GoI should be complemented for the above measures and putting in place the Product Patents Act in India effective January 1, 2005, the issue of access to modern medicines to the common man has still remained unanswered in the country. Why then access to medicines in India is confined to just to 35% of the population even after 62 years of Independence of the country? Comparable figures of access for Africa and China are 53% and 85%, respectively. This is indeed an abysmal failure on the part of the government to achieve the core healthcare objective of the nation.

Strategy adopted to address the core issue of ‘affordability’ and ‘access’ to healthcare and medicines are grossly inadequate:
Despite the stellar success of the pharmaceutical industry in India thus far, there is a pressing need for the government to address this vexing problem without further delay. The situation demands from the policy makers to put in place a robust healthcare financing model in tandem with significant ‘capacity building’ exercise, initially in our primary and then in the secondary and tertiary healthcare value chain.

Towards this direction, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds.

Government changing its role from ‘Healthcare Provider’ to ‘Healthcare Facilitator’:
Frugal budget allocation (0.9%) by the GoI towards healthcare as % of GDP of the country and its other healthcare related policy statements suggest that government is changing its role in this area from a healthcare provider to a healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop the healthcare space of the country adequately.

In such a scenario, it is indeed imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic healthcare financing model and primary healthcare infrastructure in many places across the country, leave aside other fiscal incentives, will impede the penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. Innovative PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, effectively.

Laudable projects like NRHM and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ must deliver:
Over 70% of Indian population are located in rural India. A relatively recent study indicates that despite some major projects undertaken by the Governments, like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), about 80% of doctors, 75% dispensaries and 60% of hospitals are located in urban India.

Another recent initiative taken by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) called ‘Jan Aushadhi’ is also orientated towards urban and semi-urban India. Unfortunately even in those areas the scheme has failed to deliver against the objectives set by the department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) themselves.
The net result of such a lack of firm intent to deliver by all concerned denies 65% of Indian population from having access to modern medicines and other basic healthcare services within the country.

Address the issue of ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to medicines and healthcare with a robust ‘Health Insurance’ model for all:
While trying to find out a solution to these critical issues, by restricting the focus only on the ‘prices of medicines’ for several decades from now, the Government is doing a great disservice to the common man.
Let me hasten to add that I am in no way suggesting that the prices of medicines have no bearing on their ‘Affordability’. All I am suggesting here is that the issue of ‘Affordability’ and ‘Access’ to modern medicines could be better and more effectively addressed with a robust ‘Health Insurance’ model for all, in the country.

Sporadic initiatives towards this direction:

We find some sporadic initiatives in this direction for population below the poverty line (BPL) with Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural India. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country. Most of the existing micro health insurance units run their own independent insurance schemes.

Some initiatives by the State Governments:

Following initiatives, though quite limited, are being taken by the state governments:

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has planned to offer health insurance cover under ‘Arogya Sri Health Insurance Scheme’ to 18 million families who are below the poverty line (BPL).

2. The Government of Karnataka has partnered with the private sector to provide low cost health insurance coverage to the farmers who previously had no access to insurance, under “Yeshaswini Insurance scheme”. This scheme covers insurance cover towards major surgery, including pre-existing conditions.

3. Some other state governments have also started offering public health insurance facilities to the rural poor, but not in a very organized manner. In fact, some private health insurers like Reliance General Insurance and ICICI Lombard General Insurance have been reported to have won some projects on health insurance from various state governments.
Covering domiciliary treatment through health insurance is important:

Currently health insurance schemes mostly cover expenses towards hospitalization. However, medical insurance schemes should also cover domiciliary treatment costs and loss of income, along with hospitalization costs.

Government policy reforms towards health insurance are essential:
Currently Indian health insurance segment is growing over 50% and according to PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industries the segment is estimated to grow to US$ 5.75 billion by 2010. Even this number appears to be much less than adequate for a country like India.

It is high time that the Government creates a conducive environment for increased penetration of health insurance within the country through innovative policy measures. One such measure could be by making health insurance cover mandatory for all employers, who provide provident fund facilities to their employees.

Conclusion:
It is a pity that the concept of health insurance has not properly taken off in our country, as yet, though shows immense growth potential in the years to come. Innovative policies of the government towards this direction along with increasing the cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for health insurance will encourage many competent and successful global players to enter into this market.

With the entry of efficient and successful global players in health insurance segment, one can expect to see many innovative insurance products to satisfy the needs of a large section of Indian population. Such an environment will also help increasing the retail distribution network of health insurance with a wider geographic reach, significantly improving the affordability and access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular, of a large number of population of the country.

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.