Tag Archives: need

Why Pharma Need To Connect Better With Patient Organizations Now?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Patient Support Services (PSPs):

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

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

Relevance of PSP in the new normal:

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

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

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

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

Some key highlights of the survey findings:

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

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

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

Likely reasons for low usage of pharma’s PSPs: 

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

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

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

Patients generally preferred sources for patient services:

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

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

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

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

Are PSPs commercially useful to pharma companies?

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

Maximize marketing investments on PSPs:

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

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

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

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

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

C.  Creating and delivering new and seamless patient experiences:

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

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

PSGs are helping to transform health care also in India:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

Pharma To Facilitate Self-Managing Chronic Diseases For Better Outcomes?

Posted on by
Reply

“India’s burden of non-communicable disease (NCD) is escalating, but still the country does not have sufficiently detailed data on NCDs for research and policy purposes.” This was captured in a recent study, titled “India’s escalating burden of non-communicable diseases,” published in The Lancet Global Health on October 03, 2018. Thus, many experts are pondering, how to contain this menace and lower the disease burden of NCDs, in this situation. One of the ways to address this issue is exploring some unconventional ways.

As several studies have established, improving ‘self-management’ of chronic diseases by patients, after proper diagnosis and a treatment plan being in place, is one of the pillars to lower the disease burden. One such study is titled, ‘Patients’ knowledge of their chronic disease,’ appeared on June 2013 – Vol 42 (6) issue in the journal of afp – Australian Family Physician. The paper highlights that effective tools, policies and other measures to help self-management, would facilitate the process. These arecritical not just for better outcomes, but also to reduce the overall treatment cost.

In a similar context, another recent article, titled ‘Why Apps for Managing Chronic Disease Haven’t Been Widely Used, and How to Fix It,’ published in The Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 04, 2018 made an interesting observation. The authors wondered: “In an era where nearly, every consumer good and service — from books and groceries to babysitting and shared rides — can be purchased through an electronic transaction on a mobile device, it seems reasonable to think that more and more of our health care can also be managed using apps on mobile devices.”

This article will dwell in this area, based on several interesting and credible research findings. Nevertheless, to give a proper perspective, I shall start with a brief outline on the incidence of chronic diseases in India.

Increasing incidence of chronic diseases in India:

There are several recent reports confirming the ascending trend of non-infectious chronic diseases in India, two of which are as follows:

The National Health profile 2018, published by the Ministry of Health also records that between 1990 and 2016 the disease burden due to:

  • Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases, as measured using Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), dropped from 61 per cent to 33 per cent.
  • Noncommunicable diseases increased from 30 per cent to 55 per cent.
  • The epidemiological transition varies widely among Indian states: 48 percent to 75 percent for non-communicable diseases, 14 percent to 43 percent related to infectious and associated diseases; and 9 percent to 14 percent associated with injuries.

Alongside, the above article of The Lancet Global Health also underscores the following takeaways from its comprehensive analyses of NCDs in the Indian situation:

  • The three leading causes of mortality—cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and diabetes.
  • In absolute terms, these three diseases together kill around 4 million Indians annually (as in 2016).
  • Most of these deaths are premature, occurring among Indians aged 30–70 years, representing some of the world’s largest health losses, with enormous policy ramifications.
  • India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is making efforts to establish policies and intervention strategies for prevention and control NCDs. For example, the National Program for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke, launched in 2010, and the National Program for Health Care of Elderly, launched in 2010–11, the article noted.

As none of the measures taken so far could create an appreciable impact, India needs to come up with a major intervention to tackle this escalating health issue, the article concluded. In my view, optimal use of modern technology in the self-management of such virtually lifelong diseases, can be a great enabler for patients to bring down the disease treatment and management cost, significantly. Let me hasten to add again, the question of self-management comes only after a proper medical diagnosis and a prescribed treatment plan for the same being in place.

The key benefits of self-management and the unmet need:

The key benefits of effective self-management of chronic diseases are many. However, the following four clearly stands out:

  • Improves Patients’ quality of life significantly.
  • Arrests progression of the ailment – containing associated disease related complications.
  • Substantially reduces the interval and number of follow-up visits with doctors.
  • Thus, reduces the disease burden appreciably.

Curiously, most traditional pharma companies are yet to take any major step to address, at least, the above four critical areas. They don’t seem to go beyond the conventional methods of disease related advices. Whereas, the crucial need to fetch a behavioral change in patients for participative self-management of NCDs, keeps lingering.

A number of research studies have also confirmed that ‘mobile health applications are promising tools for improving outcomes in patients suffering from various chronic conditions.’ One of these studies titled, ‘Smartphone app in self-management of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial’, was published in the November 27, 2018 issue of the European Spine Journal.

Sensing an unmet need in this area, besides a large number of brilliant tech startups, many large and pure technology companies, such as Apple and Google have already entered this fray.

 A recent example:

Let me cite a recent example to drive home the above point. On December 12, 2018, CNBC featured an article carrying the headline ‘Apple now has dozens of doctors on staff, showing it’s serious about health tech.’ Some of the key points of this article are as follows:

  • The number of doctors on staff is an indication that Apple is serious about helping customers manage diseases, and not just wellness or fitness.
  • Doctors can also help Apple guide the medical community on how to use Apple’s new health technologies and to deflect criticism and also to win approval among doctors who fear liability and are already overburdened by technology.
  • Many of these doctors are also still continuing to see patients. That might also give Apple an edge by emphasizing the patient experience.

This example demonstrates how detail are the plans of these tech companies for gaining a firm foothold in the healthcare space.

‘Effectiveness’ and ‘future scope’ of self-management of diseases:

The article titled, ‘Self-Management: A Comprehensive Approach to Management of Chronic Conditions,’ featured in the August 2014 edition of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) reiterated some important points. It established the relevance, future scope and effectiveness of self-management of chronic diseases, as follows:

  • As chronic conditions emerge as a major public health concern, self-management will continue to grow as a crucial approach to managing these conditions, preventing illness and promoting wellness.
  • Chronic disease conditions are generally slow in their progression and long in their duration. Thus, self-management can offer those living with these conditions, a means to maintain or even improve their capacity to live well, over the course of their lives.
  • Self-management intervention programs that address specific diseases are showing success across multiple chronic conditions.
  • These programs have particular value that represents an amalgamation of the goals of the patient, family, community, and the clinician with everyone working in partnership to best manage the individual’s illness while facilitating comprehensive care.
  • Self-management reaches beyond traditional illness management by incorporating the larger concept of prevention by emphasizing the notion that those who are chronically ill still have a need for preventive interventions to promote wellness and mitigate the further deterioration of health.
  • If one considers the nature of self-management in all its elements and practical characteristics, it is not only a logical approach to health and health care, but also an optimal way to address chronic conditions as a major issue in public health.

Inducing a behavioral change in chronic disorders with health apps:

For effective self-management of chronic diseases, there is a need to neutralize the negative influence of the individual’s behavioral traits. Research studies have also established that behavior-change-focused interventions play an important role in this effort.

However, not all patients take adequate care for such changes to take place. While the treating doctor may play an important role of a coach in this area, in reality, they usually don’t find enough time to spend on each patient with NCDs. The McKinsey & Company’s publication titled, ‘Changing patient behavior: the next frontier in health care value,’ also reiterates that to address the rising cost of chronic conditions, health systems must find effective ways to get people to adopt healthier behaviors.

As I mentioned before, this space has attracted active interest of many tech players in business expansion. More evidence-based health apps are being introduced to help drive patient-behavior change for effective self-management of chronic diseases. There are reported surveys on weight management aided by health apps, where ‘ninety-six percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that using a diet or nutrition app helped drive positive behavior change and healthy eating habits.’

In my article, titled ‘Prescription Digital Therapy Now A Reality,’ published in this blog on May 07, 2018, I mentioned that in September 2017, the first USFDA-cleared mobile app has been made available to patients. The app has both safety and efficacy label to help treat patients with ‘Substance Use Disorder’. Studies have established that it is two-times more effective than conventional in person therapy sessions.

More recently, in September 2018, Apple’s smart-watch version 4 included a US-FDA cleared electrocardiogram (ECG), officially classifying it as a medical device capable of alerting its user to abnormal heart rhythms. In the same context, US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., said that digital advances, creating a new technological paradigm of health tools and health apps., are empowering consumers to take better informed decisions on their medical care and healthy living.

Conclusion:

It has been well-demonstrated by research studies that evidence-based health-apps for self-managing chronic diseases improve outcomes, remarkably. Consequently, this has triggered some critical activities by purely tech companies in the health care space, even in India. The primary driver being a strong consideration of this segment as an opportunity area to meet an unmet need, where most pharma players don’t seem to be doing enough, as on date.

Before it gets too late, there appears a need to take a serious note of this shifting paradigm. The awareness of which should then play a critical role in developing marketing strategies for brands used in NCDs. Otherwise, non-pharma tech companies will eventually dominate this segment, armed with a different genre of technological prowess that they possess.

The article titled, “Evidence-Based mHealth Chronic Disease Mobile App Intervention Design: Development of a Framework,” published inJan-Mar 2016 edition of the Journal of JPMIR Research Protocols, epitomizes it succinctly:

“Mobile health technology creates a shift in the paradigm of chronic disease management. It offers new possibilities to engage patients in self-management of their chronic diseases in ways that did not exist in the past. To maximize the potential of mHealth requires the integration of research and expertise from multiple disciplines including clinical, behavioral, data analytics, and technology to achieve patient engagement and health outcomes. This paradigm shift also triggers a need for new approaches to designing clinical and behavioral support for chronic disease management that can be implemented through existing health care services and programs.”

These developments send a strong signal for pharma to facilitate self-managing chronic diseases, soon enough, for better patient outcomes and, in tandem, creating a win-win situation for both.

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.

 

 

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

Does India need an equivalent of ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the US for transparency in pharmaceutical marketing?

Posted on by
Reply

Currently a strong and palpable public sentiment against corruption has engulfed India albeit more than what we witness in movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ against systemic corruption not only in the US but in a large number of cities across the world.

Long suppressed public sentiment against corruption is fast spreading like a wild fire in India and has now become all pervasive and almost irreversible, as it were.

That said, this strong sentiment is not just against corruption, but also for greater transparency and clean governance both in the government and corporate sectors of the country.

In a situation like this, there is a wide spread belief within the civil society not just in India, but across the world that the pharmaceutical companies try to skew the ‘prescription decision making process’ of the doctors towards their respective brands largely through different types of allurements and not based solely on robust health outcome criteria.

The key reason:

The entire issue arises out of the key factor that the patients do not have any say on the use/purchase of brand/brands that a doctor will prescribe.

It is generally believed by the civil society that doctors predominantly prescribe mostly those brands, which are promoted to them by the pharmaceutical companies in various ways.  Thus, in today’s world and particularly in India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services, as reported often by the media, has reached a new high, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in medical and pharmaceutical marketing practices in the rat race of unlimited greed, want and conspicuous consumption.

Growing discontentment:

Many within the civil society feel, as a result of fast degradation of ethical standards, moral and the noble values, just in many other areas of public life, in the healthcare space as well, the patients in general have started losing their absolute faith and trust both on the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies, by and large. However, health related multifaceted compulsions do not allow them, either to avoid such a situation or even raise a strong voice of protest against the vested interests.

Growing discontentment of the patients both in the private and public healthcare space in the country, is being regularly and very rightly highlighted by the media all over the world, including reputed medical journals like, ‘The Lancet’ to help arrest this moral and ethical decay with demonstrable and tangible proactive measures.

A global issue, not just local:

For quite some time from now this issue has indeed become a global phenomenon. Many countries, including India, have seriously taken note of such examples of socioeconomic decay.

Just the other day, the November 3, 2011 edition of ‘The Guardian’ reported, “British drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3bn (£1.9bn) to settle a series of old criminal and civil investigations by the US authorities into the sales and marketing of some of its best-known products”.

The Scenario in India:

The current scenario in India though not very much different, in terms of seriousness of the issue, from what is being reported in the US, the evolving regulatory standards in the US on this subject are definitely more robust and far superior to what we see India.

In India over 20, 000 pharmaceutical companies of varying size and scale of operations are currently operating. It has been widely reported in the media that the lack of regulatory scrutiny is prompting many of these companies to adapt to ‘free-for-all’ types of aggressive sales promotion and cut-throat marketing warfare involving significant ‘wasteful’ expenditures. Such practices reportedly involve almost all types of their customer groups, excepting perhaps the ultimate consumer, the patients.

It has been well reported that industry’s gifts to physicians in India can range from expensive cars, dinners in exotic locations, pricey vacations at various places of interest of the world and sometimes with the doctors’ families to hefty consulting and speaking fees.

Unfortunately in India there is no single government agency, which is accountable to take care of the entire healthcare needs of the patients and their well-being, in a holistic way.

The pharmaceutical industry of India, in general, has expressed many a time, the need for self-regulation of marketing practices in the absence of any regulatory compulsion, as is not uncommon in many other countries of the world, in various ways.

Be that as it may, after a protracted debate on the alleged ‘unethical marketing practices’ by the pharmaceutical companies, in May 2011, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCMP)’ to address this issue squarely and effectively in India. It has been reported that the final draft of UCMP is now lying with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India for its clearance.

This decision of the government is the culmination of a series of events, covered widely by the various sections of the press, at least, since 2004.

However, many activists groups and NGOs still feel that the bottom-line in this scenario is the demonstrable transparency by the pharmaceutical companies in their dealings with various customer groups, especially the physicians.

“Market malpractices is a barrier to healthcare access”: The WHO report of 2006:

A 2006 report of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) and ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India’ titled ‘Options for Using Competition Law/Policy Tools in Dealing  with Anti-Competitive Practices in Pharmaceutical Industry and Health Delivery System’ states:

“The right to health is recognized in a number of international legal instruments. In India too, there are constitutional commitments to provide access to healthcare. However despite the existence of any number of paper pledges assuring the right to health, access to health remains a problem across the world”.

“There are several factors that are responsible for such deprivation. Market malpractices in general, and in particular, anti-competitive conduct in the pharmaceutical industry and the health delivery system are also among them.”

The scenario in the US:

Like in India, a public debate started since quite some time in the US as well, on allegedly huge sum of money being paid by the pharmaceutical companies to the physicians on various items including free drug samples, professional advice, speaking in seminars, reimbursement of their traveling and entertainment expenses etc. All these, many believe, are done to adversely influence their rational prescription decisions for the patients.

As the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians are getting increasingly dragged into a raging public debate, making disclosure of all payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ is being made mandatory by the Obama administration, as a part of the new US healthcare reform process of the last year.

Some global pharmaceutical majors have set examples by taking absolutely voluntary measures to make their relationship with the physicians transparent. Eli Lilly, the first pharmaceutical company to announce such disclosure voluntarily around September 2008, has already uploaded its physician payment details on its website.

US pharma major Merck followed suit and so are many other large companies like, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

Cleveland Clinic and the medical school of the University of Pennsylvania, USA are in the process of disclosing details of payments made by the Pharmaceutical companies to their research personnel and the physicians. Similarly in the UK the Royal College of Physicians has been recently reported to have called for a ban on gifts to the physicians and support to medical training, by the pharmaceutical companies.

The New York Times (NYT) in its April 12, 2010 edition in an article titled, “Data on Fees to Doctors is Called Hard to Parse”, reported that though some big pharmaceutical companies have started disclosing payments to doctors who act as consultants or speakers, many still find it far too difficult to follow the money trail.

NYT reported in the same article, “Senate researchers have found that some prominent doctors at academic medical centers have failed to disclose millions of dollars in drug company payments, despite university requirements that they do so. Federal prosecutors say some payments are really kickbacks for illegal or excessive prescribing”.

‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’:

To address this issue effectively in the US, ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’, which was originally proposed in 2009 by Iowa Republican Charles Grassley and Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, became a part of the US healthcare law in 2010. This Act came as an integral part of the healthcare reform initiatives of President Obama to reduce healthcare costs and introduce greater transparency in the system.

The Act requires all pharmaceutical and medical device companies of the country to report all payments to doctors above US $10. As stated earlier, the industry’s gifts to physicians in the US, reportedly, can range from expensive hospitality/dinner in exotic locations, pricey golfing vacations in various places of interest to consulting and speaking fees. After the Act comes in force with all its rules in place, failure to provide such details will attract commensurate penal provisions.

However, on November 1, 2011 Reuters reported that the Department of Health and Human Services of the US Government missed the October 1, 2011 deadline for drafting the regulations for ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ to outline procedures for the concerned companies for reporting the requisite information and sharing the same with the public.

US health officials will now delay the enforcement of the Act to ensure that they can implement the statutory goals of the Act with minimal regulatory burden on the pharmaceutical and the medical device companies.

Last year, ‘The New York Times (NYT)’ in its April 12, 2010 edition commented that come 2013, under the new ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’, disclosure of such database will become mandatory for all pharmaceutical and medical device makers, who will then be subjected to stricter disclosure requirements aimed at making their marketing practices much more transparent.

Conclusion:

In the US, ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ is now in place, though its effective implementation has got delayed. It appears that Obama Administration, with the help of this new law, will make the disclosure of payments to physicians by all pharmaceutical and medical device companies transparent and effective as the rules and procedures for the same are being worked out.

If President Obama administration can take such an important regulatory step with the enactment of ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ to ensure transparency in pharmaceutical marketing practices, will Dr. Man Mohan Singh government stay much behind in taking similar measures or give the self-regulatory mechanism, as is being charted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, one last chance?

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.

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s globalized economy maintaining Supply Chain Security (SCS), especially in the pharmaceutical sector across the world, is more critical than ever before. We have many instances of SCS being seriously breached, not only in the emerging pharmaceutical markets but also in the developed markets of the world.

Global examples of serious SCS violations:

Following are some at random examples of serious SCS violations globally in the recent times:

  • In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama in Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.
  • In March 2008, the US FDA prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the USA, announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative. The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for ‘supply chain security’. This need has now become critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.
  • ‘Business Standard’ dated August 24, 2011 reported that Ranbaxy Laboratories and the US health regulator are negotiating a settlement to lift a ban on the sale of the drugs produced at 2 of the company’s plants in India, which could involve payments and fines exceeding $1 billion. This ban, as the report says, dates back to 2008, when the US regulator banned 30 generic drugs produced by the company at its Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) and Paonta Sahib and Batamandi unit in Himachal Pradesh, citing gross violations of approved manufacturing norms.
  • ‘Business Ethics’ – the Magazine of Corporate Responsibility reported, “GSK facility in Puerto Rico suffered from long standing problems of product mix-ups, which caused tablets of one drug type and strength to be commingled with tablets of another drug type and/or strength in the same bottle…the subsidiary’s manufacturing operations failed to ensure that Kytril, an anti-nausea medication, and Bactroban, a topical anti-infection ointment, were free of contamination from micro organisms.” As a result, the US Justice Department reportedly announced, “GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) and the subsidiary agreed to pay US$750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at GSK’s now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico”.
  • As reported by Reuter, on April 30, 2010 recalled over 43 children’s medicines involving 136 million units and 12 countries in response to complaints from regulators and customers.  This recall included liquid versions of Tylenol, Tylenol Plus, Mortin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, as they “may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications.”

Despite presence of one of the most stringent drug regulators, the issue bothers even the US:

In the wake of all these, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80% of APIs and 40% of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Ann Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

At another conference Ms. Hamburg said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

FDA inspects only a fraction of foreign drug plants in the global outsourcing wave:

The investigative arm of US Congress, the Government Accountability Office reported, while US FDA inspected 40% of domestic manufacturing facilities in 2009, it inspected just 11% of the foreign manufacturing facilities, as the later outnumbered the domestic sites since 2008.

INSPECTIONS BY FDA

ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009

2007

2008

2009

 TOTAL
India

64

64

59

187

502
China

19

36

52

107

920
Germany

26

34

36

96

228
Italy

28

28

30

86

168
Canada

20

19

35

74

310
U.K.

16

17

32

65

191
France

24

14

26

64

188
Japan

22

17

20

59

207
Switzerland

17

15

18

50

100
Ireland

14

11

19

44

63
All others

83

69

97

249

888
Total

333

324

424

1,081

3,765

NOTE: Most frequently inspected foreign countries. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office.

US FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Initiative:

The initiative includes the following measures:

  • Secure the product and packaging
  • Secure the movement of drugs through the supply chain
  • Secure business transactions
  • Ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and enforcement
  • Increase penalties
  • Heighten vigilance and awareness
  • International cooperation.

If such instances are available from the developed markets of the world, especially from the US, one can well imagine what is happening in the emerging markets of the world. In the developed markets, at least these are detected and rectifying measures are taken. Unfortunately, in the emerging markets scores of such criminal instances go undetected taking innocent lives of the patients.

Fast growing global outsourcing initiatives have increased the risks by manifold:

Thus even the US FDA acknowledged that fast growth of globalization in drug manufacturing has outstripped the agency’s resource pool for effectively inspecting all overseas outsourcing facilities.

As a result of the outsourcing wave in the US, the number of US FDA approved local drug manufacturing sites in the country is gradually coming down since 2008, with a commensurate increase in the number of foreign sites.

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008a*

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

2625

1150

2700

1500

2900

2000

3000

2500

2480

3800

NOTE: US FDA-registered drug-manufacturing sites with at least one product listed in FDA database. *a Preliminary estimates. SOURCE: US FDA

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

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

Regulators fail to keep pace with the fast growth of global generic industry:

Many feel a shift in prescription towards generic drugs, especially in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the US, is making the regulatory task of the FDA to inspect all drug ingredient suppliers indeed quite challenging.

Currently, 70% of all prescriptions in the US are contributed by the generic drugs, which indeed play an important role to contain the health care cost. However, as an innovative drug goes off patent a single manufacture’s product gets transferred to multiple manufacturers located across the world, making the task of the drug regulator to ensure high quality and safety standard of the same drug extremely challenging.

Conclusion:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively. All pharmaceutical players should realize that an integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company, especially when counterfeiters find ways to bypass any such system very quickly.

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

Thus a strong corporate governance mechanism in all pharmaceutical companies must ensure, come what may, putting in place a robust SCS system is not compromised in any way… ever… for patients’ sake.

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.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) and its need in India: The Myth versus Reality

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

Some in India feel that Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), is a deliberate attempt by the innovator companies to delay the launch of the generic equivalent of patented products in India, as long as they possibly can.

Thus they feel that why should one re-invent the wheel? Why should the generic pharmaceutical companies be not allowed to continue with the current requirement by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to establish only the ‘bio-equivalence of an innovator drug to get the marketing approval of the generic equivalent in India?

RDP will effect export in non-regulated markets:
They further argue that India currently exports its pharmaceutical products to around 50 non-regulated markets of the world. Thus the enforcement of RDP would jeopardize Indian Pharmaceutical exports in those countries affecting the economy of the country.

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

Regarding Article 39(3) of TRIPS, which indicates protection of regulatory data against “disclosure” and “unfair-commercial use”, this group opines that this is a non-binding Article of TRIPS, neither does it specify any timeline to protect such data. Moreover, they feel, that only the “undisclosed data” may be protected and the data already “disclosed” ‘need not to be protected’.

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

The proponents of this interpretation believe that RDP is just an attempt to “evergreen” a patent, extending the patent life of a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or (NME) beyond 20 years.

THE REALITY:

Just Like Patents, Regulatory Data need to be protected to encourage innovation in India:

This group feels that generation of exhaustive regulatory data entails very significant investment in terms of money, energy and time. These are very high risk investments as approximately one in 5000 molecules researched will eventually see the light of the day in the market place. It is worth noting that clinical development of an NCE/NME costs around 70%, while the cost of discovery of the same NCE/NME is around 30% of the total costs. It is estimated that the entire process of drug development from discovery to market takes an average of 10 years and costs on an average U.S.$ 1.7 Billion in the developed markets of the world.

Since such voluminous regulatory data are not only costly and time consuming but also proprietary in nature, these need to be protected by the regulators. Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), therefore, has been widely recognized as an integral part of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) also recognizes the “protection of undisclosed information” as being an Intellectual Property, which needs to be protected.

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

“Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.”

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) mentioned in Article 39.3 of TRIPS are commonly referred to as “Data Exclusivity” in the U.S. and “Data Protection” or “Regulatory Data Protection” in the European Union (EU). These are all the very same.

RDP is an independent IPR; and should not be confused with other IPRs, such as patents:

Bringing an NCE/NME to the market involves two critical steps:

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

The drug discovery right of the originator is protected in the form of a patent.

2. Drug development:

The innovator will require generating intensive, time consuming and expensive pre-clinical and
clinical data to meet the regulatory needs for bringing the new drug to the market. Such data
needs to be protected by the drug regulators.

It is understood that both the above steps are absolutely necessary to meet the unmet needs of the patients. The civil society gets the benefits of the new drugs only after these two steps are successfully completed.

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, RDP is clearly justifiable on the following grounds:

Generation of Data by the originator consists of “considerable efforts”. Submission of clinical data is a statutory regulatory requirement. Were it not for the obligation to provide these data to the Government, such data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation on the part of the Government as a ‘gate keeper’ to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure. Any failure by the Government to provide required protection to the data could lead to “unfair commercial use”.

Since such data are collected through various phases of clinical evaluation, involving considerable costs, time and energy, these are immensely valuable to the originator and need to be adequately protected by the drug regulators.

As these data are proprietary in nature, any access or permissibility for use of such data by the second applicant without concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.

Given the imbalance between the costs to the originator of getting marketing approval for its product and the costs of the ‘copy cat’ coming to the market, the research based industry will not have adequate incentive without RDP to continue to get engaged in important R&D activities. In that scenario, newer and better drugs, particularly for untreated and under-treated medical conditions will not be available to the patients.

Without RDP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair, commercial disadvantage when compared to their generic competitors, who do not incur similar costs of meeting the mandatory requirements of drug regulatory authorities for marketing approval of the drug.

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

RDP will not affect exports of Indian pharmaceutical products to the non-regulated markets:

This is because RDP deals with marketing of products patented in India within the territory of India. RDP will in no way affect the ability of any generic manufacturer either to produce the bulk drug active or to formulate its dosage forms for exports in the non-regulated markets, as long as the product is not sold within the territory of India for which both the patent and RDP will be valid.

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), lack of RDP in India is the primary reason why India ranks only 9th (compared to China which ranks 2nd), in funding given by NIH outside U.S.A.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted significance of Regulatory Data Protection, as below:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

RDP – The International Scenario:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of RDP.

Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the laws related to RDP, there is however a common principle that is followed. The laws generally specify the conditions under which Regulatory Data Protection can be sought and the period for which the “originator” can enjoy the exclusivity after the marketing approval is granted in the country. The period of RDP is typically between 5 – 10 years.

As per an article titled “Complying with Article 39.3 of TRIPs… A Myth or Evolving Reality” by Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli, around sixty nations around the world including China follow RDP in their respective countries.

RDP and the generics:

Regarding the arguments that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

1. Data Protection refers only to new products registered/patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

2. U.S.A. is an outstanding example which shows that research based industry and generic industry can co-exist, giving dual benefits of innovative medicines and cheaper copies of off-patent medicines to the general public.

3. More the patented medicines, more will be generic drugs after expiry of their patents.

4. In the U.S.A. which has a long standing Data Protection (Exclusivity) regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at nearly half of all the prescriptions.

5. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984, which provided for a 5 year period of Data Protection, there has been a spurt of development of new drugs as also entry of off-patent generics into the US market.

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and RDP will run concurrently. The ground reality will be that innovator companies will launch their products in India within as short a time gap as possible from the launch of those products anywhere in the world. The period between introduction of new drugs elsewhere and their introduction in India has been continuously shrinking. The range of such period between 1965 and 1988 was 4 years to 13 years. The period during 1990 to 1999 ranges between 0.25 year and less than 2 years.

During the debate on Data Protection it is asserted in some quarters that RDP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not, by any means. Fundamentally, the two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. RDP cannot extend the length of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, RDP protects invaluable clinical dossier submitted to the drugs regulatory authority, from unfair commercial use and disclosure. The duration of RDP, as stated above, is typically half or less of the product patent life.

Conclusions:

In my view RDP will benefit the pharmaceutical innovation eco system India, as it has done to many other countries. Hence India should implement RDP without further delay. It will be reasonable to have a provision of at least 5 years of RDP from the date of marketing approval in India, on the same lines as China.

RDP should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to bring India into conformity with its international legal obligations and with the practices of other members of the WTO from both the developed and developing nations of the world.

These provisions, in my view, will go a long way in sending a very positive signal to the international community as well as to our own research based pharmaceutical companies to accelerate investment in this vital sector making India emerge as a global powerhouse in pharmaceuticals, sooner than later.

By Tapan Ray

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

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) and its need in India: The Myth versus Reality

Posted on by
Reply

THE MYTH:

An attempt to delay the launch of Indian generics:

Some in India feel that Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), is a deliberate attempt by the innovator companies to delay the launch of the generic equivalent of patented products in India, as long as they possibly can.

Thus they feel that why should one re-invent the wheel? Why should the generic pharmaceutical companies be not allowed to continue with the current requirement by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to establish only the ‘bio-equivalence of an innovator drug to get the marketing approval of the generic equivalent in India?

RDP will effect export in non-regulated markets:
They further argue that India currently exports its pharmaceutical products to around 50 non-regulated markets of the world. Thus the enforcement of RDP would jeopardize Indian Pharmaceutical exports in those countries affecting the economy of the country.

RDP is a non-binding clause in TRIPS:

Regarding Article 39(3) of TRIPS, which indicates protection of regulatory data against “disclosure” and “unfair-commercial use”, this group opines that this is a non-binding Article of TRIPS, neither does it specify any timeline to protect such data. Moreover, they feel, that only the “undisclosed data” may be protected and the data already “disclosed” ‘need not to be protected’.

RDP is an attempt towards “evergreening” the patent:

The proponents of this interpretation believe that RDP is just an attempt to “evergreen” a patent, extending the patent life of a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or (NME) beyond 20 years.

THE REALITY:

Just Like Patents, Regulatory Data need to be protected to encourage innovation in India:

This group feels that generation of exhaustive regulatory data entails very significant investment in terms of money, energy and time. These are very high risk investments as approximately one in 5000 molecules researched will eventually see the light of the day in the market place. It is worth noting that clinical development of an NCE/NME costs around 70%, while the cost of discovery of the same NCE/NME is around 30% of the total costs. It is estimated that the entire process of drug development from discovery to market takes an average of 10 years and costs on an average U.S.$ 1.7 Billion in the developed markets of the world.

Since such voluminous regulatory data are not only costly and time consuming but also proprietary in nature, these need to be protected by the regulators. Regulatory Data Protection (RDP), therefore, has been widely recognized as an integral part of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) also recognizes the “protection of undisclosed information” as being an Intellectual Property, which needs to be protected.

Article 39.3 of TRIPs Agreement clearly articulates the following:

“Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or of agricultural chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.”

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) mentioned in Article 39.3 of TRIPS are commonly referred to as “Data Exclusivity” in the U.S. and “Data Protection” or “Regulatory Data Protection” in the European Union (EU). These are all the very same.

RDP is an independent IPR; and should not be confused with other IPRs, such as patents:

Bringing an NCE/NME to the market involves two critical steps:

1. Discovery of NCE/NME:

The drug discovery right of the originator is protected in the form of a patent.

2. Drug development:

The innovator will require generating intensive, time consuming and expensive pre-clinical and
clinical data to meet the regulatory needs for bringing the new drug to the market. Such data
needs to be protected by the drug regulators.

It is understood that both the above steps are absolutely necessary to meet the unmet needs of the patients. The civil society gets the benefits of the new drugs only after these two steps are successfully completed.

The rationale for Regulatory Data Protection (RDP):

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, RDP is clearly justifiable on the following grounds:

Generation of Data by the originator consists of “considerable efforts”. Submission of clinical data is a statutory regulatory requirement. Were it not for the obligation to provide these data to the Government, such data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation on the part of the Government as a ‘gate keeper’ to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure. Any failure by the Government to provide required protection to the data could lead to “unfair commercial use”.

Since such data are collected through various phases of clinical evaluation, involving considerable costs, time and energy, these are immensely valuable to the originator and need to be adequately protected by the drug regulators.

As these data are proprietary in nature, any access or permissibility for use of such data by the second applicant without concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.

Given the imbalance between the costs to the originator of getting marketing approval for its product and the costs of the ‘copy cat’ coming to the market, the research based industry will not have adequate incentive without RDP to continue to get engaged in important R&D activities. In that scenario, newer and better drugs, particularly for untreated and under-treated medical conditions will not be available to the patients.

Without RDP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair, commercial disadvantage when compared to their generic competitors, who do not incur similar costs of meeting the mandatory requirements of drug regulatory authorities for marketing approval of the drug.

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

RDP will not affect exports of Indian pharmaceutical products to the non-regulated markets:

This is because RDP deals with marketing of products patented in India within the territory of India. RDP will in no way affect the ability of any generic manufacturer either to produce the bulk drug active or to formulate its dosage forms for exports in the non-regulated markets, as long as the product is not sold within the territory of India for which both the patent and RDP will be valid.

Disadvantages of not having RDP in India:

According to the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), lack of RDP in India is the primary reason why India ranks only 9th (compared to China which ranks 2nd), in funding given by NIH outside U.S.A.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted significance of Regulatory Data Protection, as below:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

RDP – The International Scenario:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of RDP.

Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the laws related to RDP, there is however a common principle that is followed. The laws generally specify the conditions under which Regulatory Data Protection can be sought and the period for which the “originator” can enjoy the exclusivity after the marketing approval is granted in the country. The period of RDP is typically between 5 – 10 years.

As per an article titled “Complying with Article 39.3 of TRIPs… A Myth or Evolving Reality” by Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli, around sixty nations around the world including China follow RDP in their respective countries.

RDP and the generics:

Regarding the arguments that RDP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, resulting in the erosion of generics market. This argument is based on invalid assumptions. The following facts will prove the irrelevance of these arguments propounded by the domestic generic lobby:

1. Data Protection refers only to new products registered/patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

2. U.S.A. is an outstanding example which shows that research based industry and generic industry can co-exist, giving dual benefits of innovative medicines and cheaper copies of off-patent medicines to the general public.

3. More the patented medicines, more will be generic drugs after expiry of their patents.

4. In the U.S.A. which has a long standing Data Protection (Exclusivity) regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at nearly half of all the prescriptions.

5. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984, which provided for a 5 year period of Data Protection, there has been a spurt of development of new drugs as also entry of off-patent generics into the US market.

RDP is not ‘evergreening’ :

In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and RDP will run concurrently. The ground reality will be that innovator companies will launch their products in India within as short a time gap as possible from the launch of those products anywhere in the world. The period between introduction of new drugs elsewhere and their introduction in India has been continuously shrinking. The range of such period between 1965 and 1988 was 4 years to 13 years. The period during 1990 to 1999 ranges between 0.25 year and less than 2 years.

During the debate on Data Protection it is asserted in some quarters that RDP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not, by any means. Fundamentally, the two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. RDP cannot extend the length of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, RDP protects invaluable clinical dossier submitted to the drugs regulatory authority, from unfair commercial use and disclosure. The duration of RDP, as stated above, is typically half or less of the product patent life.

Conclusions:

In my view RDP will benefit the pharmaceutical innovation eco system India, as it has done to many other countries. Hence India should implement RDP without further delay. It will be reasonable to have a provision of at least 5 years of RDP from the date of marketing approval in India, on the same lines as China.

RDP should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to bring India into conformity with its international legal obligations and with the practices of other members of the WTO from both the developed and developing nations of the world.

These provisions, in my view, will go a long way in sending a very positive signal to the international community as well as to our own research based pharmaceutical companies to accelerate investment in this vital sector making India emerge as a global powerhouse in pharmaceuticals, sooner than later.

By Tapan Ray

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

For greater transparency in the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical companies, does India need an Act like, proposed ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the USA?

Posted on by
Reply
As we discussed earlier, to make the pharmaceutical companies disclose and report various types of payments made to the physicians, two Senators of the United States of America, Chuck Grassley and Herb Kohl introduced a bill called ‘The Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ in January, 2009.If this bill is passed in 2010, the government will make available to the public by 2011 all types of payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies over a cumulative value of US $ 100.Items of disclosure:

Among various other heads, the following items related to the “payment made to the physicians’’ will require to be reported:

• Consulting Fees

• Compensation for services other than consulting

• Honoraria

• Gifts

• Entertainment

• Food

• Travel

• Education

• Research

• Charitable Contributions

• Royalties or licenses

• Current or prospective ownership or investment interests

• Compensation for serving as a faculty member or as a speaker for a continuing medical education program

• Grant

• Reporting will be required for compensation towards serving as faculty, or as a speaker for a CME program, and grants.

• Any other nature of the payment or other transfer of value as defined by the government

Research payments:

Pharmaceutical companies will also require reporting aggregate amounts of research payments in a specified manner.

Items exempt from disclosure:

There will be items, as mentioned below, which will be exempted from such reporting:

• Product samples

• Payments in the aggregate of less than $100

• The loan of a device for less than 90 days

• Patient education materials

• Warranty replacements (devices)

• Items for use as a patient

• Discounts and rebates

• In-kind items used in charity care

• Dividends from a publicly-traded company

Penalties for default from disclosure:

Proposed penalties have been categorized as follows:

• For unintentional failure to report: fines from US $1,000 – US $10,000 for each payment not reported with a cap of US $150,000/year

• For intentional failure to report: fines from US $10,000 – US $100,000 for each payment not reported with a cap of US $1 million/year.

World Medical Association (WMA) Statement Concerning the Relationship Between Physicians and Commercial Enterprises:

Meanwhile, WMA is also trying to address this vexing issue and coming closer to some sort of voluntary disclosure at their end, as well.

Such type of statement was first adopted by the WMA in its General Assembly at Tokyo, Japan in October 2004. Recently in its General Assembly held at New Delhi in October 2009, the statement was further amended coming closer to the disclosure of payments.
.
The preamble of the amended statement articulates the following:

“In the treatment of their patients, physicians use drugs, instruments, diagnostic tools, equipment and materials developed and produced by commercial enterprises. Industry possesses resources to finance expensive research and development programmes, for which the knowledge and experience of physicians are essential. Moreover, industry support enables the furtherance of medical research, scientific conferences and continuing medical education that can be of benefit to patients and the entire health care system. The combination of financial resources and product knowledge contributed by industry and the medical knowledge possessed by physicians enables the development of new diagnostic procedures, drugs, therapies, and treatments and can lead to great advances in medicine.

However, conflicts of interest between commercial enterprises and physicians occur that can affect the care of patients and the reputation of the medical profession. The duty of the physician is to objectively evaluate what is best for the patient, while commercial enterprises are expected to bring profit to owners by selling their own products and competing for customers. Commercial considerations can affect the physician’s objectivity, especially if the physician is in any way dependent on the enterprise.

Rather than forbidding any relationships between physicians and industry, it is preferable to establish guidelines for such relationships. These guidelines must incorporate the key principles of disclosure, avoidance of obvious conflicts of interest and the physician’s clinical autonomy to act in the best interests of patients.
These guidelines should serve as the basis for the review of existing guidelines and the development of any future guidelines.”

This new statement of the WMA, having a remarkable similarity with the ‘Codes of marketing Practices’ of the pharmaceutical industry associations in India, like Organization of pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) and Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (IDMA) is indeed a welcome step in the right direction.

Conclusion:

Along with the self regulation initiatives by both the industry and WMA, this bill, if passed, will surely and significantly improve the transparency related to the transaction between the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians to the public at large in the US to start with. However, bringing research within the ambit of this bill could possibly be a contentious issue.

Be that as it may, in India a large section of the civil society still feels that it is now high time for the Government of India to decide whether the nation needs an Act like the proposed ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the US to bring in greater transparency in the process of various financial transactions between the pharmaceutical industry in India and the physicians, along with the continuing initiatives of self-regulations by both the industry and the physicians.

By Tapan Ray

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