Tag Archives: Medicines

Access to affordable healthcare to 65% of Indian population still remains a key issue even after six decades of independence of the country.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite so much of stringent government control, debate and activism on the affordability of modern medicines in India, on the one hand, and the success of the government to make medicines available in the country at a price, which is cheaper than even Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, on the other, the fact still remains, about 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines, as compared to just 15% in China and 22% in Africa.The moot question therefore arises, despite all these stringent price regulation measures by the government and prolonged public debates over nearly four decades to ensure better ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained so abysmal to a vast majority of the population of India, even after sixty years of independence of the country?This vindicates the widely held belief that in India no single minister or ministry can be held accountable by the civil society for such a dismal performance in the access to healthcare in the country. Is it then a ‘system flaw’? May well be so.

Poor healthcare infrastructure:

As per the Government’s own estimate, India falls far short of its minimum requirements towards basic public healthcare infrastructure. The records indicate, as follows:

1. A shortage of 4803 Primary Health Centres (PHC)

2. A shortage of 2653 Community Health Centres (CHC)

3. No large Public Hospitals in rural areas where over 70% of the populations live

4. Density of doctors in India is just 0.6 per 1000 population against 1.4 and 0.8 per 1000 population in China and Pakistan respectively, as reported by WHO.

The Government spending in India towards healthcare is just 1.1% of GDP, against 2% of China and 1.6% of Sri Lanka, as reported by the WHO.

Some good sporadic public healthcare initiatives to improve access:

The government allocation around US$2.3 billion for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), is a good initiative to bring about uniformity in quality of preventive and curative healthcare in rural areas across the country.
While hoping for the success of NRHM, inadequacy of the current rural healthcare infrastructure in the country with about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals located only in the urban India may encourage the skeptics.

PPP to improve access to medicines:

At this stage of progress of India, ‘Public Private Partnership (PPP)’ initiatives in the following four critical areas could prove to be very apt to effectively resolve this issue

1. PPP to improve affordability:

It appears that in earlier days, the policy makers envisaged that stringent drug price control mechanism alone will work as a ‘magic wand’ to improve affordability of medicines and consequently their access to a vast majority of Indian population.

When through stricter price control measures the access to medicines did not improve in any significant measure, the industry associations reportedly had jointly suggested to the government for a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model way back in December 2006. The comprehensive submission made to the government also included a proposal of extending ‘concessional price for government procurement’ under certain criteria.

In this submission to the government, the industry did not suggest total price de-regulation for the pharmaceutical industry of India. Instead, it had requested for extension of the price monitoring system of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, which is currently working very effectively for over 80 percent of the total pharmaceutical industry in India. Balance, less than 20 percent of the industry, is currently under cost-based price control.

However, the argument of the NPPA against this suggestion of the pharmaceutical industry is that the market entry price of any formulation under the ‘price monitoring’ mechanism is not decided by the government. Hence without putting in place any proper price control/negotiation system to arrive at the market entry price of the price decontrolled formulations, the existing ‘price monitoring’ mechanism may not be as effective, as in future more and more high price patented non-schedule formulations are expected to be introduced in the market.

However, the government seems to have drafted a different drug policy, which has now been referred to a new Group of Ministers for approval. It is worth noting that to make the PPP proposal of the industry effective, the Ministry of Health, both at the centre and also at the state levels, will require to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercises in the primary and also in the secondary healthcare infrastructural facilities. FICCI is reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds for similar capacity building exercises.

Frugal budgetary allocation towards healthcare could well indicate that the government is gradually shifting its role from public healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to help building the required capacity. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure leave aside other financial incentives, could impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, as well.

2. PPP to leverage the strength of Information Technology (IT) to considerably neutralize the healthcare delivery system weaknesses:

Excellence in ‘Information Technology’ (IT) is a well recognized strength that India currently possesses. This strengths needs to be leveraged through PPP to improve the process weaknesses. Harnessing IT strengths, in the areas of drug procurement and delivery processes, especially in remote places, could hone the healthcare delivery mechanism, immensely.

3. PPP in ‘Telemedicine’:

‘‘Telemedicine” is another IT enabled technology that can be widely used across the nation to address rural healthcare issues like, distant learning, disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ailments.
Required medicines for treatment could be made available to the patients through ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), by properly utilising the Government controlled public distribution outlets like, ration shops and post offices, which are located even in far flung and remote villages of India.

4. PPP in healthcare financing for all:

Unlike many other countries, over 72 percent of Indian population pay out of pocket to meet their healthcare expenses.

While out of a population of 1.3 billion in China, 250 million are covered by insurance; another 250 million are partially covered and the balance 800 million is not covered by any insurance, in India total number of population who have some healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and the penetration of health insurance is just around 3.5% of the population. India is fast losing grounds to China mainly due to their better response to healthcare needs of the country.

As the government has announced ‘Rashtriya Swasthaya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ for the BPL families, an integrated and robust healthcare financing model for all, is expected to address the affordability issue more effectively.

According to a survey done by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 40% of the people hospitalised in India borrow money or sell assets to cover their medical expenses. A large number of population cannot afford to required treatment, at all.

Conclusion:

An integrated approach by creating effective healthcare infrastructure across the country, leveraging IT throughout the healthcare space and telemedicine, appropriately structured robust ‘Health Insurance’ schemes for all strata of society, supported by evenly distributed ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, deserve consideration of the government to improve access to affordable healthcare to a vast majority of population of the country, significantly.

Well researched PPP models in all these areas, involving the stakeholders, need to be effectively implemented, sooner, to address this pressing issue.

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.

A global pharmaceutical iconoclast, who sees “Fortune” beyond the creamy top layers of the society … even at the bottom of the Pyramid

Posted on by
Reply

In March 2009 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) unraveled a path breaking vision, within the global pharmaceutical industry, with the creation of a ‘voluntary patent pool’to spark development of new treatments for neglected diseases of the poorest countries of the world.

The head honcho of GSK Andrew Witty articulated, as reported by Reuters, ‘he feels that this is the right way to help research, especially of tropical diseases like malaria, filariasis, cholera etc. to meet the unmet needs of the poorer population of the world’.

Cares for the poor:
Simultaneously, Witty also announced that GSK will sell its patented medicines in the 50 poorest countries of the world at 25% of their cost in the developed nations and invest 20% of profits made in these poorest countries to help creating and developing local healthcare infrastructure and treatment facilities for the indigenous population.

It appeared to me that this young global pharma CEO is charting the yet uncharted frontiers where there are no footsteps to follow. Witty attained this iconic status when he aired his views without slightest hesitation by admitting openly, “Society expects us to do more in addressing these issues. To be frank, I agree. We have the capacity to do more and we can do more”.

Challenged the global pharmaceutical industry:
The young CEO, to utter surprise of many, further added, “he was challenging the industry to go further to address global health problems by being more flexible on patent protection and pricing in the neediest countries”.

That was March 2009…Came March 2010…

Repeated the firm resolve:
During his visit to India in March 2010, Witty reiterated the same resolve with unequivocal clarity. When a Journalist from “The Economics Times” asked him, ‘There are concerns among some of your global peers about the patent and regulatory environment in this country. Are you concerned with the existing regulatory environment in India?’, Witty replied with his usual conviction and élan as follows:

“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an intellectual property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”

Is it a mere ‘lip service?’:
If you ask me, does this leader belong to a different genre? I shall reply with an emphatic ‘yes’. Andrew Witty seems to be indeed ‘walking the talk’ and is understandably quite capable of thinking much beyond of pleasing ‘The Wall Street’ and the likes of it, just with quarter to quarter business performance and ‘guidance’. He thinks about the patients both rich and poor. There are no reasons to doubt this patient-centric noble intent, Nor does it appear to me as a mere ‘lip service’.

One can interpret a ‘one-off statement’ made by any global pharma CEO in a way that one would like to. However, repetition of the same statement time and again in different counties possibly reflects nothing but firm resolves of a young visionary, determined to translate the same into reality with unprecedented courage.

Conclusion:
This iconic CEO, I reckon, is doing no charity or philanthropy with his path breaking vision, as those are not certainly the purpose of any business. Neither should one do charity or philanthropy with shareholders’ money and without their clear consent. Andrew Witty, in my view, perhaps is in the same page as with the management Guru C.K. Prahalad, who first postulated, now an oft repeated hypothesis, ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’.
Witty, as I have been witnessing, has already demonstrated his prowess with the traditional pharmaceutical global business model, in a comparative yardstick. Now professionally equipped with a strong pharmaceutical marketing background, honed over so many years, I am sure, Andrew will succeed even more in curving out a lion’s share of the global pharmaceutical business for his company, in the long run, creating a win-win situation for much over six billion global people, including a vast majority of the ailing, poor, neglected, hungry and marginalized population of the world.
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.

To prevent ‘counterfeit medicines’ from reaching the patients is the nation’s public health responsibility: Are we still in a denial mode to even accept the existence of this public health menace?

Posted on by
Reply
In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline,”Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The dictionary definition:

The word ‘counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:

1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud

2. To carry on a deception; dissemble

4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable

5. A fraudulent imitation.

What does Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?

May be for this reason the Drugs and cosmetics Act of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:

Section 17: Misbranded drugs

Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs

Section 17-B: Spurious drugs

No one has asked, so far, that as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why should it fall under Drugs and Cosmetics Act?

This was done in the past by the law makers because they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even death.

Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Definition of counterfeit drugs should cover the all types of medicines, which are not genuine:

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.

At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country, should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in the other country, if it is not made available fraudulently.

The recent survey on ‘spurious’ and ‘sub-standard’ drugs by the Government of India:

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:

1. Only 0.0046% of the drugs in the market were spurious

2. Quantum of sub-standard drugs in India is just 0.001%

From this report, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!!!
It is indeed quite baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.

Be that as it may, it appears that this survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the global experts, as well.

The problem of counterfeit is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.

The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO):

To effectively root out this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients’ need protection from the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:

All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware more effectively, without further delay, of the health threats posed by counterfeit medicines. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

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

Concerted action by all stakeholders on counterfeit medicines is the need of the hour.

Posted on by
Reply
The concern of some section of the stakeholders that IPR is being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines, in my view, is misplaced. As even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940.Currently, the magnitude of this problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits. To scientifically assess the magnitude of this problem the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India, for the first time ever, has initiated a study with 61 popular brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. The study is expected to cost Rs.50 million and is expected to be published, soon.However, on the above study, Pharmabiz dated August 26, 2009 has reported the following:

“The Union Health Ministry’s ambitious nationwide survey to get an authentic estimate of spurious drugs in the country found no significant amount of spurious drugs in the pharmaceutical market. Among the 24,000 samples collected by the government for the survey, only around 10 were found to be spurious, it is reliably learnt.”

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. In South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit Artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

It appears that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines, ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensive, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, are higher.

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is unfounded. Why should there be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

Incidence like recent detention in transit of DRL shipment of the generic version of Losartan in the Netherlands or a consignment of Amoxicillin at the Frankfurt airport on the ground of patent infringement cannot be considered as attempts of MNCs to brand Indian generic pharmaceuticals as counterfeit medicines. These drugs violated valid patents held in those countries prompting the local authorities to enforce the law of the land by detaining those consignments. India also has been detaining similar consignments for Nepal whenever those transit consignments violated the intellectual property laws of India. It will, therefore, be not fair to expect Netherlands or Germany to follow a different set of rules for goods in transit, when Indian law itself defines ‘imports’ covering goods in ‘transit’. Thus Government of India should take up this issue on a bilateral platform with the European Union (EU) for a desirable resolution to the problem. Meanwhile, to ensure that pharmaceuticals exports from India do not get adversely affected, Indian pharmaceutical exporters should ensure, till such issues are bilaterally resolved, that their export consignments for third countries transit through non EU routes.

Further, the incidence of fake drugs seized recently with made in India label and originating from China is indeed a fraudulent and criminal action of some irresponsible people who bring disgrace to humanity. Such incidences must be strongly condemned and be taken up by the Government India with the Chinese authorities effectively, to stop recurrence of such criminal activities in future.

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will reach US$75 billion by end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005. A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from India: 31%, UAE: 31% and China: 20%.

Enough data are available to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are involved in this illicit trade of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit medicines at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep remaing almost scot free, forever.

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

Healthcare reform process and policy measures to reduce socio-economic inequalities should be implemented in tandem for optimal economic progress of a nation.

Posted on by
Reply
Important research studies indicate that health of an individual is as much an integral function of the related socio-economic factors as it is influenced by the person’s life style and genomic configurations.It has now been well established that socio-economic disparities including the educational status lead to huge disparity in the space of healthcare.Healthcare preventive measures with focus just on disease related factors like, hygiene, sanitation, alcohol abuse, un-protected sex, smoking will not be able to achieve the desired outcome, unless the underlying socio-economic issues like, poverty, hunger, education, justice, values, parental care are not properly addressed.

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

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

Following are some research studies, which I am using just as examples to vindicate the point:

• HIV/AIDs initially struck people across the socio-economic divide. However, people from higher socio-economic strata responded more positively to the disease awareness campaign and at the same time more effective and expensive drugs started becoming available to treat the disease, which everybody suffering from the ailment cannot afford. As a result, HIV/AIDS are now more prevalent within the lower socio-economic strata of the society.

• Not so long ago, people across the socio-economic status used to consume tobacco in many form. However, when tobacco smoking and chewing were medically established as causative factors for lung and oral cancers, those coming predominantly from higher/middle echelon of the society started giving up smoking and chewing of tobacco, as they accepted the medical rationale with their power of knowledge. Unfortunately the same has not happened with the people of relatively lower socio-economic status. As a consequence of which, ‘Bidi’ smoking, ‘Gutka’/tobacco chewing have not come down significantly within people belonging to such class, leading to more number of them falling victim of lung and oral cancer.

Thus, in future, to meet the unmet needs when more and more sophisticated and high cost disease treatment options will be available, it will be those people with higher socio-economic background who will be benefitted more with their education, knowledge, social and monetary power. This widening socio-economic inequality will consequently increase the disparity in the healthcare scenario of the country.

Phelan and Link in their research study on this issue has, therefore, remarked:

“Breakthroughs in medical science can do a lot to improve public health, but history has shown that, more often than not, information about and access to important new interventions are enjoyed primarily by people at the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder. As a result, the wealthy and powerful get healthier, and the gap widens between them and people who are poor and less powerful.”

Conclusion:

Though healthcare reform measures are essential for the progress of any nation, without time bound simultaneous efforts to reduce the socio-economic inequalities, it will not be easy for any nation to achieve the desirable outcome.

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.

China has recently unfolded the blueprints of its new healthcare reform measures, when will India do so?

Posted on by
Reply
Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:

China in 1997 took its first reform measure to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product, as it were. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China…but…:

The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicate that out of pocketl spending on healthcare services had doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.

A series of healthcare reforms was effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address this situation.

The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens. This is the pivotal core principle of the new wave healthcare reform process in China where more government funding and supervision will now play a critical role.

The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given for the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:

Chinese government will monitor the effective management and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.

It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.

Drug price regulation and supervision:

The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in its eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Healthcare scenario in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of the government:

Unlike, recent focus on the specific key areas of healthcare in China, in India the national health policy falls short of specific and well defined measures.

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

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

Underutilization of funds:

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

Health insurance in India:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

It is an irony that on one side of the spectrum we see a healthcare revolution affecting over 33 percent population of the world. However, just on the other side of it where around 2.4 billion people (about 37 percent of the world population) reside in two most populous countries of the world – India and china, get incredibly lesser public healthcare support and are per forced to go for, more frequently, ‘pay from pocket’ pocket type expensive private healthcare options, which many cannot afford or just have no access to.

In both the countries, expensive ‘pay from pocket’ healthcare service facilities are increasing at a greater pace, whereas public healthcare services are not only inadequately funded, but are not properly managed either. Implementation level of various excellent though much hyped government sponsored healthcare schemes is indeed very poor.

Moreover, despite various similarities, there is a sharp difference between India and China at least in one area of the healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of publicly funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not the same in India, because of various reasons.

Over a period of time, along with significant growth in the respective economies of both the countries, with China being slightly ahead of India for many reasons, life expectancy in both India and China has also increased significantly, which consequently has lead to increase in the elderly population of these countries. The disease pattern also has undergone a shift in both the countries, mainly because of this reason, from infectious to non-infectious chronic illnesses like, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis etc. further increasing the overall burden of disease.

High economic growth in both the countries has also lead to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.

A recently published report indicates that increasing healthcare expenditure burden is hitting the poor population of both the countries very hard. The report further says that considering ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL) at U.S$ 1.08 per day, out of pocket healthcare expenditure has increased the poverty rate from 31.1 percent to 34.8 percent in India and from 13.7 percent to 16.7 percent in China.

To effectively address this serious situation, the Chinese Government has announced its blueprint for a new healthcare reform measures for the coming decade. How will the Government of India respond to this situation? It will indeed be interesting to watch.

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.

Tackling the menace of counterfeit medicines – vested interests or petty sentiments should not make the pressing public healthcare issue irrelevant.

Posted on by
Reply
There are following three clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators are
not really very keen to effectively address and resolve this global public health issue.2. The generic companies and the drug regulators feel that the problem is not as acute as it is
projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy
campaign are trying to exploit the situation to fight against generic medicines and parallel imports.

3. Some other group, including a section of NGOs claim that an important public health sentiment is
being used by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend intellectual property rights
(IPR) to patients’ safety issue, allegedly for vested interest. These organizations have taken their arguments
to various international platforms like Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and
International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) of the World
Health Organization (WHO), for effective resolution of their grievances.

Addressing some of these concerns:

• IPR being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines:

Even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 2006 has estimated a loss to the industry towards such counterfeit medicines of US$ 30 billion, which is about 6% of the turnover of the global pharmaceutical industry.

• Magnitude of problem with counterfeit medicines has been inflated:

In the industrialized and developed nations of the world with effective regulatory control, the problem perhaps, may not be as acute. A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%.

Similar study, on the other hand, indicated that in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. It has also been reported that in South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

• Apprehension from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry:

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups within the industry to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is indeed unfounded. As from no developed countries around the world, there has been any threat to non-patent infringing legal generic medicines. And why there should be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

On the contrary generic pharmaceutical business, in almost all developed markets across the world, is growing at a much faster pace than the patented products of the innovator companies and this trend is expected to continue at least in short to medium term.

An unexplained similarity:

From the above details one will be tempted to draw a conclusion that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines are higher. IMPACT has reported counterfeit versions of all types of medicines ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensives, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, from these countries.

Various types of counterfeit medicines:

WHO has indicated following types of counterfeit medicines:

• Without active ingredients: 32%

• Wrong ingredients: 21.4%

• Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2%

• Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6%

• High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5%

• “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat poison or
road paint”

• Medicines purchased online from illegal internet sites: 50%

Factors influencing flourishing trade of counterfeit medicines:

WHO IMPACT has reported following key factors:

• Low manufacturing costs, thus higher profit margin

• Albany Law Journal reports that high pricing ratio of counterfeit medicines compared to a branded
product attracts counterfeiters

• In countries like India the risk of detection of fake medicines is quite low where the penalties for such
heinous crime even today is very lenient, as the amended anti-counterfeit law, for some strange
reasons, has not been made operational, as yet.

Global sales forecast for counterfeit medicines:

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will be around US$75 billion by the end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005.

Incidence of detection of counterfeit medicines:

A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

Volume of counterfeit seizures, the world over:

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from, were reported as follows:

• India: 31%
• UAE: 31%
• China: 20%

Conclusion:

We have, therefore, enough data to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are running to their banks, more often than ever before, with sacks full of money from this illicit trade, at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep going almost scot free, forever.

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.

Unlike China, IPR issues in India are being hijacked by the issue of ‘Access to Affordable Modern Medicines’.

Posted on by
Reply

‘Incremental innovation’, related to the pharmaceutical industry, has become a point of raging debate in India. Over a period of time ‘not really a breakthrough’ but ‘incremental inventive steps’ to discover New Chemical Entities (NCE), which would offer significant benefits to the patients, are being considered as of critical importance by the stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry, the world over. Such types of innovations are being termed as ‘incremental innovation’ , with underlying implied meaning of ‘frivolous’ nature of the innovation, to some section of people.

Most innovations in the pharmaceutical industry have always been ‘incremental’ in nature:

We have been observing such ‘incremental innovation’ from ‘Penicillin era‘ with different derivatives of penicillins, right through to ‘Quinolone era’ with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, sparfloxacin etc to ‘H2 receptor antagonists’ with cimetidine, ranitidine, roxatidine to ‘proton pump inhibitors’ with omeprazole, esomeprazole, rabeprazole etc.

We see such important ‘incremental innovation’ with many successful drugs across various disease areas. How many different varieties of ‘statins’, ‘betablockers’, ‘ace inhitors’ etc we have been prescribed by the medical profession over so many years with amazing results? This trend continues to offer better and better treatment options to the patients through the medical profession, across the world.

Unfortunately ‘incremental innovation’ has become a contentious issue in India. Section 3d of the Indian Patents Act 2005 has become a key barrier to continue with this process of innovation, in search of better and better medicines. ‘Breakthrough innovations’, which are very important though, are not as frequent in the pharmaceuticals industry, just as in many other industries, including Information technology (IT). ‘Incremental innovations’ are, therefore, the bedrock to improve the types of medications to treat various disease conditions.

A quick comparison with China:

As reported by the Department of Commerce of the U.S Government, domestic consumption of medicines both in India and China is around 70% of the domestic productions of the respective countries. These medicines are available at a very reasonable price to the local populations.

Fuelled by strong domestic demand, coupled with exports to other countries, the pharmaceutical industry in both India and China are showing impressive growth, China being ahead of India in both pace of growth, as well as in terms of market size.

Why some key IPR issues, like ‘incremental innovation’, are facing stiff opposition in India when it is not so in China?

Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) is now in place in both the countries. However, criteria of ‘patentability’, as mentioned above, still remain a contentious issue in India. The issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ is being unnecessarily dragged into the discussion of IPR related issues, where resolution of each of these two issues warrants totally different types of approaches.

The issue of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of medicines must be addressed with all earnestness by all concerned, but surely, I repeat, with a different kind and sets of measures. Mixing IPR issues with the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ sends a wrong message, which would mean that IPR is the cause of this problem in India or in other words, IPR has aggravated this problem since January 1, 2005, the day the new Patents Act came into force in India. This definitely is not the reality in our country.

As I have been saying repeatedly, why then from 1972 to 2005, when pharmaceutical products patents were not being granted, the access to affordable modern medicines were denied to 650 million population of India? The solution to this problem, in my view, lies in effectively addressing the issue of healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and healthcare financing (health insurance for all strata of society) with an integrated approach and in tandem through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

Is this issue cropping up because of intense pressure and public opinion created by over 20,000 small to medium scale producers of generic drugs, who have grown within the industry in a much protected environment created by the Government of India and had thrived in business by introducing copycat versions of innovators drugs for over three decades, during the old paradigm?

Large Indian companies are by and large in favour of IPR:

The large Indian Pharmaceutical Companies like Piramal Healthcare support the new IPR regime, envisaging the benefits that it will bring to the country in general and the domestic pharmaceutical industry in particular, in medium to longer term. These benefits will not only come from the fruits of their R&D initiatives, but also through various emerging opportunities of business collaboration in areas of their respective strengths, with the Multi National Corporations (MNCs) across the globe.

The Indian pharmaceutical industry, which had registered a double digit CAGR growth rate over the past decade, is poised to record a turnover of U.S$ 20 billion by 2015, as reported by Mckinsey & Co. Even at that time patented products are expected to contribute just about 10% of the total market and balance 90% of the market will continue to be dominated by low cost branded generic drugs.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has potential to emerge as an international force to reckon with. But will it..?

Within knowledge based industries, after meteoric success of the Information Technology (IT), Indian pharmaceutical industry armed with its fast growing biotech sector, has all the potential to be a major global force to reckon with. It just needs to foster the culture of innovation. One will feel happy to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India has started taking, at least, some initiatives towards this direction.

The key issues of ‘patentability‘ together with lack of a strong regulatory framework for effective patent enforcement and data protection are becoming barriers to development of international collaboration in the space of pharmaceutical research and development in India.

Why is China different?

From the beginning of 90’s China initiated its reform processes in the IPR area, which may not be perfect though, as yet. However, since 1998 with stricter regulations on pharmaceutical manufacturing and introducing Drug Management Law, China to a great extent regulated entry of ‘fringe players’ in the pharmaceutical business. It enacted TRIPS compliant patent laws in 2002, extending pharmaceutical product patent for 20 years and regulatory data protection (RDP) for 6 years.

Currently China is focusing more on biotech drugs and has wheezed past India in terms of success in this important sector of the healthcare industry, though they have still miles to go to catch up with the developed world in this space. With the creation of innovative environment within the country, China is fast getting international recognition and collaboration, in genomic and stem cell research and technology.

In the pharmaceutical sector also China has brought in significant regulatory reforms since 2001. Because of its stronger IPR regime than India and other important regulatory reform measures that the country has been undertaking, China is racing past India to become one of the largest markets of the global pharmaceutical industry. In this process, China is attracting far more foreign direct investments (FDI) than India, almost in all verticals of the pharmaceutical industry, from R&D, clinical trials to contract research and manufacturing.

Where India scores over China:

Quality of co-operation and relationship between global pharmaceutical companies and the domestic Chinese pharmaceutical industry is believed to be not as good as what is prevailing in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. There are many reasons for such difference, language being the key reason. In China, English is still not a very popular language, in sharp contrast to India. This limits effective human interaction with the foreigners in China. In the area of, especially, pharmaceutical chemistry, Indian scientists are considered to have a clear edge over their Chinese counterparts.

Chinese policy makers are gradually trying to shed off their protectionist’s attitude in the globalization process.

Steps taken by China to encourage innovation are far more encouraging than what is being done in India. Global pharmaceutical companies are finding China more attractive than India to expand their business. As the saying goes, ‘proof of pudding is in its eating’, predominantly because of this reason, FDI for the pharmaceutical sector is coming more in China than in India.

Instead of creating drivers, is India creating barriers to innovation?

It is indeed unfortunate that the Indian law differentiates innovation based on its types and denies grant of patent for ‘incremental innovation’, which is the bedrock of progress for the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason section 3d of Indian Patent Acts 2005 does not consider the ‘salts, esters, polymorphs and other derivatives of known substances unless it can be shown that they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’, patentable.

Strong propaganda campaign unleashed by the vested interests alleging rampant violation of section 3d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) is another case in point. Interestingly the aggrieved parties decided to fight this issue through media, avoiding the legal route for redressal of their grievances. They on record cited a hilarious reason for the same that no lawyer in India is coming forward to fight their cases, at the behest of the MNCs.

The way forward:

To encourage innovation within a TRIPS compliant IPR regime, as one sees in China,
stereotyping innovations as ‘breakthrough’ or ‘incremental’ will dampen the spirit of innovative culture within the country. Inventive steps in an innovative process of a pharmaceutical product are directed to satisfy some important needs of the patients. As I said before, most innovations, which are an integral part of the progress of this industry, have been ‘incremental’ in nature. Thus ignoring ‘incremental innovation’ in India could be counterproductive, in more than one way.

Investments required towards R&D that a ‘breakthrough type’ innovation would warrant are very high. Indian pharmaceutical industry will have a serious limitation in that direction. The path of ‘incremental innovation’ ably backed by a strong IPR enforcement process, would, I reckon, be the best way forward for the Indian players to compete effectively with global innovator companies, leave aside their Chinese counterparts.

Any innovation, which has gone through inventive steps, even if it is ‘incremental’ in nature, should not be considered ‘frivolous’. It demeans the very process of innovation.

Raising various public sensitive and emotive issues on product patents and combining it with issues of ‘access’ and ‘affordability’ of modern medicines, some powerful lobby of vested interests may seriously retard the progress of India. The Government of India should recognize that it will very adversely affect the country in its pursuit of excellence in the field of research and development, in medium to longer term.

Such emotive misconceptions are compelling the policy makers to divert their attention from the root cause, which I have enumerated above, of the issue of ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to the vast majority of Indian population.

In my earlier article, I suggested a public private partnership (PPP) model to address these critical healthcare issues. Examples of such PPP are already there in India in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

Astute policy makers of the Government of India, I am sure, will soon realize that encouraging, rewarding and protecting patents through a robust TRIPS compliant IPR framework would enable India to place itself ahead of China, as the choicest destination for 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.