Tag Archives: List

National Health Policy 2017: Some Silver Linings, Some Trepidation

Posted on by
Reply

In September 2016, the Supreme Court directed the Indian Government to finalize the ‘National Health Policy (NHP)’ guaranteeing ‘assured health services to all’, a draft version of which was already made available to the public on December 30, 2014.

In its order the Apex Court had said: “In case the Union of India thinks it worthwhile to have a National Health Policy, it should take steps to announce it at the earliest and keep issues of gender equity in mind.”

After a wait of over two years, on March 16, 2017, the Union Cabinet approved the final version of the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) for implementation. The tough socioeconomic distress of the general population related to health care, fueled by near collapsing public health care delivery system when private health care providers are becoming more and more expensive, prompted the current Government to initiate drafting yet another new ‘Health Policy’, with a gap of around 15 years.

NHP 2017 covers a gamut of subjects while articulating its primary aim, which is to inform, clarify, strengthen and prioritize the role of the Government in shaping health systems in all its dimensions. These are investments in health, organization of health care services, prevention of diseases and promotion of good health through cross sectoral actions, access to technologies, developing human resources, encouraging medical pluralism, building a knowledge base, developing better financial protection strategies, strengthening regulation and health assurance.

In this article, primarily for greater clarity in understanding by the readers, I shall start with the reasons of my trepidation and then focus on the silver linings of the NHP 2017.

Some trepidation:

While explaining the reasons for my trepidation, I shall go back to what I said even before. Over several decades, many of us have tried to ferret out the reasons of giving low national priority to provide access to reasonably affordable, quality public health care to all its citizens by the successive Governments in India but in vain. The quest to know its rationale becomes more intense, as we get to know, even some developing countries in Asia, Africa and Middle East are taking rapid strides to catch up with the health care standards of the developed countries of the world.

In the last few years, many such countries, such as, Thailand, Turkey, Rwanda and Ghana, besides China, have successfully ensured access to quality and affordable health care to their citizens through well-structured national initiatives. The Governments of economically poorer countries, such as, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh too are making rapid progress in this direction, protecting the most vulnerable populations in their respective countries from getting sucked into extreme poverty.

In this context, it will be worthwhile recapping that the NHP 1983, which was revised in 2002, also recommended an increase in public health expenditure to 2.0 percent of GDP in 2010. Not too long ago, in October 2010, the then Government in power constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known international medical expert Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians. The HLEG Report defined UHC as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

That said, the reality is, even in the Union budget for 2017-18, the public spending on health keeps hovering around abysmal 1 percent of the GDP. The Union Budget Allocations for several critical health related programs have either remained just around the same as before, or have declined, in real terms. Almost similar trend is noticed in the States, as well. For example, according to the latest Maharashtra State Budget for 2017-18, the State has decided to spend much less on its medical and public health sector schemes in the forthcoming financial year.

Thus, leaving aside implementation of the most critical 1983 NHP goal of providing “Health for all by the year 2000 A.D”, even in 2017 India continues to grapple with the same sets of challenges for ensuring adequate availability, accessibility, affordability, and high quality of comprehensive health care for all.

Some silver linings:

Let bygones be bygones. Let me now focus on the silver linings of the NHP 2017.

Besides gradually raising public expenditure for health care from the current around 1.2 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP, following are examples of some silver linings as I see enshrined in several key objectives of the new health policy, besides several others:

  • Progressively achieve Universal Health Coverage: Assuring availability of free, comprehensive primary health care services; ensuring improved access and affordability, of quality secondary and tertiary care services through a combination of public hospitals and the strategic purchasing of services in health care deficit areas, from private care providers, especially the not-for profit providers; achieving a significant reduction in out of pocket expenditure due to health care costs with reduction in proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures and consequent impoverishment.
  • Reinforcing trust in Public Health Care System: Strengthening the trust of the common man in the public health care system by making it predictable, efficient, patient centric, affordable and effective, with a comprehensive package of services and products that meet immediate health care needs of most people.
  • Align the growth of the private health care sector with public health goals: Influence the operation and growth of the private health care sector and medical technologies to ensure alignment with public health goals.
  • Achieve specific quantitative goals and objectives: These are outlined under three broad components viz. (a) health status and program impact, (b) health systems’ performance and (c) health system strengthening. These goals and objectives are aligned to achieve sustainable development in the health sector in keeping with the policy thrust.

I was encouraged to note a few more silver linings, especially the following ones, from various different areas of the NHP 2017, which:

  • Intends to achieve the highest possible level of good health and well-being, through a preventive and promotive health care orientation, besides its emphasis on allocating up to two-thirds or more of resources to primary care followed by secondary and tertiary care.
  • Plans creation of Public Health Management Cadre in all States to optimize health outcomes and National Health Care Standards Organization to maintain adequate standards in public and private sector.
  • Advocates extensive use of digital tools for improving the efficiency and outcome of the health care system by creating a National Digital Health Authority (NDHA) to regulate, develop and deploy digital health covering the entire process of health care, besides encouraging the application of the ‘Health Card’ for access to a primary health care facility and services anytime, anywhere.
  • States that Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is an important tool to ensure that technology choice is not only participatory, but also guided by considerations of scientific evidence, safety, cost effectiveness, social values; and commits to the development of an institutional framework and required capacity for HTA’s quick adoption.
  • Assures timely revision of the National List of Essential Medicines along with the appropriate price control.
  • Promotes compliance to right of patients to access information on condition and treatment.

The high and low points in NHP 2017:

As I see it, following are - just one each - the most critical high and low points in NHP 2017:

A high point:

NHP 2017 making a categorical promise to increase public health spending to 2.5 percent of GDP in a time-bound manner, guaranteeing Universal Health Care (UHC), is indeed not just encouraging, but also a high point in its silver linings. This is because, without adequate Government spending in this area, it’s just not possible to give shape to UHC, however robust a national health policy is on paper.

A low point:

The draft version of the NHP 2017 had proposed making health a fundamental right for Indian citizens – quite like denial of health is an offence, and reiterated on enactment of this law as follows:

“Many industrialized nations have laws that do so. Many of the developing nations that have made significant progress towards universal health coverage, such as Brazil and Thailand, have done so, and … such a law is a major contributory factor. A number of international covenants to which we [India] are joint signatories give us such a mandate – and this could be used to make a national law. Courts have also rulings that, in effect, see health care as a fundamental right — and a constitutional obligation flowing out of the right to life.”

The draft NHP 2015 also assured, “The Centre shall enact, after due discussion and at the request of three or more states a National Health Rights Act, which will ensure health as a fundamental right, whose denial will be justiciable.”

Thus, one of the lowest points or most disappointing aspects of the NHP 2017, as compared to its draft version, is the absence of the intent of having a National Health Rights Act. This change makes UHC yet another promise, just as before, without any strong legal backing. As many experts believe, when legal rights and mechanisms institutionalize collaborative goals, methods, and service delivery, they create legally binding duties. Government agencies, patient advocates, and the public can invoke such laws to urge collaboration and seek required public health care services, as promised, always.

The reason behind general expectations for the National Health Rights Act, is mainly because previous National Health Policies also assured ‘health for all’ within a given time-frame. The same promise was also carried through by various successive Governments in the past, but did not come to fruition. Nothing has changed significantly on the ground related to public health care, not just yet. Hence, exclusion of the proposed section of this Act in the final version of the NHP 2017 is a low point for me.

The trepidation lingers. Will it be or won’t it be, yet another repetition of the Government promises made through NHPs or otherwise, is the moot question now.

In conclusion:

Specific time frame for achieving most of these policy objectives and intents are still awaited.

Nonetheless, while a robust health policy for a new India, and a commensurate increase in Government spending on public health is much warranted, building a well integrate, comprehensive and accountable health infrastructure that will be sensitive to public health care needs of the country, should assume top priority today.

There exists an 83 percent shortage of specialist medical professionals in the Community Health Centers (CHCs) of India, according to the Rural Health Statistics 2015 released by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which was reported by IndiaSpend on September 21, 2015. Again, on February 27, 2016, quoting similar Government Data, IndiaSpend reported that public-health centers across India’s rural areas – 25,308 in 29 states and seven union territories – are short of more than 3,000 doctors, the scarcity rose by 200 percent (or tripling) over 10 years.

Other sets of similar data on the grossly inadequate number of doctors, nurses, paramedics and hospital beds per thousand population in India, coupled with frugal rapid transportation facilities in the vast and remote areas of the country, send a clear signal that capacity building in these areas can’t wait any longer. It has been always essential, but did not feature in the ‘to-do’ list of the Government, until now. In that sense, silver linings in the NHP 2017 open the door of great expectations, especially for UHC, despite some trepidation.

Reasonably well-crafted and robust NHP 2017, needs to be integrated with similar initiatives of the States, soon. Effective implementation of a comprehensive, well-integrated and time-bound health care strategic plan, with requisite budgetary allocations having a periodic review process and assigning specific accountabilities to individuals, are the needs of the hour. Otherwise, the social and economic consequences of the status quo in the health care space of India, would impede the sustainable growth of the nation, seriously.

To progress in this direction, the prevailing status-quo must be disrupted, now – decisively and with a great sense of urgency. It is imperative for the Government to make each one of us not only to believe it, but also experience the same in our everyday life. It is important for all concerned to remember what none other than Prime Minister Modi tweeted on March 16, 2017: “National Health Policy marks a historic moment in our endeavor to create a healthy India where everyone has access to quality health care.”

The National Health Policy 2017 is in place now, this is the time to walk the talk!

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.

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

  • New therapeutic options
  • Changing therapeutic needs
  • The need to ensure drug quality
  • The need for continued development of better medicines
  • Medicines for emerging diseases
  • Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

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

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

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

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

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

  • 1 percent of drugs for anemia
  • 5 percent of respiratory drugs
  • 7 percent of antidepressants
  • 15 percent of drugs for diabetes
  • 18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
  • 13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
  • 23 percent of cardiac drugs
  • 35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

  • Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011
  • Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered
  • Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered
  • Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011
  • Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011
  • Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin
  • Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011
  • When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list
  • Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011
  • While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines
  • A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out
  • Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM
  • Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
  • Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane: 

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.”  This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress of 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.

Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?

Posted on by
Reply

I discussed in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?” of October 6, 2014 that on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

Special 301 Report and OCR – A brief Background:

According to the Office of USTR, Section 182 of the US Trade Act requires USTR to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IPR or deny fair and equitable market access to US persons who rely on Intellectual Property (IP) protection. The provisions of Section 182 are commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provisions of the US Trade Act.

Those countries that have the ‘most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant US products’ are to be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. In addition, USTR has created a “Priority Watch List” and a “Watch List” under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

In the 2014 Special 301 Report, USTR placed India on the Priority Watch List and noted that it would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern.

An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on IPR issues of concern and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy such issues.

For the purpose of the OCR of India, USTR had requested written submissions from the public concerning information, views, acts, policies, or practices relevant to evaluating the Government of India’s engagement on IPR issues of concern, in particular those identified in the 2014 Special 301 Report.

The Deadlines for written submissions were as follows:

Friday, October 31, 2014 - Deadline for the public, except foreign governments, to submit written comments.

Friday, November 7, 2014 - Deadline for foreign governments to submit written comments.

India’s earlier response to 2014 Special 301 Report:

On this report, India had responded earlier by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement. The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The issue was raised during PM’s US visit:

According to media reports, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his visit to America last month, had faced power packed protests against the drug patent regime in India from both the US drug industry and also the federal government.

The Indo-US joint statement addresses remedial measures:

In view of this concern, Indo-US high-level working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries. TPF has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after the talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama captures the essence of it as follows:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

Unilateral measures resurface within days after PM’s return from the US:

Almost immediately after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s return from the US, USTR ‘s fresh offensive with OCR against India’s IP regime, could have an adverse impact on the proposed bilateral dialogue with Washington on this issue.

However, dismissing this unilateral action of America, the Union Commerce Ministry, has reiterated the country’s stand, yet again, as follows:

“As far as we are concerned, all our laws and rules are compliant with our commitments at WTO. A country can’t judge India’s policies using its own yardsticks when there is a multilateral agreement.”

As many would know that several times in the past, India has unambiguously articulated, it may explore the available option of approaching the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the unilateral moves and actions by the US on IPR related issues, as IPR policies require to be discussed in the multilateral forum, such as WTO.

A fresh hurdle in the normalization process:

Many see the latest move of USTR with OCR as a fresh hurdle in the normalization process of a frosty trade and economic relationship between the two countries. More so, when it comes almost immediately after a clear agreement inked between Prime Minister Modi and President Obama in favor of a bilateral engagement on IPR related policies and issues. Let me hasten to add, USTR has now clarified, “The OCR will not revisit India’s designation on the 2014 Priority Watch List.”

What does US want?

The initiatives taken by the USTR, no doubt, are in conformance to the US law, as it requires to identify and prepare a list of trade barriers in the countries with whom the US has trade relations, and with a clear focus on IPR related issues.

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India, in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too.

It is pretty clear now that to resolve all IP related bilateral issues, the United States wants the Indian Patents Act to be amended as an exact replica of what the American lawmakers have enacted in their country, including evergreening of patents and no compulsory licensing unless there is a national disaster or emergency. They require it, irrespective of whatever happens as a result of lack of access to these new drugs for a vast majority of Indian patients.

Thus, it is understandable, why the Indian government is not surrendering to persistent American bullying.

A series of decisions taken by the Union government of India on both patents and drug pricing is a demonstration of its sincere endeavor to increase access to drugs, as less than 15 percent of 1.2 billion people of the country are currently covered by some sort of health insurance.

Global healthcare NGOs strongly reacted:

The Doctors Without Borders’ (MSF) Access Campaign articulated, “India’s production of affordable medicines is a vital life-line for MSF’s medical humanitarian operations and millions of people in the developing countries.”

It further added, “India’s patent law and practices are favorable to public health, were put in place through a democratic legislative process, and are in line with international trade and intellectual property rules… Every country has the right to set policies that balance private business interests with public health needs.”

MSF reportedly warned Prime Minister Modi that US officials and Big Pharma would continue to try to lobby and pressurize him over India’s current patent regime and urged him, “Don’t back down on drug patents”.

“The world can’t afford to see India’s pharmacy shut down by US commercial interests,” MSF reiterated.

Under US bullying, is India developing cold feet?

In the midst of all these, an international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

Quoting an Indian media report, the above international publication elaborated, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, has delayed a decision on whether to grant a Compulsory License (CL) for Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) leukemia drug Sprycel. DIPP has sent a letter to the Health Ministry, questioning its rationale for saying there was a “national emergency” when chronic myeloid leukemia affects only 0.001% of the population. The letter asked how much the government is spending on the drug, and pointed out that there is no indication of a growing trend in the disease.

This Indian report commented, if the DIPP had agreed to issue a CL for Sprycel on the recommendation of the Union Ministry of Health, it would have ‘cheered’ the public health activists, but would have adversely impacted Indo-US relations that the Indian Prime Minister wants to avoid for business interests.

A Superficial and baseless interpretation:

In my view, the above comments of the Indian media, which was quoted by the international publications, may be construed as not just superficial, but baseless as well.

This is because, DIPP has become cautious on the CL issue not just now, but at least over a couple years from now (please read: Health Min’s compulsory license proposal hits DIPP hurdle, DIPP seeks details on 3 cancer drugs for compulsory licensing).

This is also not the first time that DIPP has sought clarification from the Ministry of Health on this subject.

Hence, in my view, this particular issue is being unnecessarily sensationalized, which has got nothing to do with hard facts and far from being related to the PM’s visit to America.

Conclusion:

The Indian Parliament amended the Patent Act in 2005, keeping the interest of public health right at the center. The Act provides adequate safeguards, including checks on evergreening of patents and broader framework for CL. All these conform to the Doha Declaration, which categorically states “TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent WTO members from taking measures to protect public health”.

For similar reasons, the Indian Act does not provide for ‘evergreening’ of patents. The Supreme Court judgment on Glivec is a case in point. If the Indian patent regime is weak and not TRIPS-compliant, the aggrieved country should approach the dispute settlement body of the WTO for necessary action. Thus, it is intriguing if the US, which took India to WTO over the latter’s solar power policy, is not doing the same for pharma IP. Is it really sure that the allegation that ‘the Indian Patent Act is non-TRIPS compliant’ is a robust one?

There is no denying that innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation and needs to be rewarded and protected. However, there is an equally important need to strike the right balance between patent regimes and safeguarding public health interest. In that sense, the Indian Patents Act occupies a position of strength, not weakness.

Considering all these, unilateral American measures against India for amendment of the country’s Patents Act in sync with theirs, ultimately would prove to be foolhardy.

The high-level working group on IP constituted as a part of the bilateral Trade Policy Forum (TPF), would be the right platform to sort out glitches in this arena, keeping Indian patients’ health interests at the center, and at the same time without jeopardizing justifiable business interests of the innovator companies.

Otherwise in all probability, India would continue to hold its justifiable ground on IPR steadfastly, remaining unfazed under pressures and provocations of any kind.

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.

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on by
Reply

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

  • Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
  • Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
  • Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
  • Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
  • Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering  a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

  • Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

-        Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

-        Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.  

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By Tapan Ray

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