An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work And Employee Fitness (Part 2)

Posted on April 23, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Part 2: Mental Fitness

As I wrote in my previous article, the complex multi-factorial work-life challenges in today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)) world are virtually unprecedented.

Interestingly, a sizeable part of such challenge is related to a wide variety of internal organizational factors. These often include changes at the senior management level or in the key corporate policies, or the likes. More often, the changing aspirations and outlook of both the younger and even the aging professionals, in the midst of newer complexities of life – not well-understood by the management, invite such a situation.

Taking note of the influencing factors:

Meeting challenges of some of these disruptive changes, many companies are working on the respective influencing factors in various critical areas.

According to an article, titled “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its March-April 2000 issue writes: “Our research suggests that three factors affect what an organization can and cannot do: its resources, its processes, and its values.” It then elaborates by saying that the second factor – processes, also means what the company leadership uses to transform resources into products and services of greater worth.

These processes, I reckon, encompass the effective use of various ‘employee engagement’ programs. As a part of which, employee fitness programs are now being encouraged at the corporate level, seriously. I have discussed in my previous article, the ‘Physical Fitness’ aspect of improving employee productivity at work. in this article, I shall dwell on improving the ‘Mental Fitness’ facet of the same.

The area deserving greater attention:

Curiously, not as much attention and care are being taken towards ensuring a robust ‘mental fitness’ level of employees, which is as important, if not more, to achieve the same corporate objectives. A right combination of sharper mind and a healthier body will rather have a synergistic effect in this regard.

Recent data:

The January 18, 2018 article titled, “Now Is The Time For Wellbeing Programs To Focus On Mental Health,” published by the Forbes Magazine presented some interesting facts.

It wrote, employers are increasingly taking greater interest in employee wellbeing. In 2017, the average employer in the United States spent around USD 693 per employee on well-being initiatives per year. This figure is rising around USD100 per year, the author said.

However, the majority of such investment were towards physical health activities, such as installation of gym facilities on site, or giving employees fitness trackers to monitor activity levels. It was less clear, though, whether similar investment extends into mental health programs, as well.

Mental health issues at work higher than physical health conditions:

The October 2017 study titled “Thriving at work“ highlighted that the United Kingdom faces a significant mental health challenge at work. While there are more people at work with mental health conditions than ever before, 300,000 people with a long term mental health problem lose their jobs each year, and at a much higher rate than those with physical health conditions.

Another article appeared in the Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine also observed that mental health problems have an impact on employers and businesses directly through negative impact on productivity and profits, as well as an increase in costs to deal with the issue. In addition, they impact employee morale adversely.

Mental health – the Indian scenario:

The World Health Organization recognizes that the impact of mental health problems in the workplace has serious consequences not only for the individual, but also for the productivity of the enterprise, including the developing countries, such as India.

For the country, the National Mental Health Survey 2015-16 also reveals that nearly 15 percent Indian adults need active intervention for one or more mental health issues and one in 20 Indians suffers from depression. Noting this ascending trend in the prevalence of mental disorders, workplace mental health is an essential need for the Indian Corporates to respond to, urgently.

Alongside, a 2016 study by Optum – a leading employee assistance program to many Corporates, with a sample size of 200,000 employees and covering over 30 large employers, unveiled a seemingly astonishing fact. It reported, as high as 46 percent of the workforce in India suffers from some form of stress. The same issue is applicable to the Government employees in India.

Intriguingly, its budgetary allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At ₹ 35 crore, the program, reportedly, received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.

Mental health continues to be a taboo:

The ‘Thriving at work’ report further said: “Behind this, our analysis shows that around 15% of people at work have symptoms of an existing mental health condition.” “We found that in many workplaces, mental health is still a taboo subject and that opportunities are missed to prevent poor mental health and ensure employees who may be struggling to get the support they need. In many instances, employers simply don’t understand the crucial role they can play, or know where to go for advice and support,” the paper underscored.

As the above Forbes study said, it could also be due to the fact that a large number of employees believe their mental health problems are not affecting their work, so there was no need to tell their boss.

Focus only on merit, ignoring mental health may have a shorter life:

As we see around, many organizations, including large pharma players in India, are increasingly following different systems of recognizing merit to boost employee productivity. One of its visible manifestations gets reflected in the corporate policy of ‘pay for performance’. It fundamentally means: ‘exceed goals to earn more.’ This by all means is one of the very effective tools of not just achieving business excellence, but in fostering a sense of competition within the performers, besides good corporate governance. In this context, a question often raised is: Does focusing only merit, sans adequate mental health, carry a shorter life for improving employee productivity?

Conclusion:

This process of recognizing merits, focuses mostly on boosting employee productivity, and very rarely on meeting their mental needs, wants, aspirations and outlook. As a result of this single minded corporate focus on professional merits alone, work-stress starts creating additional pressure, over and above the employees’ own family, social and other personal stress factors. It often leads to job burnout – slowly shifting the work productivity in the reverse gear, alongside an adverse impact on the quality of life of individuals.

There are instances when the employees resort to unwanted shortcuts, snowballing the situation, but only when these get detected. There are ample such evidences in the Indian pharma industry, as well. Several global pharma majors, such as GSK have taken some measures in this area. Nonetheless, it needs to go beyond what a large number of these companies display on their wellness initiatives for employees, in the respective websites.

I hope, this well-proven interesting link between employee productivity at work and their mental well-being, will be noted by more and more Indian companies, especially in the pharma sector. This may prompt them to look for a win-win blend between corporate excellence, employees’ merit-based performance and their fitness needs – both physical and mental. That’s, I reckon, is the minimal corporate requirement today, in this area. Once in place, it will keep evolving at a rapid pace, with the collective cerebral inputs of the respective organizations.

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.

Drug Pricing Pressure to Escalate Further?

Posted on February 12, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On February 09, 2018, NITI Aayog released its “Healthy States, Progressive India” Report. The study ranked the States based on ‘health index’. Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu featured as top three in terms of overall performance in 2015-16. However, the interstate variation of ‘health indices’ was quite significant, with the highest being 76.55 (Kerala) and the lowest in Uttar Pradesh with 33.69, during the same period.

Importantly, the report also noted: “About one-third of the States have registered a decline in their performance in 2016 as compared to 2015, stressing the need to pursue domain-specific, targeted interventions.” It’s worth noting, the reported decline in performance was registered despite several promises of the Government in this space, during immediately preceding years.

Apparently, as a corrective measure to this effect, the world’s largest government-funded health care program – the ‘National Health Protection Scheme (HPS)’ of India was announced in the Union Budget Proposal, on February 01, 2018. HPS is expected to provide insurance cover of up to ₹500,000 to 100 million poor and vulnerable families, covering around 500 million population in the country.

As enshrined in the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017), HPS too seeks to ensure improved access and affordability of quality secondary and tertiary care services with a significant reduction in Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) on health care, for the common citizens in the country.

Such a massive public health care program as HPS, is obviously expected to use a transparent drug procurement and logistics framework. This, in turn, would necessitate tough price negotiations with the pharma manufacturers for the purchase of medicines, leading to significant reduction in drug prices. This is already happening in some States, like Tamil Nadu.

High OOPE on health:

According to the December 2016 report of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, of the total 64.2 percent OOPE in 2013-14, 53.46 percent was spent on medicines and 9.95 percent was spent on diagnostics, in India. 82.29 percent of the total OOP medicines expenditure and 67 percent of total OOP diagnostic expenditure was for outpatient treatment. Of the total OOPE, 15.96 percent was on traditional medicines/ AYUSH, of which equal proportion was spent on outpatient and inpatient care.

In an interview, published on December 18, 2017, the Chairman of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), reportedly, also said, OOPE makes up about 62 percent of all health care costs in India, causing impoverishment of many patients. In a comparative yardstick, OOPE is about 20 percent in the U.S. and the U.K. and 20-25 percent in BRICS countries. Thus, there is a need to significantly bring it down in India, he said.

Curiously, the ‘Health in India’ report, which draws data from the 71st round of the National Sample Survey conducted from January to June 2014, presents a somewhat different picture. It reportedly says, of the total OOPE, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was towards buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment. The Health in India report shows, in rural India, 25 percent patients relied on “borrowings” for hospitalization, and 68 percent on household income and other savings. In urban India, 18 percent patients had to borrow while admitted in hospital, and 75 percent relied on income or savings – the report further added.

Containing OOPE – a dire necessity:

Be that as it may, OOPE for health in India and, especially, on drugs, is indeed very high, by any measure. To contain this burden on the general population in the private market, the Government had introduced, since quite some time, a balancing mechanism through various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO).

Similarly, to contain its own health care expenditure, as HPS comes into force, the Government is expected to choose a digitalized and transparent drug procurement process. This would, almost certainly, prompt tough price negotiations for the purchase of medicines, as well.

Thus, HPS may further add to the current discomfort of the pharma players in this area, as they mostly want free pricing of drugs that will only be regulated by market forces. Unfortunately, market forces do not work for drugs. I explained it in an article, published in this blog on April 27, 2015, titled “Does Free Market Economy Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”

Industry lobbying for free pricing of drugs and devices:

It is well known that pharma industry, supported by other businesses dependent on it, including a section of the media, is still against such a move by the Indian policy makers, for various reasons. The primary one being, such pressure on drug prices would stifle innovation, impacting patient access to the best possible health care.

Pharma Multination Corporations (MNC) appear to be in the forefront of this ‘innovation’ bandwagon to score a brownie point in this area, as many say. This is an ongoing process for them. Even recently, in the report titled, ‘2017 Accomplishments’, the US-India Business Council’s (USIBC) made a strong assertion in this regard, quite expectedly, though.

The report articulated, as part of advocacy around price controls, USIBC had sent a letter to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), detailing American industry concerns on setting up ceiling prices for drugs and medical devices. USIBC, reportedly has also sent a letter, expressing its concern on the “serious problems for US companies that sell these products in the Indian market.” Advocacy initiatives of this kind, reportedly included the then Foreign Secretary, Minister of Commerce and Industries of India, and the Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary, as well.

Pricing pressure getting more intense, even in the US:

Curiously, a similar and equally interesting scenario is rapidly developing alongside in the largest pharma free-market economy in the world – the United States. On January 30, 2018, during his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump said that he wants his administration “to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities.”

Likewise, as reported by Bloomberg on February 09, 2018, President Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary – Alex Azar reaffirmed that he plans to take up the President’s promises to do something about pharmaceutical prices to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket spending. He assured, “The president is firmly committed in this space.” Incidentally, Alex Azar is a former executive at drug maker Eli Lilly & Co.

HPS needs efficient public procurement and logistics mechanisms:

As the cost of drugs and devices contribute so much to the total OOPE on health, together with ensuring patients’ easy access to convenient to reach primary, secondary and tertiary health care facilities – access to drugs, devices and diagnostics for the target population of HPS must also increase, effectively. Thus, bulk procurement and distribution of these, free of cost, at the designated health centers, assumes paramount importance for its success. Consequently, the trust of the HPS beneficiaries will keep ascending.

The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) too, had aptly asserted, any inefficiency due to poor governance, lack of transparency and inequities in public health financing and delivery would greatly impede access to medicines and diagnostics for those who would need these most.

Admitting its importance, the NHP 2017 noted: “Quality of public procurement and logistics is a major challenge in ensuring access to free drugs and diagnostics through public facilities. An essential prerequisite that is needed to address the challenge of providing free drugs through the public sector, is a well-developed public procurement system.”

Thus, putting in place an effective framework and process for this purpose, at both the central and the state government levels, as the situation would warrant, requires to be a key priority focus area of the HPS implementation process. There doesn’t seem to be any other viable choice, either.

Any need to ‘reinvent the wheel’?

The answer is, of course, ‘no’. Perhaps, to attain similar goals, the Government had established the fully autonomous Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) as a Central Procurement Agency (CPA). This was intended to streamline drug procurement and distribution system of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of India. Accordingly, the Gazette Notification on the formation of CMSS said that it:

Will be responsible for procuring health sector goods in a transparent and cost-effective manner and distributing them to the States/UTs by setting up an IT enabled supply chain infrastructure including warehouses in 50 locations.
Will ensure uninterrupted supply of health-sector goods to the State Government, which will then maintain the flow to the government health facilities, such as district hospitals, primary health centers and community health centers.
All decisions on procurement will be taken by the CMSS without any reference to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The Ministry will be responsible only for policy decisions concerning procurement and for monitoring its performance.
The CMSS will also assist the State Governments to set up similar organizations in states to reform their procurement.

Currently, CMSS carries out procurement for following ‘Disease Control and Welfare Programs’ of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare:

Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program (RNTCP)
National Vector Borne Disease Control Program (NVBDCP)
Family Welfare Program (FWP)
National Aids Control Organization (NACO)

The scope of services of CMSS includes tendering, bid Evaluation, procurement decision, concluding rate agreement, placing purchase orders, receiving in stores, sampling and testing, releasing payment to suppliers and keeping stocks of drugs available in warehouses for distribution to state program offices.

So far as State Governments are concerned, a World Bank article says, the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation (TNMSC) had successfully demonstrated a cost-effective model. This IT enabled system is an integral part in the supply chain infrastructure to support the management decisions, and adequate attention to quality in drug procurement.

CMSS follows similar processes to procure and distribute supplies to States through web-connected warehouses in State capitals. An IT vendor takes up the IT work with a quality control framework in place. Its warehouses are being equipped with necessary storing and warehousing equipment, which will distribute to the States the items that are procured by the Ministry. Since the warehouses will be connected through the IT system, it will be possible for the Society to monitor the inventory in warehouses preventing stock outs and wastage.

Many State governments have also adopted a similar reform process. However, any duplication in the drug procurement and logistics systems needs to be avoided.

Conclusion:

Hence, I reckon, CMSS can be extended to the procurement process of both the new ‘Health Protection Scheme (HPS)’ and also for the ‘Health and Wellness Centers,’ without trying to ‘reinventing the wheel.’

As stated before, this seemingly transparent drug procurement process for public use, would naturally involve tough price negotiations, leading to significant reduction, not just in drug prices, but also containing the overall HPS cost to the Government, enabling the country to experience the roll out of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for all. From this perspective, it appears, while translating into reality, this noble Government intent of providing wider access to health care, including free medicines, overall pressure on drug prices may escalate further.

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.

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“Given the popular uptake of universal health coverage reforms elsewhere in Asia, the Feb 4 elections may be a tipping point for health in India. For example, in 2012, Joko Widodo was elected Governor of Jakarta. He launched popular UHC reforms in the capital and 2 years later was elected president. In 2016, voters in the USA and UK supported politicians prepared to act on the concerns of the electorate. If health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements”, is exactly what appeared in the editorial of The Lancet, titled “Health in India, 2017,” published on January 14, 2017.

The Lancet Editor further reiterated: “Because states have responsibility for health, the elections will raise the importance of access to quality, affordable health care in India, regardless of the electoral outcome. It is a debate that needs to be fostered.”

This is, of course, a ‘top-down’ approach for healthcare, as seen in several countries across the world. However, I have recently deliberated another approach in the same area on – why a ‘bottom-up’ demand is not forthcoming in India, in an article titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017.

No one, including any Government, would possibly ever argue – why shouldn’t a robust public healthcare system in a country, including the availability of reasonably affordable drugs, assume as much priority as economic growth and education?

On the contrary, Governments in several other countries, including those with a well-functioning Universal Healthcare (UHC) in place, are trying to ensure even better and greater access to healthcare for all, by various different means. In this article, I shall focus on it, in a holistic way.

Exploring a bottom-up approach:

It is increasingly becoming more evident that a bottom-up approach would help yield greater success in this area, with a win-win outcome. It will involve taking the stakeholders on board in the process of framing and implementing healthcare projects within a given time-frame. The question then arises, why is it still not happening on the ground in India the way it should? Just floating a discussion paper on draft projects and policies, for stakeholders’ inputs, isn’t enough any longer. There is a need to move much beyond that in making these decisions more inclusive.

Various successive Governments may have some justifiable funding related or other pressing issues to offer a robust public healthcare system in India. But, none of these will be an insurmountable barrier, if more number of heads of astute stakeholders are involved in ferreting out an effective and implementable India-specific solution in this area, within a pre-determined timeline.

There are examples of remarkable progress in this direction, by involving stakeholders in charting out a workable pathway, agreed by all, and jointly implemented in a well-calibrated and time bound manner. Equally important is to make this plan known to the public, so that the Government can be held accountable, if it falls short of this promise, or even misses any prescribed timeline.

‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiative:

Let me now draw an interesting example of involving stakeholders by the Government to improve patient access to expensive and innovative drugs. This example comes from a country that is running one of the oldest and most efficient UHC in the world – the United Kingdom.

Despite a robust UHC being in place, the National Health Service (NHS) in England had a perennial problem to make ‘breakthrough’ medicines available early to NHS patients. The British pharma industry reportedly had a long-held complaint that patients in England get a raw deal when it comes to accessing the latest medicines.

According to a reported study by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and endorsed by the charity Cancer Research UK, average British patients get lower access to leading cancer medicines than their European counterparts.

To resolve this issue effectively, the British Government launched ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway initiative’. Former GSK global CEO Sir Andrew Witty was named as the chairman of this collaborative body. The scheme, launching from April 2018, will see approvals of cutting-edge treatments for conditions like cancer, dementia and diabetes dramatically speeding up. The pathway is expected to get ‘breakthrough’ medicines to NHS patients up to four years earlier, as the report, published in ‘The Telegraph’ on November 3, 2017 indicates.

It is believed that ‘Accelerated Access Collaborative’ initiative would benefit the NHS patients, as well as deliver significant long-term savings for the health service.

Similar initiatives may be effective in India:

Taking collaborative initiatives, such as above, may not be absolutely new in India. However, in a real sense, Indian initiatives are no more than top-down approaches, and not in any way be termed as bottom-up. Moreover, these usually originate in the form of Government discussion papers inviting comments from the stakeholders.

Moreover, in the healthcare policy related arena, there is no subsequent firm resolve by the Government to chart out a clear pathway for its effective implementation, with specific timelines indicated for each step, besides assigning individual accountability for delivering the intended deliverables.

Any such decisive move by the government, keeping all stakeholders engaged is quite rare to come across in our country, as yet. Thus, carefully selected outside expert group suggestions based – the National Health Policies also have met with the same fate, without possibly any exception, thus far.

Two illustrations:

I shall illustrate the above point with two top-of-mind examples. The first one is a report – the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India, submitted to the erstwhile Planning Commission in November 2011. The other example is of a policy – the National Health Policy (NHP) 2017, which is in place now, based on a report by an expert committee constituted by the Government.

Let me now briefly recapitulate both – one by one, as follows:

The report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India

The ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ was constituted by the Planning Commission of India in October 2010, with the mandate of developing a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

While financial protection for healthcare was the principal objective of this initiative, it was recognized that the delivery of UHC also requires the availability of adequate health infrastructure, skilled health workforce, access to affordable drugs and technologies to ensure the entitled level and quality of healthcare is delivered to every citizen.

The report further highlighted, the design and delivery of health programs and services call for efficient management systems as well as active engagement of empowered communities.

The original terms of reference directed the HLEG to address all of these needs of UHC. Since the social determinants of health have a profound influence not only on the health of populations, but also on the ability of individuals to access healthcare, the HLEG decided to include a clear reference to them.

Nevertheless, this report was never acted upon for its effective implementation. Now, with the change in Government, HLEG recommendations for UHC in India seems to have lost its relevance, altogether.

The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017

The new Government that subsequently came to power, decided to start afresh with a brand new and modern National Health Policy in India, replacing the previous one framed 15 years ago in 2002. NHP 2017 promises healthcare in an ‘assured manner’ to all, by addressing the challenges in the changing socioeconomic, epidemiological and technological scenarios. Accordingly, the National Health Policy 2017 was put in place, early this year.

To achieve the objectives, NHP 2017 intends to raise public healthcare expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP from the current 1.4 percent. Interestingly, no visible signal about the seriousness on implementation of this laudable initiative has reached the public, just yet.

Let’s now wait for the next year’s budget to ascertain whether the policy objective of ‘healthcare in an assured manner to all’ would continue to remain a pipe dream, as happened in earlier budget proposals. It is noteworthy that union budget allocation on health did not go up, at least, in the last 3 years, despite categorical assurances by the ministers on increasing focus on healthcare.

Significant increase in both the union and the state governments budgetary allocation for healthcare is necessary. This is because, besides many other intents, NHP 2017 intends to provide free diagnostics, free drugs and free emergency and essential healthcare services in all public hospitals for healthcare access and financial protection to all.

Universal Healthcare is the core point in both:

The core focus of both – the HLEG report and also the NHP 2017, is UHC in India, but with different approaches. When HLEG report was not translated into reality, the 2014 general election in India was widely expected to be the tipping point for a new public healthcare landscape in the country fulfilling this promise. More so, as the public healthcare system is generally in a shamble throughout the country, except in a handful of states.

Just as in the United States, Europe or Japan, “if health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements,” as the above Lancet editorial commented. Giving yet another perspective, I also wrote in my blog post, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’ on November 06, 2017, why has it not happened in India, as on date.

Conclusion:

What happens, if the Indian Government too adopts a major collaborative approach, such as ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiatives, involving all stakeholders – including the pharma and device industry leaders to implement UHC in the country – part by part?

The relevant counter question to this should not be – Will that work? Of course, it will, if the Government wants to. On the contrary, it could be a potential ‘Tipping Point’ to create a robust public healthcare landscape in India. Thus, the real question that we should ask ourselves: Why won’t it work, when all stakeholders are on board to pave the pathway for an efficient Universal Healthcare system in India, in a win-win way?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Tapan Ray

‘Without Providing Affordable Medicines, There Can’t be Health Security’, said the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India, as reported on September 22, 2017. Although, the Minister made this remark while discussing Government price control on cardiac stents in India, let me dwell on the subject based on the above news headline by asking: Is drug price control improving access to medicines for greater ‘Health Security’ of the country?

It’s no rocket science to understand that making affordable drugs ‘available’ in requisite quantity for all, is essential, basically, for improving ‘access’ to medicines. Nevertheless, the mere availability of drugs is no guarantee for their improving access to all.

If we take a closer look at the well-articulated key objectives of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, under which both the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) and the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) belong, this dichotomy will be easier to fathom.

The key objective of the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy: 2012’, which is operational today, reads as: “To put in place a regulatory framework for pricing of drugs so as to ensure availability of required medicines – “essential medicines” – at reasonable prices even while providing sufficient opportunity for innovation and competition to support the growth of the industry, thereby meeting the goals of employment and shared economic well-being for all. The reasons are further elaborated later in the Policy Document.”

Similarly, according to the NPPA, one of the key objectives of drug price control in India is to ensure abundant availability, at reasonable prices of essential and life-saving and prophylactic medicines of good quality. Hence, the current key focus of the DoP and NPPA, on paper, does not go beyond making ‘affordable drugs available for all.”

Thus, the crucial point to ponder: Is ongoing drug price control, improving even availability of medicines for all to attain greater ‘health security’ of the country, as the Union Minister underscores?

A course correction without flagging the new course:

The Draft Pharma Policy 2017 makes an important course correction to address this critical issue. It expresses its objective in this important area slightly differently, by adding the word ‘accessible’, as: “Making essential drugs ‘accessible’ at ‘affordable prices’ to the common masses.”

Intriguingly, the draft remains mute, when it boils down to answering the fundamental question, how would this new policy improve access to affordable drugs for the common masses, without having any jurisdiction to improving access to overall health care? That turf, unquestionably, belongs to the Ministry of Health. Thus, I reckon, achieving this modified goal, in its totality, is no more than a rhetoric.

Would better availability guarantee greater patient access to drugs?

As things stand today, it is quite unlikely to happen. The broad process of improving access to health care in a holistic way, is enshrined in the National Health Policy 2017, which is already in place. It assures the nation of progressively achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’. It outlines measures to improve the availability, access and affordability for quality secondary and tertiary care services, with significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on health care. The policy also emphasizes that this process would considerably reduce the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic health expenditures, and consequent impoverishment.

The silo mentality won’t work:

Although, the Ministry of Health is primarily responsible for meeting universal access to health care, which includes drugs, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers too, shoulders a crucial responsibility in this area. Thus, attaining the Health and Pharma policy goals – individually, collectively and meaningfully, both these Ministries need to work closely together, along with the State Governments, in the true spirit of cooperative federalism. The silo mentality has not worked and won’t work, ever, to meet health aspirations of the people.

Access to health care – a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs:

As I see it, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs for country’s ‘health security’. Without providing access to requisite health care, making affordable drugs available for all, does not make much sense, if at all. This is because, patients will buy or get medicines only when a medical or paramedical professional will advise and prescribe them what to buy while treating any particular ailment.

Is the key pharma policy goal anywhere near its target?

Be that as it may, let me now try to gauge whether even the current key goal of the pharma policy to make an increasing quantity of affordable drugs available to more number of the population is anywhere near its target or not.

Capturing the impact of the present pharma policy on the ‘health’ of Indian pharma industry, the Annual Report 2016-17 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) acknowledges that owing to the Government’s efforts to make medicines affordable, the domestic Pharma market witnessed a slowdown in the ongoing financial year. The industry registered a decline in growth of 7.4 percent over the corresponding figure for 2014 -15, with a similar aftermath in its financial performance.

Interestingly, a Press Release of Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of September 27, 2016 claims that ‘ceiling prices’ of 464 formulations fixed after announcement of NLEM, 2015 and Revised Schedule-I, resulted in savings of Rs 2288 crore for consumers. Let me also add that a September 22, 2017 tweet of the same Union Minister gives a much higher number in this regard, which includes cardiac stents, though.

Fair enough, in that increasing patient access to affordable drugs ought to get reflected in the reasonable incremental volume growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), at least, of those products, which feature in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM)? Contrary to this expectation, according to an article published by ‘Pharmabiz’ website on the CPhI India Special supplement in December 2016, ‘over the past 3 years (FY 2013 – FY 2016), the IPM has grown at a CAGR of ~ 11%, much lower than its historical average growth rate of 15%.’

Thus, both the private retail audit data, and also the submission of the DoP clearly indicate that this has not happened, as a desired outcome of drug price control.

Drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant either:

My above argument doesn’t also mean that drug price control, or stringent price monitoring, or tough price negotiation – in whatever way one may call it, is of no use; even where Universal Health Care (UHC) is up and running. This is regardless of whether this universal care is insurance driven, as in the United States, or state funded, as in the United Kingdom. As I said before, access to health care for all is a prerequisite to improving access to affordable drugs. I stressed this point briefly in one of my recent articles published in this blog, while focusing on another important development.

Drug price regulation in the UHC countries:

In case of insurance driven UHC, insurance companies or related payers, or even the regulators, mostly enforce stringent control on drug prices, as is currently happening in the United States. This fact is vindicated by a May 29, 2017 report that indicates: “The pharma industry, under the constant glare of the US drug regulator, has to contend now with pricing pressures in the American market.” The report further highlighted: “From Sun Pharma and Lupin to Glenmark, Dr. Reddy’s and the others, price erosion in generic drugs has been a common anguish as they declared their results for the fourth quarter ended March 31. For some of these companies, more than 40 per cent of their revenues come from the US market. The developments came at a time new launches in the US – at least for some of them – have taken a hit because of regulatory action. Pricing pressure in generics is not new, but this has exacerbated in recent times, with experts warning of further deterioration.”

Similarly, where the UHC is funded by the State, such as in the United Kingdom, prices of branded pharmaceuticals supplied to the National Health Service (NHS), are controlled either by the ‘Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS)’ or by the ‘Health Service Branded Medicines Regulations 2008’. The situation is no different virtually in the entire Europe.

Moreover, in Japan, where UHC functions so immaculately, the regulatory officials of the country announced in December, as reported on 7th March 2017, the Government plans to review drug prices more frequently – annually for all therapies and quarterly for the newest, and most expensive ones that are used widely. Over recent months, the price of Opdivo, a blockbuster cancer drug from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Japan’s Ono Pharmaceutical Co., was halved in Japan following a 32 percent cut in April for Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis cure Sovaldi, the report said.

In addition, an OECD report dated January 16, 2017 observes: “The proliferation of high-cost medicines and rising drug prices are increasing pressures on public health spending and calling into question the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing strategies. Governments need to work with the industry and regulators to define a new approach to the development and use of new health technologies that encourages innovation while also delivering more affordable and value for money treatments.”

Hence, drug price regulations aren’t irrelevant, either in India or even in countries with a robust UHC system in place, not just yet.

The rationale behind drug price control in UHC countries and India:

The major difference in the rationale of drug price control between the countries with UHC and others, such as India is as follows:

UHC countries extend health coverage between 80 to 100 percent of the population, on an average, with a very low percentage of ‘out of pocket expenses’ on drugs. Hence, the Government and other payers want to keep their own cost of drugs within a reasonable limit with drug price control, though its methodology varies from country to country.

On the other hand, in countries, such as India, where UHC is not available, over 70 percent of the population incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on health care – and over 60 percent of which is spent on drugs. Hence, the Government intends to ensure a significant reduction in ‘out of pocket expenditure’ towards medicines, by trying to make more affordable drugs available to many through drug price control.

Conclusion:

All health care related policy measures of the Government are important for the nation. As I know, the related discussion papers are circulated by the Government only after several informal and ongoing discussions on the subject with the stakeholders, and considering other feedbacks received in that process.

Despite this general mechanism, several points of draft proposals, or even the final policy, are often not liked by all, triggering a raging debate and inviting stringent criticisms, including disagreement from other ministries. For example, according to reports: “Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the government’s intention to ensure access to affordable medicines, the government policy think tank NITI Aayog seems to be pushing for greater deregulation of drug prices and to disempower India’s drug price regulator.” Just as many others, I also often participate in such debates.

That said, improving not just availability, but in tandem with greater access to affordable drugs, would play a key role to foster overall ‘Health Security’ of the country. Drug price control or its equivalent measures, alone, does not improve access to affordable drugs, except shaving off significant revenue and profit of the pharma companies. Whether the appropriate terminology in this case would be ‘profit’ or ‘profiteering’, is part of a separate debate, altogether.

Neither, impeccable sets of pharma and health policies, implemented in-silo by the two different ministries, will help achieve this goal. As is well researched, an excellent policy with shoddy or improper implementation, fetches far worse outcome than an average policy when implemented well, and in close coordination with other policies having common goals. This holds good even while striving for a robust ‘Health Security’ for the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

Posted on July 3, 2017 by Tapan Ray

In November 2016, while hearing a related case, the Delhi High Court reportedly directed the Union Government to finalize and implement a policy on rare diseases, with a provision for free treatment with the expensive medications, as will be required by patients.

Earlier in 2014, while passing the judgement in response to a petition filed by a seven-year-old son of a rickshaw puller seeking affordable treatment for the rare disease that he is suffering from, the Delhi High Court concluded that, “every person has a fundamental right to quality health care that is affordable, accessible and compassionate.”

Currently, the treatment for rare diseases costs the patients an arm and a leg, ranging between Rs. 40 lakhs (US$ 62,000 approx.) to Rs 1.70 crores (US$ 267,000 approx.), which is way beyond the reach of most Indians.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit before the honorable Court, submitting a copy of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017, stating that it will aim to facilitate effective diagnosis and affordable treatment. This development is indeed good news, especially considering around 6 to 8 percent of the world population suffer from ‘rare diseases’, and India is no exception.

The key highlights of the new policy:

As per available information, following are the 10 major highlights of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017:

The Union Government to create a corpus with an initial funding of Rs 100 crores (US$ 16 million). The State Governments would also provide for a similar fund with a 60 percent contribution from the Centre. This corpus is primarily for the treatment of genetic disorders, excluding rare blood diseases, such as, thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.

For the sustainability of the corpus, Public Sector Units and Corporates will be encouraged for the contribution in these earmarked funds, as part of their corporate social responsibility.

Appropriate institutions will be accredited by the government for diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases.

To ensure adequate availability and reasonable affordability of the drugs for rare diseases, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) will consider amending the Drug and Cosmetics Act with requisite provisions to make clinical trials and import of ERTs possible.

The Department of Financial Services to ensure coverage of rare diseases under insurance schemes.

Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) will explore whether the ceiling limit of funding the treatments for rare diseases can be increased through suitable amendments.

The policy recognizes that rare diseases are, in most cases, serious, chronic, debilitating and life-threatening, often requiring long – specialized treatments, and may also lead to some form of handicap, at times extremely severe in nature.

About 50 percent of new cases of rare diseases are in children and responsible for 35 percent of deaths before the age of one, 10 percent between the ages of one, and five years and 12 percent between five and 15 years.

As a preventive measure, the policy may consider the feasibility of providing pre-conception and ante-natal genetic counselling and screening programs for diagnosing genetic disorders, which would provide a choice to parents about giving birth to children with genetic disorders, especially for families that have a diagnosed genetic disorder, or a high risk profile for it.

The policy gives Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) the responsibility of creating a patient registry, as India has no epidemiological data on rare diseases.

Rare diseases – definition:

There is no universal definition of rare diseases. For example, while the US defines a rare disease as one that affects less than 200,000 people nationwide, in China, this number changes to 1 in 500,000 people (or neonatal morbidity of less than 1 in 10,000). India doesn’t yet have a clear definition for the same – not even in its new policy for rare diseases.

However, according to Rare Diseases India (RDI) – a foundation for research on rare diseases and disorders, any disease having fewer than 100 patients per 100,000 population fall into this category. Whereas, those ones affecting 2 patients per 100,000 population are described as ultra-rare diseases.

Rare Diseases in India:

The Organization for Rare Diseases in India (ORD), states that 1 in 20 Indians is affected by such diseases. About 6000 to 8000 rare diseases, mostly genetic in nature, have been identified in India. It was initially estimated that over 31 million Indians are suffering from such disorders in the country, many of which still do not have any cure. Moreover, epidemiological data for most of these ailments is hardly available.

To increase awareness for rare diseases, Rare Diseases Day was observed for the first time in India (New Delhi) on February 28, 2010.

Orphan diseases and orphan drugs:

According to RDI, rare diseases are often referred to as ‘orphan’ diseases. Consequently, the drugs that are specifically developed to treat ‘orphan’ or ‘rare disease conditions’ are called ‘orphan drugs’. The reason being, pharma companies do not generally take such drugs through further stages of development for market launch, or in other words, these are orphaned for economic considerations, though are important to save many precious lives.

Need to encourage orphan drug development in India:

According to SanOrphan SA, Geneva, Switzerland, around 65 percent of rare diseases is serious and disabling. Interestingly, about 250 new rare diseases are discovered each year, corresponding to five new rare diseases per week. As the scenario is no different in India, it prompts the need to encourage development of effective and affordable orphan drugs in the country.

However, without appropriate ecosystem being in place, developing an orphan drug in India, specifically to treat a very small number of such patient populations, through a cost intensive R&D initiative with a low potential of return on investments, is indeed a challenging proposition for many pharma players. Although, in the western world, this trend has started changing now, driven by various other commercial reasons.

Why should ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ follow the National Policy on rare diseases?

National Policy for Rare Diseases is undoubtedly a good beginning, though was brought under the directive of Delhi High Court. Nevertheless, to encourage ‘Orphan Drugs’ development within the country, a robust ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ should now logically follow.

One may well ask, why is this Act is so necessary in India? This is because, the new ‘National Policy for Rare Diseases’ charts just the pathway of a course of action that the Government is planning to take in this area. Policies, as we know, though, are a set of well-articulated intents, do not guarantee that these will be successfully followed to achieve the pre-set long-term goals. Whereas, all legislative Acts or duly enacted laws, are legally enforceable. It is worth noting, while the national policies can be formulated by the government, an Act must be passed by the lawmakers in the Parliament.

Consequently, it is now a well-accepted fact that ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages development of drugs for rare diseases. In an article titled, “What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis”, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S, National Library of Medicine, the authors highlighted that in the U.S. 1138 orphan drugs were designated and 148 received marketing approval, of which 38 (26 percent) were for pediatric diseases, from 2000 to 2009. The percentage of approvals for pediatric products increased from 17.5 (10 of 57) in the first half of the decade, as compared to 30.8 (28 of 91) in the second half. Based on these data, the paper concluded that the incentives provided in the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ of the United States of America, have led to increased availability of specific drugs for the treatment of ‘Rare Diseases’ in the country.

Other countries did – why not India?

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA) in the U.S.A. A decade after, in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

Following similar footsteps, India should also encourage its domestic pharmaceutical industry to get engaged in research to discover drugs for rare diseases by putting an ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ in place, extending financial support, tax exemptions and regulatory concessions like smaller and shorter clinical trials, among several other areas, without delay.

Opportunities galore:

The above constraints in the development of orphan drugs have now been turned into an opportunity galore by the global pharma industry, where the domestic players should not lag much behind. Orphan drugs, backed by adequate financial incentives provided by laws in different countries, are now seen as a research and development priority to significantly boost the top and the bottom-line of pharma business.

As IgeaHub has highlighted, orphan drugs, though, cater to a small patient pool, the remunerative price of these drugs offsets the commercial challenges, as mentioned earlier. For example, in 2010, Soliris, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) that affects 1 out of 500,000, was considered as the industry’s most expensive drug amounting to US$ 409,000 per year of treatment, which generated a total of US$ 541 million revenue for Alexion Pharmaceuticals in that year. In 2012, Soliris recorded a sales turnover of US$ 1.13 billion, which is expected to cross the mark of US$ 3.40 billion in 2018. Further, in 2012, the top selling orphan drug in the USA – Rituxan of Roche – used for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, generated US$ 7.15 billion in total sales. Post patent expiry, in 2018, the same drug is expected to yield a revenue of US$ 6.99 billion.

The market:

Evaluate Pharma’s Orphan Drug Report 2017 estimates the worldwide Orphan Drug Sales of total US$ 209 billion, with CAGR of +11 percent for 2017 to 2022 period, which is double of the overall prescription Market Growth. Excluding generics orphan drugs are set to contribute 21.4 percent of Worldwide Prescription Sales by 2022.

Big pharma dominates this segment. Seven of the top 10 companies’ orphan drug sales are from global industry players, who have won approval for their biggest products in various niche indications.

Other commercial benefits:

Thomson Reuters reported additional commercial opportunities with an appropriate ODA, which in the United States are as follows:

15 percent of the ‘Orphan Drugs’ analyzed by them had subsequent launches for other rare illnesses.

6 out of the top 10 ‘Orphan Drugs’ had more than one rare disease indication, with an average peak sales of US$ 34.3 billion in overall sales potential, against around US$ 8.1 billion of the same for drugs with single indication.

Time taken for Clinical Trials (CT) focused on orphan drugs is significantly shorter with much quicker review time than trials involving non-orphan drugs.

Conclusion:

Some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed also in India, and with precision. As the nation takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such rare diseases are likely to be diagnosed in our country. The global pharma industry has already started taking rapid strides in this area, supported by ODA in various countries. Similar opportunities, both for the patients, as well as, for the industry, need to be made available in India too.

One of the ways to encourage the orphan drug development in India is to follow the model of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD)’ with both global and local partnerships and collaboration.

However, speedy enactment of an appropriate ODA for the country, providing adequate financial incentives to the pharma players, for developing and marketing such drugs, both in the local and global markets, at a reasonably affordable price, would go a long way, and be a win-win situation for all.

Alongside, leveraging the knowledge of OSDD acquired by the CSIR, and framing a robust win-win Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to discover and commercialize the orphan drugs, India could well demonstrate the zeal of the country to move beyond the National Policy for Rare Diseases. In that process, it would be able to offer more meaningful and sustainable benefits, both to the domestic pharma industry and the patients, alike, for a long time to come.

By: Tapan J. Ray

MDGs Break Ground For SDGs: Is India Poised To Achieve The Health Goals?

Posted on April 3, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were placed in the pages of history amid several other remarkable global initiatives of the United Nations (UN), as the timeframe for achievement of these targets got over in 2015.

In 2000, the leaders of 189 countries signed this historic millennium declaration at the United Nations Millennium Summit for improving the lives of the world’s poorest people. Eight MDGs, were agreed upon by its members, each one supported by 21 specific, measurable targets and more than 60 indicators with clear deadlines, as a concerted global movement in this direction. The eight goals spanned across the areas of poverty alleviation, providing universal primary education, ensuring gender equality, preventing child mortality, meeting maternal health needs, protecting the environment and entering various global partnerships, with a target achievement date of 2015.

Did the glass remain ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’?

At the end of 2015 the UN reportedly called the MDGs ‘the most successful anti-poverty movement in history’. However, it could probably be a matter of looking at this glass either as ‘half-full’ or ‘half-empty’.

An interesting article published in the international daily ‘The Guardian’ on July 06, 2015, highlighted some hits and misses of MDGs from the global perspective.

Globally, several goals of the MDGs have not been made for various reasons. Focusing on health-related areas, I find, though the child mortality rate has reduced by more than half over the past two and a half decades from 90 to 43 deaths per 1,000 live births, its MDG target of an expected decline by two thirds could not be achieved. Similarly, the global maternal mortality ratio despite falling by nearly half, was far short of its aim of a two-thirds reduction. Likewise, despite the reduction of the number of new HIV infections by around 40 percent between 2000 and 2013, its MDG goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/Aids by 2015 has not been met.

The overall status in India:

According to the United Nations in India, in the above focus areas, the country has made some progress in reducing its under-five mortality rate, which declined from 125 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 49 per 1,000 live births in 2013; maternal mortality rate also declined from 437 per 100,000 live births in 1990-91 to 167 in 2009.

India recorded significant progress in reducing the prevalence of HIV and AIDS across different types of high-risk categories, with adult prevalence reducing from 0.45 percent in 2002 to 0.27 percent in 2011. However, a quarter of global TB cases still occur in India with nearly 2.2 million people are diagnosed with the disease annually, and an estimated 220,000 die as a result.

MDGs and India’s achievements:

Coming now to target versus achievements, the Millennium Development Goals India Country Report 2015 released by the Ministry of Statistics & Program Implementation (MoSPI) in February 2015, states that India had put considerable emphasis on all the MDGs with significant progress. Although the nation could meet targets of some of these well ahead of the 2015 deadline, overall, only six of the 18 targets adopted as part of the eight goals in 2000 have been fully met. However, according to another report brought out by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, India has met only four of the eight MDGs.

As per Sample Registration System 2013, though the overall reduction of Under 5 Child Mortality Rate (U5MR) was nearly 60 percent happened during 1990 to 2013, India had missed this target.

Similar were the performances for a reduction in the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and the proportion of one year old children immunized against measles and improving the Maternal Morality Ratio (MMR). However, the prevalence of HIV among pregnant women aged 15-24 years showed a declining trend and incidence of Malaria also came down. Thus, it appears that the progress made and the achievements recorded in India against MDG targets are indeed a mixed bag.

The same question, therefore, logically follows for India too: Has the glass become ‘half-full’, or remained half-empty post MDG efforts?

MDGs break ground for ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’:

The MDGs comprising of eight goals to eradicate extreme poverty, were indeed a laudable concerted global initiative of the United Nations. It could reportedly bring over a billion people out of extreme poverty. According to ‘United Nations (2015): The Millennium Development Goals Report’, during the period of 1990 to 2015, extreme poverty fell in developing countries from 47 to 14 percent. Similarly, the proportion of undernourished people fell by almost half, with almost similar decline in the child and maternal mortality rate. Nevertheless, communicable diseases, gender/income inequalities and striking disparities between rural and urban areas continued to persist with the world’s poor remaining overwhelmingly concentrated in several areas.

Thus, learning valuable lessons and significantly benefitting from them, MDGs broke ground for the next logical global initiative in this genre. As the time-frame for implementation of MDGs got over in 2015, the global leaders on the same platform of the United Nations followed it through with the newly developed ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’ in the same year.

While aiming to make the outcomes of the new drive more sustainable with a focus on the environmental goals, SDGs did not altogether jettison some of the unfinished agenda of MDGs – mainly for continuity. Unlike MDGs, SDGs are targeted primarily to the developing, least developed and poorest countries. Nevertheless, all member countries of the UN require participating, fund and actively contribute in achieving SDGs targets, no matter how developed they are.

While MDGs had only 8 goals, 21 targets and 63 indicators, SDGs are a set of 17 goals and 169 targets that all 193 UN Member States, including India have committed to achieve between 2016 and 2030. Importantly, though MDG targets were adopted in 2002 and got over in 2015, its effective time span for achievement was of 25 years, as the baseline data used were for the year 1990 with some subsequent revisions. Whereas the baseline for SDGs starts from 2015 estimates, which may be revised to actual figures as and when these are made available.

Health goals in SDG:

Health has a central place in SDG 3 to ‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, of all ages’. Briefly speaking, it commits itself to a global effort to eradicate epidemics of both communicable and non-communicable disease and strengthen health systems’ capacity, ensuring Universal Health Coverage (UHC), along with making medicines and vaccines affordable to all. In addition, SDG 3 clearly focuses on mental health issues with suicide being the second leading cause of death globally between the ages of 19 to 25. It also aims at reducing the numbers of deaths and illnesses caused by air, water, and soil pollution and contamination, significantly.

Towards further enhancing public policy efforts, SDG 3 emphasizes on strengthening the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; supporting the research and development of vaccines and medicines; substantially increasing health financing; the recruitment, development, training, and retention of the health workforce; and strengthen early warning, risk reduction, and management of health risks. Besides, a few targets falling under other different goals are also linked to the health goal of SDG 3, in various ways.

SDG 3 targets:

According to the ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015’ on ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, SDG 3 lays down nine key targets, as follows, though a few of which overlap with the MDGs:

Reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to below 70/100,000.
Reduce neonatal mortality to below 12/1,000 and U5MR to below 25/1,000.
End the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, waterborne diseases, and other communicable diseases.
Reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases.
Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
Halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents (by 2020).
Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services.
Achieve universal health coverage.
Reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.

Is India poised for it now?

This is indeed a critical question. I guess, no one can just yet vouch, with a great degree of certainty, what exactly would India ultimately achieve against the SDG 3 targets. That said, I reckon, India has now all its success ingredients in place. Let me deliberate on just a few broad but very important ones out of all those, as hereunder:

With the announcement of the National Health Policy 2017 (NHP 2017) and commitment to the same by none other than Prime Minister Modi himself, focusing on public health has now been recognized as one of the critical ingredients for the future economic prosperity of India. Hence, there is a fair chance now that the nation’s public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP would be gradually raised from around 1.2 percent to 2.5 percent – expectedly by 2020, bringing health in the core development agenda of both the Central and the State Governments.

The unfinished task of achieving MDGs needs to be completed faster, driven by its ongoing momentum. The national and the respective States-specific goals, along with a clear roadmap to achieve the targets within the specified time-frame, outlining the success indicators for each deliverable, assigning accountability to designated individuals with a periodic review system for the same, needs to be put in place, soon, actively encouraged by the current national development oriented Union Government, if not initiated already.

The process of implementation of the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), as enunciated in the NHP 2017 should be hastened. This is necessary to bring the entire population, without any discrimination whatsoever, as the beneficiary of this movement.

Scaling up the capacity building process at a much faster pace for the entire public health infrastructure and service delivery systems, along with skill development programs need to be placed at the center stage of the public health agenda of India, to bring SDG 3 to fruition.

Strategic involvement of private players and the credible NGOs to achieve SDG 3 targets would help move faster to ultimately experience the sense of a great public health related achievement for all concerned within, and probably outside the country, as well.

In conclusion:

As MDGs break ground for SDGs, India seems to me quite poised to achieving its health goals.

Moving towards this direction will invite a sharp focus on addressing the non-communicable diseases, as well, while accelerating the ongoing efforts on maternal and child health, and nutrition.

It goes without saying that meeting SDG 3 targets will require adequate public investments for health, besides a well-crafted and time-bound public health policy, charting a clear roadmap for the same. The current Union Government now appears to have committed to both, putting its National Health Policy 2017 in place.

Once these goals are attained, it will enable India to clearly ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, at all ages’. In that process, a new India will be created where all essential public health related needs and demands of all, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, will be expeditiously taken care of, delivering with precision high quality of products and services.

Hopefully, the transformed India would then demonstrate to the world, as someone had said before, it’s just not a matter of ‘more money for health, but also more health for money’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

National Health Policy 2017: Some Silver Linings, Some Trepidation

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

Escalating Antibiotic Resistance, And Thwarting Ban Of Irrational FDCs

Posted on November 21, 2016 by Tapan Ray

September 2016 ‘Fact Sheet’ of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) raised a red flag on fast increasing incidence of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). It poses a serious threat to global public health, more than ever before. Consequently, effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing and complex range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi are becoming more and more challenging.

In this situation, various medical procedures, such as, organ transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, diabetes management and major surgery like, caesarean sections or hip replacements, invite much avoidable a very high element of risk.

Further, a July 2014 paper titled ‘Antibiotic resistance needs global solutions’, published in ‘The Lancet’ reports increase of incidences of drug-resistant bacteria at an alarming rate. In fact, antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious threats in the history of medicine, and new antibiotics and alternative strategies should be sought as soon as possible to tackle this complex problem.

Another more recent paper titled ‘Fixed-dose combination antibiotics in India: global perspectives’, published in ‘The Lancet’ on August, 2016 finds that nowhere in the world this problem is as stark as in India. It emphasizes that the crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons, which is twice the rate prevailing in the United States. Misuse, or rather abuse, of Antibiotics is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer of antibiotics for human health, the paper says.

Thus, this critical issue calls for urgent action across all government sectors and the society, in general, as W.H.O cautions.

The Devil is also in irrational antimicrobial FDCs:

The reasons for the fast spread of antimicrobial resistance are many, and each one is well documented. One such factor is the use of irrational antimicrobial FDCs. Some of these have already been banned by the Union Government of India, though continue to be manufactured, promoted, prescribed, sold and consumed by the innocent patients unknowingly.

In this article, I shall focus on the banned FDCs of such kind, highlighting how the consequential serious threat to public health and safety is repeatedly getting lost in the cacophony of protracted court room arguments against these bans.

Irrational FDCs and antimicrobial resistance:

That ‘irrational’ FDCs of antibiotics very often hasten the spread of antimicrobial resistance, is now a well-documented fact.

The ‘National Policy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in India 2011’ clearly recognizes that: “Antimicrobial resistance in pathogens causing important communicable diseases has become a matter of great public health concern globally including our country. Resistance has emerged even to newer, more potent antimicrobial agents like carbapenems.” The Policy also recommends removal of irrational antibiotic FDCs from the hospital drug list.

‘The Lancet’ article of August, 2016, as mentioned above, also reiterates, while citing examples, that “Studies of several antibiotic combinations, such as meropenem and sulbactam, have reported no additional advantage over their individual constituents, and have been reported to cause toxic reactions and promote resistance. Despite repeated investigations into the shortcomings of some FDCs, such drugs are still being manufactured and promoted on the Indian drug market.”

Why does it matter so much?

Corrective regulatory measures to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance are absolutely necessary in India, for the sake of the patients. According to a paper titled ‘Antibiotic Resistance in India: Drivers and Opportunities for Action’, published in the PLOS Medicine on March 2, 2016: “Out of around 118 antibiotic FDCs available in the Indian market, 80 (68 percent) are not registered with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). Moreover, 63 (19 percent) of around 330 banned FDCs are antibiotics.”

The global relevance:

Such regulatory bans of antimicrobials FDCs in India are important from a global perspective too, as ‘The Lancet’ article of August 2016 observes.

The article recapitulates that the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ – an enzyme that causes bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics, was first reported in India in 2008 and is now found worldwide. The growth of worldwide trade and travel has allowed resistant microorganisms to spread rapidly to distant countries and continents. In addition, some of these banned FDCs in India are reported to be exported to African and Asian countries too.

That said, each country will also need to play a significant role to curtail the abuse or misuse of antibiotics, locally. I find a glimpse of that in England, besides a few other countries.

A research paper of Antibiotic Research UK and EXASOL dated November 12, 2015, concluded that overall antibiotic prescriptions are coming down across England. However, the same paper also articulated that in the deprived areas of the country, such as Clacton-on-Sea, antibiotic prescribing rates are almost twice the national average.

Some big MNCs are no different:

In the Government’s ban list of irrational FDCs even some top brands of pharma MNCs feature, including antibiotic FDC of antibiotics. For example, on Mar 14, 2016, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma MNCs operating in India – Abbott Laboratories, was selling a FDC of two powerful antibiotics Cefixime and Azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI. This could possibly be a legacy factor, arising out of its acquisition of a good number of branded generic drugs, together with their management, from a domestic pharma company. Abbott, otherwise is well regarded by many as a distinguished global institution, practicing high standards of business ethics and values, across the world.

Be that as it may, this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

The Reuters report also elaborates that the drug ‘had been promoted and administered as a treatment for a broad array of illnesses, including colds, fevers, urinary tract infections, drug-resistant typhoid and sexually transmitted diseases.’ It also found chemists who were selling the drug to prevent post-operative infection and for respiratory problems. After the ban, the company has reportedly stopped manufacturing and sales of this antibiotic FDC.

Irrational FDC ban – a significant corrective measure:

Keeping all this in perspective, the regulatory ban on irrational FDCs of antibiotics on March 10, 2016, along with products falling in several different therapy areas, was a significant regulatory measure, among many others, to contain the menace of AMR in India.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of these formulations are still in the market, actively promoted by their manufacturers and widely prescribed by the doctors, till date. This is mainly because, to protect the revenue and profit generated from these brands, concerned pharma companies have obtained an injunction from various high courts against the ban, which was notified by the Government, earlier.

Thwarting FDC ban – a key issue:

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time also, the same important issue of patients’ health, safety and economic interest got caught in an intriguing legal quagmire. As a result, implementation of the Government’s decision to ban of these irrational FDCs got delayed, indefinitely.

Added to this, irrational antimicrobial FDCs featuring in the ban list of March 10, 2016, got trapped in exactly the same legal battle, yet again. Thus, repeated stalling of Government ban on irrational FDCs, including antibiotics, continue to remain a key health and safety issue in India.

The latest development:

In September 2016, the Union Government has reportedly moved the Supreme Court of India in defense of its March 2016 ban on irrational FDCs.

In its petition, the Union Government has reportedly urged that all cases against the orders related to ban of ‘irrational’ FDCs, now being heard in various High Courts across the country, be transferred to the apex court and heard as a single case. The move is expected to cut any ambiguity that could arise from differing verdicts between high courts.

In case of a verdict favoring the ban of all the notified irrational FDCs, scores of patients will be benefited by not just falling victims to possible health menace arising out of such unjustifiable drugs, as the Government argues, but also due to expected containment of rapid spread of deadly antimicrobial resistance in the country.

Conclusion:

With the ban of irrational FDCs, the Union Ministry of Health has taken one of the much-needed steps to restrict antibiotic resistance in India, besides addressing other health and financial menace caused by such drugs.

The support of the Apex court of India to urgently resolve this legal jig-saw-puzzle, would also help control, though not in a holistic way, the scary antibiotic resistance challenge in India. In that process India would possibly be able to contribute its little bit towards the antibiotic resistance challenge, across the world, if we consider the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ case as a glaring example in this area.

It is, therefore, widely expected that for the greater public interest, the honorable Supreme Court may view this important health and safety issue accordingly, while pronouncing its final verdict. If and when it happens, hopefully soon, the prevailing industry practice in the country to make profits with dubious drug cocktails sans any robust medical rationale, basically at the cost of patients, can’t possibly be thwarted any longer, and will be effectively implemented on the ground.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: National

An Interesting Link: Productivity At Work And Employee Fitness (Part 2)

Drug Pricing Pressure to Escalate Further?

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Drug Price Control And National Health Security

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

MDGs Break Ground For SDGs: Is India Poised To Achieve The Health Goals?

Escalating Antibiotic Resistance, And Thwarting Ban Of Irrational FDCs