Tag Archives: Indian

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

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

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

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

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

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

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

Recent Indian stand:

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

  • There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.
  • The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.
  • The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.
  • After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.
  • Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.
  • It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

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

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

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

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

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

A French Professor’s view:

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

  • IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.
  • The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent  article on this subject states as follows:

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

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

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

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

A WHO Report:

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

  • Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where financial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which profitable markets exist.
  • In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientific and technological capability inadequate.
  • In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.
  • Although the balance of costs and benefits of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientific and technological infrastructure, the flexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to find a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

Pharma FDI Debate: Highly Opinionated, Sans Assessment of Tangible Outcomes?

Posted on by
Reply

In 2001, the Government of India (GoI) allowed 100 percent Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the pharmaceutical sector through automatic route to attract more investments for new asset creation, boost R&D, new job creation and ultimately to help aligning Indian pharma with the modern pharma world in terms of capacity, capability, wherewithal, reach and value creation.

Thereafter, several major FDI followed, such as:

No. Company Acquirer Value US$M Year
1. Ranbaxy Daiichi Sankyo 4600 2008
2. Shantha Biotechnics Sanofi Pasteur 781 2009
3. Piramal Healthcare Abbott 3700 2010
4. Orchid Chemicals Hospira 200 2012
5. Agila Specialties Mylan 1850 2013

FDI started coming: 

Even recently, in April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in otherwise gloomy FDI scenario of India.

However, out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one was in the Greenfield area. It is now clear that the liberal pharma FDI policy is being predominantly used for taking overs the domestic pharma companies, as indicated earlier.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data reveals that between April 2012 and April 2013, US$ 989 million FDI was received in brownfield investments, and just US$ 87.3 million in Greenfield investments.

As a result, in 2010 pharma Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) captured over 25 percent of the domestic Indian market, as against just around 15 percent in 2005.

An assessment thus far: 

While assessing the outcomes of liberal pharma FDI regime, especially at a time when India is seeking foreign investments in many other sectors, following facts surface:

New asset creation:

Most of the FDIs in pharma, during this period, have been substitution of domestic capital by foreign capital, rather than any significant new asset creation.

Investment in fixed assets (1994-95 to (2009-10):

Companies Rs. Crore Contribution %
Indian 54,010 94.7
MNC 3,022 5.3
Total 57,032 100

(Source: IPA)

Thus contrary to the expectations of GoI, there has been no significant increase in contribution in fixed assets by the pharma MNCs, despite liberalization of FDI.

Similarly, the available facts indicate that 100 percent FDI through automatic route in the pharma sector has not contributed in terms of creation of new modern production facilities, nor has it strengthened the R&D space of the country. The liberalized policy has not contributed to significantly increase in the employment generation by the pharma MNCs in those important areas, either.

The following figures would vindicate this point:

R&D Spend:

Companies 1994-95(Rs. Crore) Contribution % 2009-10(Rs. Crore) Contribution %
Indian 80.61 55.7 3,342.22 78.1
MNC 64.13 44.3 934.40 21.9
Total 144.74 100 4,276.32 100

(Source: IPA)

The above table vindicates that post liberalization of FDI regime, MNC contribution % in R&D instead of showing any increase, has significantly gone down.

Wage Bill/ Job Creation:

Companies 1994-95(Rs. Crore) Contribution % 2009-10(Rs. Crore) Contribution %
Indian 664 65.5 8,172 87.1
MNC 350 34.5 1,215 12.9
Total 1,014 100 9,387 100

(Source: CMIE)

In the area of job creation/wage bills, as well, liberalized FDI has not shown any increasing trend in terms of contribution % in favor of the MNCs.

Delay in launch of cheaper generics:

There are instances that the acquired entity was not allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo, is a case in point.

Key concerns expressed:

Brownfield acquisitions seem to have affected the entire pharma spectrum, spanning across manufacturing/ marketing of oral formulations; injectibles; specialized oncology verticals; vaccines; consumables and devices, with no tangible perceptible benefits noted just yet.

Concerns have been expressed about some sectors, which are very sensitive, such as, cancer injectibles and vaccines.

Moreover, domestic Indian pharma exports generic medicines worth around US$ 13 billion every year establishing itself as a major pharmaceutical exporter of the world and is currently the net foreign exchange earner for the country. If the Government allows the domestic manufacturing facilities of strategic importance to be taken over by the MNCs, some experts feel, it would adversely impact the pharmaceutical export turnover of the country, besides compromising with the domestic capacity while facing epidemics, if any or other health exigencies. It would also have a negative fall out on the supply of affordable generic medicines to other developing nations across the world.

Countries such as Brazil and Thailand have a robust public sector in the pharma space. Therefore, their concerns are less. Since India doesn’t have a robust public sector to fall back on, many experts feel that unrestrained acquisitions in the brownfield sector could be a serious public health concern.

Some conditions proposed:

The DIPP proposal reportedly wants to make certain conditions mandatory for the company attracting FDI, such as:

  • If a company manufactures any of the 348 essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), the highest level of production of that drug in the last three years should be maintained for the next five years
  • The acquirer foreign company would not be allowed to close down the existing R&D centres and would require to mandatorily invest upto 25 per cent of the FDI in the new unit or R&D facility. The total investment as per the proposed condition would have to be incurred within 3 years of the acquisition.
  • Reduction of FDI cap to 49 per cent in rare or critical pharma verticals, as discussed above.
  • If there is any transfer of technology it must be immediately communicated to the administrative ministries and FIPB

Vaccines and cancer injectibles, which have a limited number of suppliers, could fall under the purview of even greater scrutiny.

Conclusion: 

The Ministries of Health and Commerce & Industries, which are in favor of restricting FDI in pharma stricter, are now facing stiff opposition from the Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission.

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has now repotedly prepared a draft Cabinet Note after consulting the ministries of Finance, Pharma and Health, besides others. However, as comments from some ministries came rather late, the DIPP is reportedly moving a supplementary note on this subject.

The matter is likely to come up before the cabinet by end November/December 2013.

While FDI in pharma is much desirable, it is equally important to ensure that a right balance is maintained in India, where majority of the populations face a humongous challenge concerning access to affordable healthcare in general and affordable medicines in particular.

There is, therefore, an urgent need for critical assessment of tangible outcomes of all pharma FDIs in India as on date, based on meaningful parameters. This would help the Government while taking the final decision, either in favor of continuing with the liberalized FDI policy or modifying it as required, for the best interest of country.

Otherwise, without putting the hard facts, generated from India, on the table, is it not becoming yet another highly opinionated debate in its ilk, between  the mighty MNC pharma lobby groups either directly or indirectly, the Government albeit in discordant voices and other members of the society?

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 FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting situation emerged last week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Commerce proposed a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma sector. Just two days after that, the Prime Minister of India vetoed the joint opposition of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Ministry of Health to clear the way for all pending pharma FDIs under the current policy.

On August 13, 2013, Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce laid on the Table of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament its 154 pages Report on ‘FDI in Pharmaceutical Sector.’

The damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee flags several serious concerns over FDI in brownfield pharma sector, which include, among others, the following:

1. Out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one has been in green field, while all the remaining FDI has come in the brown field projects. Moreover, FDI in brown field investments have of late been predominantly used to acquire the domestic pharma companies.

2. Shift of ownership of Indian generic companies to the MNCs also results in significant change of the business model, including the marketing strategy of the acquired entity, which are quite in sync with the same of the acquirer company. In this situation, the acquired entity will not be allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges or compulsory license to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo is a case in point.

3. Serial acquisitions of the Indian generic companies by the MNCs will have significant impact on competition, price level and availability. The price difference between Indian ‘generics’ and MNCs’ ‘branded generic’ drugs could  sometimes be as high as 80 to 85 times. A few more larger scale brownfield takeovers may even destroy all the benefits of India’s generics revolution.

4. FDI inflow into Research & Development of the Pharma Industry has been totally unsatisfactory. 

5. FDI flow into brown field projects has not added any significant fresh capacity in manufacturing, distribution network or asset creation. Over last 15 years, MNCs have contributed only 5 per cent of the gross fixed assets creation, that is Rs 3,022 crore against Rs 54,010 crore by the domestic companies. Further, through brownfield acquisitions significant strides have not been made by the MNCs, as yet, for new job creation and technology transfer in the country.

6. Once a foreign company takes over an Indian company, it gets the marketing network of the major Indian companies and, through that network, it changes the product mix and pushes the products, which are more profitable and expensive. There is no legal provision in India to stop any MNC from changing the product mix.

7. Though the drug prices may not have increased significantly after such acquisitions yet, there is still a lurking threat that once India’s highly cost efficient domestic capacity is crushed under the weight of the dominant force of MNCs, the supply of low priced medicines to the people will get circumvented.

8. The ‘decimation’ of the strength of local pharma companies runs contrary to achieving the drug security of the country under any situation, since there would be few or no Indian companies left having necessary wherewithal to manufacture affordable generics once a drug goes off patent or comply with a Compulsory License (CL).

9. Current FIPB approval mechanism for brownfield pharma acquisitions is inadequate and would not be able to measure up to the challenges as mentioned above.

The Committee is also of the opinion that foreign investments per se are not bad. The purpose of liberalizing FDI in pharma was not intended to be just about takeovers or acquisitions of domestic pharma units, but to promote more investments into the pharma industry for greater focus on R&D and high tech manufacturing, ensuring improved availability of affordable essential drugs and greater access to newer medicines, in tandem with creating more competition. 

Based on all these, The Committee felt that FDI in brown field pharma sector has encroached upon the generics base of India and adversely affected Indian pharma industry. Therefore, the considered opinion of the Parliamentary Committee is that the Government must impose a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma projects.

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

Unmoved by the above report of the Parliamentary Committee, just two days later, on August 16, 2013, the Prime Minister of India, in a meeting of an inter-ministerial group chaired by him, reportedly ruled that the existing FDI policy will apply for approval of all pharmaceutical FDI proposals pending before the Foreign Investments Promotion Board (FIPB). Media reported this decision as, “PM vetoes to clear the way for pharma FDI.”

This veto of the PM includes US $1.6-billion buyout of the injectable facility of Agila Specialties, by US pharma major Mylan, which has already been cleared by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

This decision was deferred earlier, as the DIPP supported by the Ministry of Health had expressed concerns stating, if MNCs are allowed to acquire existing Indian units, especially those engaged in specialized affordable life-saving drugs, it could possibly lead to lower production of those essential drugs, vaccines and injectibles with consequent price increases. They also expressed the need to protect oncology facilities, manufacturing essential cancer drugs, with assured supply at an affordable price, to protect patients’ interest of the country.

Interestingly, according to Reserve Bank of India, over 96 per cent of FDI in the pharma sector in the last fiscal year came into brownfield projects. FDI in the brownfield projects was US$ 2.02 billion against just US$ 87 million in the green field ventures.

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

In the same August 16, 2013 inter-ministerial group meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, it was also reportedly decided that DIPP  will soon float a discussion paper regarding curbs that could be imposed on foreign takeovers or stake purchases in existing Indian drug companies, after consultations with the ministries concerned.

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

The arguments allaying fears underlying some of the key apprehensions, as raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, are as follows:

1. FDI in pharma brownfield will reduce competition creating an oligopolistic market:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.6%. The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM (Source: AIOCD/AWACS – Apr. 2013). Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination.

In a scenario like this, the apprehension of oligopolistic market being created through brownfield acquisitions by the MNCs, which could compromise with country’s drug security, needs more informed deliberation.

2. Will limit the power of government to grant Compulsory Licensing (CL):

With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical producers in India, there is expected to be enough skilled manufacturers available to make needed medicines during any emergency e.g. during H1N1 influenza pandemic, several local companies stepped forward to supply the required medicine for the patients.

Thus, some argue, the idea of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDIs to prevent domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative otherwise, just from the CL point of view may sound unreasonable, if not protectionist in a globalized economy.

3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company is believed by some to have no bearing on pricing or access, especially when medicine prices are controlled by the NPPA guidelines and ‘competitive pressure’.

In an environment like this, any threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, is unlikely, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (comment: whatever it means).

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries: 

A study of the United Nations has indicated that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

Even after paying heed to all the above arguments, the Commerce Minister of India has been expressing his concerns since quite some time, as follows:

“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharma sector has neither proved to be an additionality in terms of creation of production facilities nor has it strengthened the R&D in the country. These facts make a compelling case for revisiting the FDI policy on brownfield pharma.”

As a consequence of which, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly been opposing FDI in pharma brownfield projects on the grounds that it is likely to make generic life-saving drugs expensive, given the surge in acquisitions of domestic pharma firms by the MNCs.

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

Further, the DIPP and the Ministry of Health reportedly fear that besides large generic companies like Ranbaxy and Piramal, highly specialized state-of-the-art facilities for oncology drugs and injectibles in India are becoming the targets of MNCs and cite some examples as follows:

  • Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.
  • In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.
  • Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.
  • In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.
  • Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.
  • With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

“It should be made mandatory to invest average profits of last three years in the R&D for the next five years. Further, the foreign entity should continue investing average profit of the last three years in the listed essential drugs for the next five years and report the development to the government.”

Another report indicated, a special group set up by the Department of Economic Affairs suggested the government to consider allowing up to 49 per cent FDI for pharma brownfield investments under the automatic route.However, investments of more than 49 per cent would be referred to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

It now appears, a final decision on the subject would be taken by the Prime Minister after a larger inter-mimisterial consultation, as was decided by him on August 14, 2013.

The cut-off date to ascertain price increases after M&A:

Usually, the cut off point to ascertain any price increases post M&A is taken as the date of acquisition. This process could show false positive results, as no MNC will take the risk of increasing drug prices significantly or changing the product-mix, immediately after acquisition.

Significant price increases could well be initiated even a year before conclusion of M&As and progressed in consultation by both the entities, in tandem with the progress of the deal. Thus, it will be virtually impossible to make out any significant price changes or alteration in the product-mix immediately after M&As.

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

It is argued that M&As, both in ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ areas, and joint ventures contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for Indians but also access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. It cannot be refuted that technology transfer by the MNCs not only stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but also positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. However, examples of technology transfer by the MNCs in India are indeed few and far between.

This school of thought cautions, any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investments even in the R&D sector of India less inviting.

As listed in the United Nation’s World Investment Report, the pharmaceutical industry offers greater prospects for future FDI relative to other industries.  Thus, restrictive policies on pharmaceutical FDI, some believe, could promote disinvestments and encourage foreign investors to look elsewhere.

Finally, they highlight, while the Government of India is contemplating modification of pharma FDI policy, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in pharmaceuticals. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the Euro Zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any hasty step by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

While India is publicly debating policies to restructure FDI in the ‘Brownfield’ pharma sector, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries.  Between October 2010 and January 2011, as mentioned earlier, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Thus the moot question is, what type of FDI in the pharma brownfield sector would be good for the country in the longer term and how would the government incentivize such FDIs without jeopardizing the drug security of India in its endeavor to squarely deal with any conceivable  eventualities in future?

Conclusion:

In principle, FDI in the pharma sector, like in any other identified sectors, would indeed benefit India immensely. There is no question about it…but with appropriate checks and balances well in place to protect the national interest, unapologetically.

At the same time, the apprehensions expressed by the Government, other stakeholders and now the honorable members of the Parliament, across the political party lines, in their above report, should not just be wished away by anyone.

This issue calls for an urgent need of a time bound, comprehensive, independent and quantitative assessment of all tangible and intangible gains and losses, along with opportunities and threats to the nation arising out of all the past FDIs in the brownfield pharma sector.

After a well informed debate by experts on these findings, a decision needs to be taken by the law and policy makers, whether or not any change is warranted in the structure of the current pharma FDI policy, especially in the brownfield sector. Loose knots, if any, in its implementation process to achieve the desired national outcome, should be tightened appropriately.

I reckon, it is impractical to expect, come what may, the law and policy makers will keep remaining mere spectators, when Indian Pharma Crown Jewels would be tempted with sacks full of dollars for change in ownerships, jeopardizing presumably long term drug security of the country, created painstakingly over  decades, besides leveraging immense and fast growing drug export potential across the world.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only assess any  possible adverse impact of Mergers & Acquisitions on competition, not all the apprehensions, as expressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and so is FIPB.

That said, in absence of a comprehensive impact analysis on pharma FDIs just yet, would the proposal of PSC to ban foreign investments in pharma brownfield sector and the PM’s subsequent one time veto to clear all pending FDI proposals under the current policy, be construed as irreconcilable internal differences…Or a clever attempt to create a win-win situation without ruffling MNC feathers?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

As we know, a substance is called a drug when it has scientifically proven and well documented efficacy and safety profile to reduce both mortality and morbidity of patients. Any fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards, for whatever may be the reasons or wherever these take place, is a fraud on patients and should warrant zero tolerance.

A perception survey on drug quality:

According to a poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’ of the United States:

  • More than three out of four voters are confident that prescription drugs made in the USA are free from contamination
  • While less than one in 10 feel confident about medications made in India or China.
  • 54 percent of Americans distrusted Indian drugs and 70 percent distrusted Chinese drugs.
  • “When you buy a shirt, it will say right on the label where it was made, but when you get a pharmaceutical, you don’t know.”

Despite all these, the survey points out that in 2007, 68 percent of the ingredients of all drugs sold worldwide came from India or China, as compared to 49 percent in 2004.

Experts comment that USFDA does not have either people or resources required to monitor manufacturing in the geographically widespread locations, as these are today.

Recent spate of charges against Indian pharmaceutical companies – a vindication?

Recent spate of charges against some top ranked Indian companies, will further dent the image of India not just in the United States or Europe, but also as a pharmacy of high quality yet low cost generic drugs for the developing countries of the world.

In May 2013, well known India-based pharma major Ranbaxy reported to have pleaded guilty to criminal charges of manufacturing and distributing some adulterated medicines, produced at its Paonta Sahib and Dewas, facilities and agreed to US$ 500-millon settlement. Can this be considered as a vindication of the above perception on the quality of ‘made in India’ drugs?

The view of WHO:

Interestingly the World Health Organisation (WHO) even after the above USFDA indictment has commented that at present it has no evidence that Ranbaxy manufactured medicines that are currently prequalified by WHO are of unacceptable quality.

Indian drug regulator initiates action:

It is good to know that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Ministry of Health will reportedly decide the way forward in this matter on completion of a fact-finding study initiated by the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) on the subject.

Other incidents in India:

Following are examples of other reported serious regulatory violations involving the domestic pharmaceutical companies:

No.

Year

Company

Issue

Status
2009 Lupin USFDA warning for Mandideep plant Resolved in 2010
2010 Claris Life Sciences USFDA ban products for manufacturing norms violations Ban revoked in 2012
2011 Zydus Cadila USFDA warns Co. over Moraiya, Gujarat Facility Ban revoked in 2012
2011 Dr Reddy’s USFDA bans sale of drugs from Mexico facility Ban revoked in 2012
2013 Jubilant Life Sciences Gets USFDA warning for Canada facility Company taking corrective steps
2013 Wockhardt Banned from exporting products from its Aurangabad factory to the US due to quality concerns In discussion

Source: The Economic Times (May 22, 2013), Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Though some other countries also have faced bans from exporting products, it cannot be taken, I reckon, as any consolation by anyone.

A Mumbai Hospital demonstrated the mood of zero tolerance:

The above expression of good intent should not just remain as a ‘lip service’. Indian drug regulator is expected to take a leaf out of all these allegations and initiate appropriate audit as required. Otherwise, exhibiting zero tolerance, like Jaslok Hospital of Mumbai, many other institutions will ask their doctors not to prescribe products of these companies to protect patients’ interest. More hospitals reportedly are mulling similar action against Ranbaxy.

IMA expresses apprehension:

Even ‘The Indian Medical Association (IMA)’ has reportedly asked the DCGI to investigate quality of medicines manufactured by Ranbaxy.

It happens in the ‘heartland’ too just as in the ‘hinterland’:

Contrary to the above poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’, pointing accusing fingers, in this respect, exclusively to India and China, may not be just fair. Incidents of such regulatory violations are not just restricted to Indian pharmaceutical companies either. Unfortunately, these happen with the global majors too.

None of these should be condoned in any way by anyone and attract as much global publicity, public wrath and zero tolerance, as all these would possibly deserve.

Following are some examples:

No

Company

Issues with USFDA

Consent decree signed (year)

Issue status

Penalty amount
Schering-Plough GMP violations affecting four manufacturing sites and 125 products

Yes (2002)

Closed (2007)

 $500 Mn.
GlaxoSmithKline Manufacturing deficiencies found at Puerto Rico facility

Yes (2005)

Pending

 $650 Mn. Bond
Wyeth GMP violations at plant in Pennsylvania and New York which were producing FluShield

Yes (2000)

Pending

 $297 Mn. Plus 18.5% of sales of FluShield
Abbott Labs Non-conformance with quality system regulations for in vitro diagnostic products at an Illinois facility

Yes (1999)

Pending

 $212 Mn.
Boehringer Ingelheim To bring its Ohio facility into compliance with regulatory requirements

Yes (2013)

Pending

 Not specified

Source: Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Further, in December 1998 the US FDA reportedly had stopped shipments of Abbott Laboratories’ clot-busting drug Abbokinase till the company had resolved undisclosed manufacturing problems at its plant. Abbott subsequently resolved this to the satisfaction of the drug regulator.

Even end May 2011, the USFDA reportedly raised concerns about contamination of drugs of the American pharmaceutical major – Hospira, at its Indian manufacturing facility.This issue was highlighted as the latest in a string of manufacturing and quality problems dogging the company since 2010.

American lawmakers demand thorough review of USFDA oversight procedures:

Pressure has reportedly started mounting in the United States for a thorough review into the effectiveness of oversight procedures for all bulk drugs and formulations manufactured in foreign facilities.

Simultaneously, there is also a specific demand for an in-depth review of all actions of the US regulator for so many years, which allowed Ranbaxy’s ‘massive fraud to remain unchecked’.

Beyond regulatory oversight, need robust internal system driven model as a fire-wall:

To address such issues only drug regulators interventions may not be just enough, maintaining total integrity of ‘Supply Chain’ of an organization proactively in a well structured, fool-proof and a system-driven way, will continue to play the most critical role. This will help creating ‘fire-wall’, which will be difficult to breach.

The scope of Supply Chain:

The scope of ‘Supply Chain’, which is comprised of the entire network of entities from vendors who supply raw and packaging materials, manufacturers who convert these materials into medicines, together with warehouses, distributors, retailers and healthcare centers who will reach these medicines ultimately to patients exactly the way these will deserve.

Thus, just not in the manufacturing process, any breach of security at any place of the supply chain can cause serious problems to patients. 

Accordingly, pharmaceutical companies need to adequately invest along with appropriate staff training programs to ensure that the Supply Chain Integrity is maintained, always.

Supply Chain Security (SCS) is critical:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively.

All pharmaceutical players should realize that not just ‘show-off’, an effective integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

Mixing-up counterfeit drugs with this menace may not be prudent:

Shouting for counterfeit drugs involving mainly intellectual property related issues, may be  important, but will in no way help resolving self-created menaces arising out of breach of supply chain integrity endangering million of lives, in another way.

Though an expensive process, can’t be compromised:

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which entices many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

A serious SCS related tragedy:

I would like to reinforce my argument on the importance of SCS with the following example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was seriously violated with ‘ingeneuity’.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with Over Sulfated Chondroitin Sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that Heparin Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China supplied Heparin to Baxter.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan, as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Considering all these, pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Apprehension against generic drugs as a class:

Taking advantage of the situation, one can possibly say, as some vested interests have already started propagating that generic equivalents of the branded drugs are really not quite the same in quality.

However, the point that cannot be ignored is the comment of a senior USFDA, who was quoted in the same article saying, “I have heard it enough times from enough people to believe that there are a few products that aren’t meeting quality standards.“

Generic drug manufacturers should make serious note of such comments and act accordingly to allay prevailing lurking fear on the use of generic medicines, in general, though small in number.

Conclusion:

Following the recent series of incidents including that of Ranbaxy, the image of India as a low cost generic drugs manufacturer of high quality could get adversely impacted. Although there are enough instances that such things happen in the developed world, as well, including the United States.

Moreover, in the backdrop of high decibel quality concerns raised by USFDA, the level of apprehension regarding effectiveness of generic drugs made in India may increase significantly, unless some tangible, well thought out and highly publicized remedial measures are taken forthwith.

The decision of Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai advising their doctors for not using Ranbaxy products to patients on the same ground, will further strengthen the public apprehension.

Whatever may be the reason, as long as any company is in the business of manufacturing medicines, there should be demonstrable zero tolerance on any compromise, fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards. Any fraud and negligence in drug quality, I reckon, is virtually a fraud against humanity.

That said, changing mindset towards a strong corporate governance by walking the talk, all pharmaceutical companies must guarantee safe and high quality medicines to the society, come what may.

This, I believe, could be achieved by putting in place a robust SCS system and ensuring that this is not compromised in any way… anywhere…ever… for patients’ sake…both globally and locally.

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.

 

 

“Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients”: Exploring the book to be released in the Indian context

Posted on by
Reply

The title of today’s article could make some of the readers uncomfortable and angry, just as what I experienced while writing the same, being a long time follower and student of the pharmaceutical industry, both global and local.

Ethical business conduct and value standards, especially of medium, large to very large pharmaceutical corporations both in India and across the world are coming increasingly under stakeholders’ scrutiny, besides being severely criticized for non-compliance in many instances by the regulators, judiciary and public at large. We shall find many such examples over a long period of time even from within our own land.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world, although there are some very strong common parameters that can be globally followed.

In many companies’ websites such standards are also available in their minutest details. Unfortunately, even some of those companies are also being reportedly held guilty for blatant violations of their own set standards of ethics and compliance.

This trend could prompt one to believe, sincere attempts are still lacking to ensure effective implementation of such well drafted ‘Business Ethics and Values’ in country-specific ways by many of these companies.

The most challenging obstacle to overcome in this area by the corporates, I reckon, would still remain ‘walking the talk’, owning the responsibility and taking sustainable remedial measures, at least when these violations are conclusively established followed by penal actions.

A new book with graphic details: 

In this context, ‘The Economist’ in its September 29, 2012 reviewed a book titled ‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, written by Ben Goldacre, a British doctor and science writer. According to Amazon the book is due to be released on January 8, 2013.

In this book the author describes incidences of routine corruption in the healthcare system and brings out to the fore citing details of some of the following areas, how patients’ interests are being continuously and blatantly compromised by many pharmaceutical companies unabated, just for commercial gain:

  1. Pharmaceutical companies bury clinical trials which show bad results for a drug and publish only those that show a benefit.
  2. The trials are often run on small numbers of unrepresentative patients, and the statistical analyses are massaged to give as rosy a picture as possible.
  3. Entire clinical trials are run not as trials at all, but as ‘under-the-counter advertising campaigns’ designed to persuade doctors to prescribe a company’s drug.

Dr. Ben Goldacre does not spare the drug regulators also as he writes, ‘drug regulators, who do get access to some of the hidden results, often guard them jealously, even from academic researchers, seeming to serve the interests of the firms whose products they are supposed to police.’

The author also writes that ‘many studies published in reputed medical journals are written by the commercial ghostwriters, who are paid by the pharmaceutical companies and are not written by those whose names appear as the author of those studies. He laments that based on such clinical trial reports blitzkrieg expensive marketing campaigns are conducted to influence doctors prescribing such drugs.

None of the above instances is unreported in India, may be in forms which are many shades worse than what has been described by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his above book.

‘The Economist’ recommends that ‘this is a book that deserves to be widely read, because anyone who does read it cannot help feeling both uncomfortable and angry’.

India can’t delay tightening its belt any further:

The concerns of Dr. Ben Goldacre are also being expressed in India quite vocally, almost in all the areas as mentioned above. Thus India needs to tighten its regulatory systems and ensure proper implementation of all its policies, and if required framing some new ones, so that the country can come out of this quagmire which severely hurts the patients’ interests at large.

Among many others, two critical areas where such alleged corporate malpractices are being continuously reported are as follows:

I. Clinical Trials

II. Marketing Practices 

I. Ethical concerns over Clinical Trial in India are not getting mitigated:

Clinical trial system still remains a critical area of concern in India. The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Because of this reason, on October 8, 2012 the Supreme Court reportedly asked the government to provide details of clinical trials being conducted across the country, which will include drug side effects and clinical trial related deaths, in which case compensation, if any, paid to the victims or to their family members.

This direction came from the apex court of the country while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging Indian citizens are being used as guinea pigs during clinical trials by the pharmaceutical companies all over the country, mainly due to lack of informed consent of the enrolled patients and thereafter short changing their interest citing various reasons.

Clinical-trials process of the country is now, therefore, under intense scrutiny of the government, NGOs and also of the judiciary after a number of scandals focusing on malpractices, somewhat similar to what Dr. Ben Goldacre has highlighted in his book, as mentioned above. These series of events have recently prompted the regulators to come out with proposals of reforms in this important area, for all concerned.

The Parliament intervened:

Recently the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The PSC in its report made, the following critical findings, besides others:

  • “A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

Regulators woke-up:

In response to the prevailing conundrum, ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’ of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July, 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on the ‘Permission to conduct Clinical Trial’.

The draft notification says that the licensing authority only after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct clinical trial, subject to compliance of specified stringent conditions.

However, some experts do apprehend that such stringent system could give rise to significant escalation in the costs of clinical trials for the pharmaceutical players.

Similarly to assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths following parameters were mooted in the document:

  • Age of the deceased
  • Income of the deceased
  • Seriousness and severity of the disease, the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
  • Percentage of permanent disability.

 II. Ethical concerns on marketing malpractices in India: 

This issue has no longer remained a global concern. Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject, involving even the Government and also the Parliament. It has been reported that a related case is now pending with the Supreme Court for hearing in not too distant future.

In 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that “the evil practice” of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India (MCI) had no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.’

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of photocopies of the air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO that “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies and deny the tax incentives.

Incidences of such alleged malpractices related to financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession are unfolding reasonably faster now. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses. 

Conclusion:

Statistics of compliance to ‘The Codes of Business Ethics & Corporate Values’ are important to know, but demonstrable qualitative changes in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation, the pharmaceutical industry being no exception.

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and even more importantly their compliance are gradually gaining importance and relevance in the globalized business environment.

However, quite in conflict with the above initiative, at the same time, many pharmaceutical corporations across the world are being increasingly forced to come to terms with the heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments and judiciary. Unfortunately the Juggernaut still keeps moving, perhaps arising out of intense pressure for corporate business performance.

I am not quite sure though, whether such an expectation for ‘Corporate Ethics and Values’ is ‘utopian’ for the pharmaceutical industry or can be translated into reality with some amount of sincere efforts and commitment. However, if it does not happen, sooner than later, the ‘Bad Pharma’ image of the pharmaceutical industry across the world, as enunciated by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his book, will continue to linger inviting increasingly fierce public wrath along with stringent government regulatory controls and judicial interventions.

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.

Nine Major Challenges Constraining Indian Pharmaceutical Industry From Taking a Quantum Leap

Posted on by
Reply

Among the developing nations of the world, India has already carved out a special niche for itself in many business verticals of the pharmaceutical industry and is currently being recognized as the ‘pharmacy of the world’ for the generic medicines.

Even over seven years after ushering-in of the product patent regime in India in January 2005, domestic pharmaceutical companies keep dominating the Indian market overwhelmingly in all respect. Nonetheless, rejuvenated interest of the global players on India, because of unignorable business potential in the country, can now be quite palpably felt, despite many formidable challenges all around.

In the post product patent regime, though Indian companies have started investing in R&D, the first ‘Made in India’ new and innovative drug is yet to receive marketing approval anywhere in the world, including India. Thus the much needed thrust on innovation should continue unabated.

Unfortunately, despite continuous growth of the Indian pharmaceutical market and that too at a reasonably brisk pace since over decades, quite a large number of small-scale pharmaceutical units were compelled to shut their operations since 2008, just for not being able to adequately cope with the tough business challenges and competitive pressure. As the country moves ahead, these challenges, coupled with fierce competitive pressure, could further escalate, if not attended to with crafty strategies by the individual companies ably supported by the robust healthcare-reform oriented policy measures by the government.

In this article, I shall flag nine such major challenges, not necessarily in the same sequence, that the industry and the government should jointly address to create a win-win situation for all – the industry, patients, government and all other stakeholders.

 I.  High ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure limiting access to medicines:

While India is making reasonably rapid strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in providing healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 74 percent and 72 percent of which is the cost of medicines (Source: HLEG  Report).

This is mainly because of the following key reasons:

  • Low public spending on healthcare at around just 1.1 percent of the GDP
  • Fragile healthcare infrastructure
  • Very low penetration of health insurance system for all strata of society
  • Poor healthcare delivery system
  • Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’

Government Share in Total Healthcare Spend is One of the Lowest in the World 

Country

Brazil

China

Mexico

South Africa

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Sri Lanka

India
% of Healthcare Spend

47

62.5

49

44

33

34

45

29

(Source: data compiled)

Changing disease pattern increases healthcare expenditure, further limiting access

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to non-infectious chronic illnesses, requiring longer duration of treatment, OoP expenditure on healthcare will increase even more, bringing greater misery to the population in general and creating even greater access barrier, if no action is taken immediately.

It is worth acknowledging that one finds some good initiatives though, especially for the population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through rural micro health insurance units. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country, which is far from enough.

II.  Public and government pressure to make drug prices more affordable:

Pharmaceutical companies in India have been constrained to live with continuing focus of the government and also of the civil society on ‘reasonably affordable medicines’ irrespective of the fact whether they are generic or patented.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals has reportedly started comparing Indian drug prices with their international equivalents in terms of the ‘purchasing power parity’ and ‘per capita income’ and not just their prevailing prices in various developed markets converted into rupees. With such comparisons the government has already started voicing that prices of medicines in India are not the cheapest but on the contrary one of the costliest in the world.

Thus, one of the critical challenges of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry continues to be delivering affordable medicines for a large section of the population of the country, as expected by the government. Reported high profitability, at least, of the listed pharmaceuticals companies gives an impression to the stakeholders, including the government, that there is a scope for further reduction of pharmaceutical prices in India.

Pharmaceuticals being covered under the ‘Essential Commodities Act’, empower the government to announce the ‘administered price’ for essential medicines. Current debate and deliberations on the New Drug Policy both by the Supreme Court and the Group of Ministers is a case in point.

Be that as it may, the proposed pricing methodology and the span of price control in the long overdue New Drug Policy have just been announced by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on September 27, 2012, which is in line with what I had recommended in my article of May 21, 2012 in this blog.

In my view, the new proposal of the GoM is expected to improve both the availability and affordability of the essential medicines, significantly.

 III.  Inadequate penetration of current health insurance schemes:

Health insurance coverage is still very low in India as compared to, among many other countries, Brazil and South Africa and at-par with our neighboring island state Sri Lanka. The details are as follows:

Country

Brazil

South Africa

Sri Lanka

India
% of Healthcare Spend

21

39

10

10

(Source: data compiled)

Moreover, currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, if India wants to bring down the OoP expenditure for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

IV. Pricing of Patented Drugs: 

Innovative pharmaceutical products patented in India are expected to facilitate access to latest modern medicines to the country’s population to meet their unmet needs, if available at a reasonably affordable price.

To respond to this important need of the patients, many innovator companies like, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have already announced a differential pricing mechanism for their patented medicines in India.

Recent grant of compulsory license of Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco, among other reasons on pricing issue by the Indian Patent Office, has raised serious concerns among the innovator companies across the world on their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India, but not on their pricing strategy for the country, as of now.

It appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory license by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.  Such decisions may be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Moreover, to improve access of such medicines to the common man, the Government of India should have a robust procurement plan for these products, at a well negotiated price, for supply through Government hospitals and dispensaries.

Despite all these, it remains a hard reality that pressure on pricing of patented products, very likely, will continue to pose a challenge in India.

An innovative approach

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly  entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company, Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunvir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early next year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly. 

 V. Fostering innovation and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR):

Innovation:

Many companies expect that ‘tomorrow’ will be a ‘mega today’ and prefer to continue to run their businesses more or less the same way, as what they are currently doing. At the same time the global market keeps sending, in very small measures though, but definite and continuous signals of changes. As we move on, we realize that ‘tomorrow’ will not be a ‘mega today’, just as ‘today’ is not a ‘mega yesterday’. To meet such challenges of change squarely and realistically, one will need to embrace a culture of ‘continuous innovation’ in all the fields of business processes in India.
Therefore, the name of the game, while competing within the globalized economy is “continuous innovation”, which is more than a novel idea or a set of novel ideas. It is, in fact, the process of translating the novel idea/ideas into reality.
Like other industries, the pharmaceutical sector in India will also have to innovate with cutting edge ideas, convert them to implementable business models and processes, which in turn would help these companies to remain competitive in the globalized market place. The innovation, which I am talking about, extends far beyond Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for a product.
While innovation is an absolute must to remain and grow the business, having patented products and marketing these brands effectively are desirable, but not a ‘must do’ for the Indian pharmaceutical companies, just yet. Unfortunately, not much inclusive innovation is taking place within the industry as of now, which consequently poses a great challenge for a quantum leap of this knowledge based industry of the country.

IPR

From the perspective of the global innovator companies across the world, ‘lack of a robust innovation friendly ecosystem’ in India is still a major challenge. However, home grown companies feel otherwise. This is mainly because, before enactment of the Indian Patents Act (amended) 2005, it was widely reported that mainly for the interest of Public Health and probably also to ensure that the growth of the domestic pharmaceutical industry does not get very adversely impacted, the Parliament of India ensured inclusion of a number of ‘safeguards’ including checks on ‘ever-greening’ of pharmaceutical patents and broader provisions for the grant of ‘Compulsory License’ in the statute.

Such provisions in the Indian Patents Act throw a major challenge to the global innovator companies spreading across the continents to get many of their new molecules patented in India and subsequently launch in the country. 

 VI. Counterfeit Medicines:

India still needs to generate enough credible data to convince itself and then to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies of India or research based pharmaceutical players across the world.

The other side of the coin is that counterfeit versions of high value and/or high volume brands of the pharmaceutical companies in India are adversely affecting their business performance posing another major challenge. 

 VII.  Talent Pool: 

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals. In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

Target Actual Shortfall %
Doctors 1,09,484 26,329 76
Specialists 58,352 6,935 88
Nurses 1,38,623 65,344 53
Radiographers 14,588 2,221 85
Lab Technicians 80,308 16,208 80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12th Plan draft chapter

Besides above, other key challenge faced by the pharmaceutical industry in this area is dearth of industry-specific employable work force in important areas like, R&D, clinical research, pre-clinical and clinical studies, manufacturing, quality assurance, besides sales and marketing. 

 VIII.  Requirement of Stringent Regulatory Practices:

In the increasingly globalized economy, strict conformance to high regulatory standards like, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) pose another major challenge for the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Those pharmaceutical companies who are involved in manufacturing and export of drugs and pharmaceuticals are required to meet standards set up not only by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and/or the State Drug controllers, but also of the regulatory authorities of the respective countries, where their products will be exported.

 IX.   Ethics and Compliance: 

We have been witnessing for quite some time that ethical concerns related to the pharmaceutical industry, spanning across clinical trials to ethical marketing practices, are hugely bothering a large section of the stakeholders, solely for the interest of the patients.

Such concerns are assuming greater proportion, as the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly facing stringent regulatory and media scrutiny in gradually expanding areas of business operations. Thus, to overcome this challenge, there is a dire need for the industry to move beyond its usual bottom-line centric model to a transparent, comprehensive and implementable ‘Ethics and Compliance Models’, which are well meshed with all other business processes.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals has not delivered yet:

To help the pharmaceutical industry overcoming all the above nine major challenges in India, even the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), considered being the nodal department for the pharma sector does not seem to have delivered, as yet.

In 2008, when the DoP was formed, it was widely expected that the department will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues, with an integrated approach, to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest:

  • A modern, both growth and access oriented, drug policy and pricing mechanism.
  • Continuous improvement of access to high quality and affordable modern medicines for all.
  • An efficient, transparent and non-discretionary drug price regulatory system.
  • An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and foster pharmaceutical innovation.
  • Addressing the issue of high ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of the general population towards medicines in particular and healthcare in general together with the Ministry of Health.
  • Facilitating fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India to help driving their growth.

It is worth mentioning, all these will necessitate a close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under different ministries of the government, DoP being the nodal department. Unfortunately, this is not happening today, the way it should. 

Conclusion:

If remedial measures are not taken, sooner than later, to overcome these nine major challenges  bothby the pharmaceutical industry and the government working in tandem, it will be difficult for the industry to take a quantum leap in the foreseeable future, as is being envisaged by many.

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.

Indian Parliamentary Committee Indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 58th Report on the action taken by the Government on the recommendations / observations contained in the 45th report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

In this report the Committee examined, besides other important subjects, the issues related to making high quality generic/branded generic medicines, patented and imported products available to the public at affordable prices to reduce ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ of the general population of India, significantly.

The Committee also suggested that the Department of Health and Family Welfare, in coordination with the Department of Pharmaceuticals and with the active involvement of Chief Secretaries of the State Governments should formulate an effective ‘Essential Drug Supply’ policy having the following components:

  • Encouraging prescription of generic drugs
  • Adoption of essential drugs list
  • Adherence to Standard Treatment Guidelines
  • Ensuring drug procurement through open tender system
  • Distribution of low cost medicines through Government drugs stores like, ‘Jan Aushadhi’
  • Demand generation for generic drugs through public awareness program

In addition, the report captured the great concern of the committee on rampant prescription of irrational and useless drugs by many doctors with ulterior motives and expressed the need of inclusion of the essential and lifesaving drugs under strict price regulation.

Parliamentary Report indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals:

The committee, besides other issues, observed as follows with a strong indictment to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

  • The DoP seems be in the grip of policy inertia.
  • ‘Lackadaisical approach’ and ‘lack of sense of urgency’ of the DoP to iron out hindrances in establishing required number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ stores across the country have also resulted in their ‘soft-pedaling’ the issue of intensive promotion of generic drugs through a large number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, as was planned by the government.
  • DoP should shed its ‘indecisiveness’ and take all possible measures to speed up the revival and modernization of Public Sector Pharma Units, so that the all-important objective of access to affordable and quality medicines by all could be realized.
  • Currently there is no mechanism to regulate the prices of new patented drugs which are imported into the country and sold at ‘super-normal profits’. Committee recommended that India as a sovereign country has every right to determine, for public health interest, prices of all drugs which are sold in the open market, by putting in place an effective price control mechanism.
  • The issue of price regulation of all imported molecules including patented ones being sold in the country at high prices should be addressed by the DoP in the New Pharmaceutical Policy which is currently under finalization.
  • The DoP should take decisive action, without further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs’ and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices.
  • The country holds a strong position in producing generic drugs. Besides, it has a robust distribution network not only in the domestic market but also in other developing and underdeveloped countries of the world. Thus, the Government should make all-out efforts to arrest the trend of acquisition of domestic pharma companies by the multinationals.
  • The DoP to move the Cabinet for its approval with a sense of urgency for setting up the Central Procurement Agency as an autonomous society, as it can help control drug prices through effective procurement process.

Looking back:

In mid-2008, Government of India had set up a new department under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (MC&F), named the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP)’. The department was created primarily to have a greater focus on the pharmaceutical sector of India. Historically, issues and policies related to pharmaceutical industry mainly used to be handled by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. A separate Department of Fertilizers still handles all issues related to fertilizers in India. Both the departments were under the MC&F. The then Minister C&F felt that the pharmaceuticals sector has very many critical and complex issues, which are related mainly to pricing, access, availability, R&D, and other international commitments that necessitate integration of work with different ministries. A separate Department for Pharmaceuticals was, therefore, considered necessary to do justice to the pharmaceutical industry of India. The proposal, I reckon, was incubating with the government for quite some time though.

The expectations from DoP:

At that time in 2008,  it was widely expected that the DoP will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues, with an integrated approach, to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest:

  • A modern, both growth and access oriented, drug policy and pricing mechanism.
  • Continuous improvement of access to high quality and affordable modern medicines for all.
  • An efficient drug price regulatory system.
  • An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and foster pharmaceutical innovation.
  • Addressing the issue of high ‘out of pocket expenses’ of the general population towards medicines in particular and healthcare in general.
  • Facilitating fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India to further drive its growth.

As stated above, all these will necessitate a close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under different ministries of the government, DoP being the nodal department.

The Objectives of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

Be that as it may, following are the stated objectives of the DoP, as mentioned in the Results-Framework Document (RFD 2011-12) of the DoP:

  1. Ensure availability of drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma policy
  2. Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support
  3. Develop Pharma Infrastructure and Catalyze Drug Discovery and Innovation
  4. Launch and Position Pharma India Brand
  5. Develop Pharma Human Resources through M.Pharma and Ph.D programs in NIPERS
  6. Provide Infrastructure and staff for new NIPERs
  7. Strengthening of NIPER Mohaili
  8. ‘Jan Aushadhi Campaign’ and implementation of Business Plan for setting up of 3000 ‘Jan Aushadhi’ Stores (upto Subdivision level in the country)
  9. Incentivizing Private Sector for development of new Drugs for diseases endemic to India

It appears, the current performance of the DoP even against their stated objectives as mentioned in RFD 2011-12, has prompted the Parliamentary Committee to make the above harsh comments.

A look at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ – a scheme conceived with a great purpose:

Before going into the reasons for lackluster performance of this scheme, let us look at the following objectives of scheme as set out by the DoP:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.) 2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through  Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives. (I would support this objective may be from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would still argue: why do we reinvent the wheel?) 3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of good intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market of India.) 4. To help patients save significantly towards medicines costs with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets. 5. A national help line to increase awareness level of this initiative. The statement of intent of the DoP also highlights that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops across the country. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

Arguing for the need of a course correction for ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme: It now appears that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and is perhaps destined to go into the history as yet another good intention of the Government, if a course correction is not made forthwith in the right direction. The main issue in improving access to affordable quality medicines for the common man with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme does not lie in the conceptualization of this ‘Public Health’ project, where the Government is pretty good at, armed with the support of a good number of brilliant bureaucrats. The problem in translating this laudable idea into reality, I reckon, lies not only in the understanding of the critical barriers to the project, but also in making out the key drivers of the same.

Key barriers:

In my opinion, following two  are the key barriers to the success of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme:

  • Cost-effective procurement of quality medicines in adequate quantity
  • An effective delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other related bodies.

Cost effective procurement:

As recommended by the Parliamentary Committee, the DoP should move the Cabinet for its urgent approval to set up a Central Procurement Agency for cost effective procurement of quality medicines and at the same time encourage the state governments to do the same at respective state level.

No need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ – An effective delivery system already exists:

The DoP should explore possibilities of using the existing Government Public Delivery Systems to ensure cost effective easy access and availability of such medicines to the common man after tightening the loose knots wherever exist. There does not seem to be any dire need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this particular case.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘Public Distribution Systems’: The Government of India has following two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to far-flung rural areas: 1. Public Distribution System (PDS) : Called Ration shops and is currently used for public distribution of food grains and other essential commodities.

2. Indian Post Offices (IPO): This establishment is currently adding many other products, besides postal services, for effective distribution to the public

Quite like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why does DoP not collaborate with PDS/Ration Shops and IPOs through appropriate ministries to ensure easy availability and access to essential medicines by the common man?

This assumes even greater significance, when the Postal Department, as mentioned above, has already started collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas through IPO network. In that case, what prevents the DoP to consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend the usage of both PDS and IPOs by the DoP for deeper penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ across the country, especially for those who do not have adequate access to affordable modern essential medicines.

I am aware that the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’. It is about time that the government fixes strict accountability in these areas too.

We have currently many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure proper access and availability of “Jan Ausadhi” drugs to the common man”.

An intriguing observation in the Report:

It is indeed difficult to fathom the robustness of the reasoning of both the Parliamentary Committee and the DoP for the revival of the sick and loss making Public Sector Pharmaceutical Units in the country.

As stated above, the very second objective of the DoP also articulates as follows:

“Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support”.

This is indeed quite baffling.

Everyone knows that all these PSUs created at the expense of tax payers’ money, miserably failed to perform time and again, despite receiving all such incentives from the government umpteen number of times, even when the Indian pharmaceutical industry has been growing at a scorching pace, decade after decade.

Thus I wonder what magic wand the Government will wield now to be able to turn around these loss making and heavily bleeding PSUs from continuous non-performance and utter failure in governance and that too in the prevailing environment of fierce competitive pressure within the industry.

Considering all these, will the decision of pouring in even more money from the national exchequer’s fund into the bottomless pits of these loss making PSUs currently under dangerous tail spins fetch any dividend at all for the common man?

I reckon, if these PSUs still attract interest of some good private buyers/investors with reasonable valuation, the government should unhesitatingly decide to unlock these values, sooner the better.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, in July 25, 2011 a news item reported, “Department of Pharmaceuticals moots National Authority for Drugs & Therapeutics (NADT) with Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under it”.

If I recall, some years ago, another taskforce appointed by the Government suggested integration of the offices of the DCGI, CDSCO and NPPA along with all their powers and functions to ensure adequate availability and access to high quality medicines at affordable prices for the population of the country.

Nothing has fructified, as yet, in this direction. However, it appears from all such recommendations of various task forces that a strong desire to create powerful silos has perhaps assumed higher priority of the relevant players engaged in this ball game. Failure to deliver the deliverables for public health interest almost on a continuous basis by spending national exchequers money has become more a routine than exceptions.

That said, there seems to be a silver lining catching some eyeballs in this whole process. Some brilliant minds that the government now has in the DoP, I hope, will be able to turn around the situation to everybody’s satisfaction, sooner than later.

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.

“Indian Drug Regulator Accords Primacy to Pharma Industry Instead of Safegurding Public Health and Safety” – Parliamentary Committee

Posted on by
Reply

The Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

Regulations and the Regulator for the Pharmaceutical Industry of India – A snapshot:

The pharmaceutical industry in India is regulated, broadly, in the following ways:

  • Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 together with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules regulate the Pharmaceutical Industry across the country for all types of drugs, irrespective of the fact whether these are locally produced or imported from other countries of the world.
  • The office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is primarily responsible for effective enforcement of most of these laws and rules across the country.
  • All issues related to clinical trials, product approval and standards, import licenses and introduction of new drugs are the direct responsibilities of the DCGI’s office.
  • Health being a state subject in India, on the ground, Foods and Drugs Administrations (FDA) of the State Governments enforce laws related to approvals for setting up pharmaceutical production facilities and obtaining licenses to stock and sell drugs in their respective states.
  • A valid license from the Drug Regulator is necessary for location-wise manufacturing of each type of drugs in the country with a mandatory requirement of periodic renewal of such licenses, as specified therein.

A key point to ponder from the Report:

The report begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them because of the following reasons:

  • Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
  • Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
  • Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
  • Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

In this prevailing condition, the committee felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences, is absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Quite in congruence with this critical requirement the Committee examined in detail the functioning of CDSCO, which includes the office of the DCGI, as well, to ascertain whether applicable rules and laws are being implemented efficiently and honestly for the best interest of patients by the Drug Regulator of India.

Why is the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO industry oriented and not patient focused?

Very interestingly, the report highlights with the following examples, how out of line the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is as compared to the same of other countries by being blatantly industry oriented instead of safeguarding Public Health and safety:

Drug Regulator

The ‘Mission Statement’
1

CDSCO, India

 Meeting the aspirations…. demands and requirements of the pharmaceutical industry.
2.

USFDA, USA

 Protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs.
3.

MHRA, UK

 To enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe.
4.

TGA, Australia

 Safeguarding public health & safety in Australia by regulatingMedicines…

Consequently, the Committee took a very strong exception for such utter disregard and continued neglect of patients’ interest by the Drug Regulator of India and recommended immediate amendment of the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO incorporating in very clear terms that the existence of the organization is solely for the purpose of protecting the best interest of patients and their safety. It is needless to say that thereafter, it will require stringent conformance with the same with high precision.

Some very critical findings:

The committee in its report made the following critical findings, besides others:

  • “A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • When it comes to approving new drugs, too much is left to the absolute discretion of the CDSCO officials.
  • The Central Government can either issue directions under Section 33P to states to withdraw the licenses of FDCs granted without prior DCGI approval or the Central Government can itself ban such FDCs under Section 26A.
  • Though the Ministry is forming Drug Approval Committees, which are given very important powers, there is no transparent procedure for the selection of experts of such Committees.
  • Accurate information on drugs for patients is absolutely essential to prevent inappropriate use more particularly in children, elderly, during pregnancy and lactation.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of Clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

The Report named some pharmaceutical companies:

While arriving at these points, the report indicted some pharmaceutical companies, both national and international as follows (in alphabetical order):

Company Company Company
1. Bayer 8. Lundbeck 15. Ranbaxy
2. Cipla 9. Macleods 16. Sanofi
3. Centaur 10. Mars 17. Sun Pharmaceuticals
4. Emcure 11. Merck 18. Themis
5. Eli Lilly 12. Novartis 19. Theon
6. GlaxoSmithKline 13. Pharmacia (acquired by Pfizer) 20. UCB
7. Hetero 14. Phamasset Inc. (a subsidiary of Gilead) 21. Venus

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO in its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Allegation of possible collusion needs to be thoroughly probed:

The report also deliberates not only on the utter systemic failure of CDSCO along with the DCGI’s office to enforce law effectively, but also towards a possible collusion between CDSCO and the pharmaceutical industry to implement a self-serving agenda by hoodwinking the system. This is a very serious allegation, which needs to be thoroughly probed and the findings of which should be made public for everybody’s satisfaction.

Parliamentary Committee Report is a ‘considered advice and of persuasive value’:

Though any report of such Parliamentary Committee has been stated to have a persuasive value and be treated as considered advice given by the Committee, which in this case is to CDSCO, DCGI, Ministry of Health and also the industry.

Some probes already initiated:

Reuters in its publication of May 9, 2012 indicated that this Parliamentary Committee Report has prompted greater scrutiny even from the US regulators, which are reportedly investigating a number of drug companies under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Initial reports also indicate that both the Indian Government and some large international pharmaceutical companies have announced detail probe based on this report at their respective ends.

Some remedial measures - Mashelkar Committee Recommendations:

Considering all these, besides taking appropriate remedial measures related to Clinical Trials of drugs in India, it is about time to reconsider the recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in the Act accordingly to facilitate creation of a ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ introducing, along with other measures, a centralized licensing system for the manufacture, sale, export and distribution of drugs.

Why does India need CDA?

I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following significant benefits to the Industry and also to the Government for the best interest of public health and safety:

  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.

Conclusion:

As a consequence of the above report of the Parliamentary Committee identifying gross irregularities in the functioning of the CDSCO, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad has already announced constitution of a three-member committee to probe into the matter in depth.

Following well-known experts have been named as members of this high powered committee, which will submit its report and recommendations in two months’ time:

  • Dr. V.M. Katoch: Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
  • Dr. P.N. Tandon: President, National Brain Research Centre
  • Dr. S.S. Aggarwal: Former Director, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow

The committee has been mandated to:

  • Examine the validity of the scientific and statutory basis adopted for approval of new drugs without clinical trials
  • Outline appropriate measures to bring about systemic improvements in the processing and grant of statutory approvals
  • Suggest steps to institutionalize improvements in other procedural aspects of functioning of the CDSCO

The outcome of the report of this high powered committee, internal probes voluntarily initiated by some pharmaceutical companies and possible implementation of the ‘Mashelkar Committee’ recommendations on the formation of CDA in the country will hopefully bring in some systemic changes in the drug regulatory system of India, for patients’ sake.

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.