Tag Archives: low

Why Pharma Need To Connect Better With Patient Organizations Now?

Posted on by
Reply

A good number of patients (63%), especially those with chronic ailments would look for Patient Support Services, revealed a survey by Human Healthcare Systems, released on February 25, 2020. Alongside, drug companies are also, reportedly, investing billions of dollars in every year, for several types of patient support programs, according to the Fierce Pharma article of July 06, 2021, on this subject. It emphasized: ‘Pharma companies spend more than $5 billion on patient support programs every year.’

Thus, it will be interesting to explore – when patients are looking for Patient Support Services (PSPs) and pharma companies are also trying to deliver the same, what’s really happening on the ground? Today’s article will focus on this area to help pharma marketers to get a ringside view of this area, and take necessary action in this area to make this investment more productive.

The aim is to help create a cutting-edge marketing strategy, while delivering best patient value and outcomes in the new normal. Let me start by recapitulating what exactly is a PSP to ensure that we all are on the same page, during this discussion.

Patient Support Services (PSPs):

According to IQVIA, a key challenge in deliberating with PSPs is that they have broad definitions, and consequently, may often give rise to multiple interpretations, misunderstandings and even bias. Be that as it may, IQVIA defines PSP as ‘An umbrella term to describe initiatives led by pharmaceutical companies to improve access, usage, and adherence to prescription drugs. These programs can have a financial component, support clinical investments, focus purely on education, or a combination.’

As we also see around, such programs include – disease awareness campaigns, helping patients use their drugs at the right dose for the right duration for best outcomes, to help patients use their drugs with disease education, financial support and more.

Relevance of PSP in the new normal:

Although PSPs aren’t a new concept, studies unfold – value that PSPs deliver to the community is so significant that when created with a clear understanding of motivators and drivers of patient behavior, can fetch equally significant return on investments for the pharma players.

A recent IQVIA White Paper concludes by noting: ‘One of the major trends seen from the COVID-19 global pandemic, is an increase telehealth. As the point of enrolment into a patient support program goes digital, PSP programs need to adjust.’ This seismic shift in the way we seek and receive treatment will require companies to revisit and potentially update their actionable insight in this space, The paper further notes: ‘With an increase in digital enrolment there are now more opportunities to capture data points and utilize technology.’

Thus, I reckon, it will be worthwhile to fathom, when patients are looking for health care support services and pharma companies are also spending considerably towards the same, what exactly is happening on the ground.

Interestingly, according to the 2021 findings of Phreesia Life Sciences, which surveyed nearly 5,000 patients checking in for doctors’ appointments during the past February and March, found, ‘just 3% were using patient support programs (PSPs).’

Some key highlights of the survey findings:

The support programs in the above survey of Phreesia Life Sciences, broadly includes, services, such as, financial assistance, disease education and specifics about medicine – offered by pharma companies. Based on these, some of the key findings of the study were as follows: 

  • Just 3% of eligible patients are currently using support programs, and 8% have used them in their lifetimes.
  • 59% of patients have little to no knowledge of patient support programs.
  • 61% of patients feel that patient support programs of pharma companies would be “somewhat,” “a little,” or “not at all helpful” for them.
  • Most patients who had used support programs, used them either at first diagnosis, or when starting medication.
  • Only 10% of patients said they had learned about support programs online, but 44% said they’d like to learn about support programs online

Further, as one of the senior officials involved in this research, reportedly, said, ‘nine out of 10 qualified patients were not using the brand’s copay card—even though more than half (53%) said they would likely use one if they had it.’ Moreover, ‘two out of three patients reported it was the first time they were learning about it.’

Likely reasons for low usage of pharma’s PSPs: 

Some of the most likely reasons for low usage of pharma’s PSPs were deliberated in another article of Fierce Pharma dated December 04, 2020. A domain expert commented there, ‘pharma companies simply have missed the mark in developing useful, durable tools for patients. Elaborating this point further, she said, ‘Focusing just on specific adherence tasks, like medication reminders, isn’t providing enough value for patients over a long period of time.’

Another contributing factor could be, patients suffering from multiple diseases and those who are on multiple medications of different pharma companies, are unlikely to download four different apps to track each one.

One more reason could well depend on patients’ generally preferred sources to avail such services, which may not necessarily be pharma companies.

Patients generally preferred sources for patient services:

This point was discussed in the Accenture study – ‘Uniting pharma companies and patient organizations,’ published on August 07, 2019. This survey was done on 4000 patients and some broad findings of this study include the following:

  • Patients generally prefer services from patient organizations over those from pharma companies.
  • Patients feel that patient organizations have a better understanding of their emotional, financial, and other needs than many pharma companies.
  • Patients also want pharma companies to coordinate with patient organizations to provide better care.

The survey also captured details of patient preferences regarding availing required services from patient organizations, rather than the drug companies, as below:

  • Over 50% of patients have greater trust in and better experiences with patient organizations.
  • 64% of patients are willing to share their health data with patient organizations to get better care.
  • 52% of patients are willing to share their health data with patient organizations to get better care.
  • 72% of surveyed patients call or talk to someone at patient organizations on the phone.
  • 58% of patients attend in-person events hosted by patient organizations.

Are PSPs commercially useful to pharma companies?

The very fact that drug companies are currently spending over $5 Billion annually for PSPs, reflects their direct and indirect influence in pharma’s branding strategy and image building process. Otherwise, why would they spend so much? That said, the above survey details send a clear message to pharma marketers to maximize their marketing investments on PSPs, more than ever before. Consequently, the question arises, how to achieve that goal? 

Maximize marketing investments on PSPs:

Echoing and paraphrasing some points from the above IQVIA White Paper, let me highlight, especially for the marketers, 3 clear steps for maximizing returns from pharma’s investments on PSPs, as follows:

A. Gain beforehand deeper insights of patients’ PSP need and expectations: 

37% of patients surveyed said, pharma companies with actionable insights, will better understand their needs through collaboration with Patient Organizations (PO), leading to meaningful engagement in a more personalized way and more frequently.

B. Deliver patient expected value thorough close coordination with the POs:

This is because, 84% of patients think pharma companies – with closer coordination with, at least, a couple of influential patient groups or organizations (PO), will deliver greater value. This will also create a seamless and more cohesive patient experience, while filling gaps in the patient treatment process, to enhance end-to-end customer experience - in an unbiased way.

C.  Creating and delivering new and seamless patient experiences:

The newness is important – not just to delight the patients, but also for strategic differentiation in this ball game. This is possible by working closely with Patient Support Groups (PSGs) as partners, seeking ways to rethink for creating and delivering a unique patient experience from patients’ perspective, and outcome first basis.

Use of data, analytics and insights will be essential while creating care experiences that will better meet the patients’ needs, and would also help measure the impact of PSPs on an ongoing basis.

PSGs are helping to transform health care also in India:

Some PSGs are helping to transform healthcare with prudent use of PSPs in India, as they raise awareness about diseases, help people recover psychologically, and more, have been captured by Indian media, as well. One such report titled, How patient support groups are revolutionizing health care’ says: ‘Because of these networks, patients and their families have become better organized, and are equipped to handle emergency situations and advocate for access to treatment.’

Conclusion:

Echoing the ZS article, published on August 17, 2020, I too concur that COVID-19 has pushed the drug companies to define new ways to deliver care and reach patients. It is quite possible that patient organizations are moving faster in this direction than many pharma companies. Which is why, more patients, reportedly, prefer PSPs from patient organizations, over those from pharma companies.

Further, a course-correction in PSP, would also offer pharma marketers an additional opportunity. Because, PSPs have hidden potential to create an exceptional patient support base that marry brand’s key attributes with the new reality of patients, living with their conditions in the new normal.

Pharma companies will, therefore, need to move from typical reactive support programs – to delivering proactive patient experiences in a post-COVID-19 world, in partnership with PSGs. To ensure maximum number of patients use PSPs, it’s critical for pharma marketers to redefine – the “new normal” patient journey, and meet their current unmet needs in this space. That’s why, I reckon, to succeed in this ball game, pharma would need to effectively connect with patient organizations, more than ever before.

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.

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.

Immunization Still Remains A Low-Budget Neglected Area In India

Posted on by
Reply

Although India is a leading producer and exporter of vaccines, the country has the greatest number of deaths among children under 5, and the majority are from vaccine-preventable diseases. Less than 44 percent of India’s young children receive the full schedule of immunizations, commented a research study of Michigan University of the United States.

This is noteworthy, as vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Vaccines help prevent over two to three million children each year. However, another 1.5 million children still die from diseases that could be prevented by routine vaccines, as estimated by the WHO.

“The developing world should no longer experience 450,000 preventable deaths each year from rotavirus, nor 145,000 from measles. By the same token, there should no longer be 2000 preventable deaths each year from influenza in Australia. It is time to use our global health efforts to address the most pressing risks, both at home and abroad,” expects another article published in the Volume 45, No.1, January-February 2016 edition of the journal of ‘Australian Family Physician (afp)’

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, an estimated 19.4 million infants worldwide is still missing out on basic vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world, as per the ‘Fact Sheet’ of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) of September 2016.

A commendable global initiative:

To resolve this inequity, in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

Current ground situation in India:

In this area, the prevailing situation in India is much worse.

The Global consulting major – McKinsey in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realizing true potential” stated that at 2 percent penetration, the vaccines market of India is significantly under-penetrated with an estimated turnover of around US$ 250 million, where the private segment accounts for two-thirds of the total. McKinsey expects the market to grow to US$ 1.7 billion by 2020.

Some of the important reasons for poor penetration of the vaccine market in India can be found in a March 02, 2016 research article published in the ‘Michigan News’ of the University of Michigan. The paper articulated some important facts, as follows:

  • Out of 26 million children born in India every year, two-thirds of them do not receive their vaccinations on time, prolonging their susceptibility to diseases and contributing to untimely deaths.
  • Only 18 percent of children are vaccinated with the recommended three doses of DPT vaccine.
  • Only 12 percent of children are vaccinated with the measles vaccine by the required age of 9 months, although 75 percent are vaccinated by age 5. This delay in vaccination can contribute to frequent outbreaks of measles in India.
  • India is adding vast numbers of new children who need vaccination, while the older ones remain under or unvaccinated because of immunization delays, is like “walking too slowly on a moving treadmill – you continually fall further back.”
  • India hopes to add rotavirus to its Universal Immunization Program, a free government-approved vaccination program that was looked at in this study.
  • The government has the infrastructure to deliver vaccines, but the motivations for delivering all vaccination doses decreases over time.
  • India hopes to add rotavirus to its Universal Immunization Program, a free government-approved vaccination program that was looked at in this study.

Needs both policy and budgetary support:

As stated above, the overall immunization scenario in India, as on date, is rather grim. Besides, in view of the humongous disease burden of India, immunization program with various types of vaccines should receive active encouragement from the government as disease prevention initiatives, at least, keeping the future generation in mind. In the next Union Budget of India, this issue should attract fresh policy measures, spearheaded by the Central Government, with requisite fund allocation both by the Central and State Governments.

Low immunization budget and other key barriers:

‘Health Affairs’ – a leading peer-reviewed journal on health policy thought and research, highlighted that India spends woefully little on routine immunization. Quoting data published by the Union Ministry of Health the report stated, only 2.1 percent of the national government’s health budget is allocated to routine immunization – a small amount given the country’s large population and the number of births. Although vaccines used in India are primarily provided free and through the government channels, over 30 percent of the population still purchase vaccines from the private market as a part of their out of pocket expenses.

Besides, there is a long list of other challenges to India’s immunization program. These include a shortage of trained personnel to manage the program at both the national and state levels; the need to undertake innovations in vaccines, disease surveillance, vaccine procurement, and effective vaccine management; the absence of good data on disease burden to inform vaccination priorities; the lack of baseline surveillance data for monitoring the effects of vaccination; and the absence of a system of routine reporting and surveillance, the report stated.

Everyone in the country is expected to fulfill the individual responsibility to get their own children properly vaccinated by properly following, and completing the vaccination schedule. Better all-round and ongoing communication of the long-term benefits of vaccination for many serious disease prevention against negligible side effects, could create greater awareness for compliance.

Indian vaccine market and the key local players:

A report titled ‘Vaccines Market in India 2013’, published by Netherlands Office of Science & Technology, New Delhi, estimated that vaccines contributed largest share in the total Biopharma sales with estimated sales of US$ 602 million in FY 2011-12 over US$ 417.5 million of the previous year. Over half of the top 10 firms in the industry are active in the private sector vaccines market has recorded a growth of about 25 percent.

India is not just a leading producer and exporter of vaccines, it develops and markets complex vaccines, such as, pentavalent rotavirus vaccine. There are around 13 major vaccine manufacturers in India. Companies like, Serum Institute, Shantha Biotecnics, Bharat Biotech and Panacea Biotech are taking commendable strides in this direction. Bharat Biotech is incidentally the largest Hepatitis B vaccine producer in the world.

Around 43 percent of the global Universal Immunization Program vaccine supply (more than 70 percent in the case of single vaccine) reportedly comes from India. Indian vaccine major Serum Institute is reportedly one of the largest suppliers of vaccines to over a 130 countries of the world and claim that ’1 out of every 2 children immunized worldwide gets at least one vaccine produced by Serum Institute.’

Expand Government immunization product spectrum:

It is high time for the Union Ministry of Health to expand the product spectrum for vaccines, as an integral part of its disease prevention program. It is recommended that the routine immunization program of India should now include other important vaccines, such as, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, and rotavirus, as recommended by the National Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) on Immunization.

Conclusion:

Against this backdrop, a holistic immunization program can no longer remain a low-budget and virtually neglected area in India.

Effective resolution of this important issue by the Government would require both the Union and the State Governments to increase their respective budget significantly. It would help launching a well-integrated multi-pronged approach to include most of the remaining one third of the population in the state-run immunization program.

In tandem a strategic pathway needs to be crafted to expand the immunization product spectrum, increase awareness to encourage more household to take part in the holistic immunization initiatives for disease prevention, and counter the anti-vaccine advocates effectively. There is also an urgent need to make more investments in disease surveillance. An integrated approach towards all these initiatives would significantly help reduce the overall burden of disease in the country.

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.

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on by
Reply

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China: 

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets: 

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs: 

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon: 

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator Product Indication Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Rheumatoid arthritis Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech Herceptin, Rituxan Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis Pfizer
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Novartis
Johnson & Johnson Remicade Rheumatoid arthritis Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America: 

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

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

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

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

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

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

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US  will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪   Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪   Cost containment measures of various governments

▪   Aging population

▪   Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company

Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

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.

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on by
Reply

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

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

  • The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
  • Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
  • The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

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

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

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

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

  • 21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
  • 2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
  • The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.  Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech  in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

  • Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
  • Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
  • Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book  titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks.  It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

  • Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
  • A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
  • High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
  • High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.