“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes. The quoted sentiment captured in the headline was reportedly voiced recently by many cancer specialists, including researchers and that too in the heartland of pharmaceutical innovation of the world– the United States of America.

These specialist doctors argued:

“High prices of a medicine to keep someone alive is profiteering, akin to jacking up prices of essential goods after a natural disaster”

Thus, not just in India, high prices of new drugs have started prompting large-scale protests in various types and forms across the world. This time the above unique protest assumed an extra-ordinary dimension, with the eye of the storm being in America.

The news item highlighted quite a different type of public protest by the top doctors, originated at a major cancer center located in New York and actively supported by over 120 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries spanning across five continents. These crusaders, though reportedly are working in favor of a healthy pharmaceutical industry, do think, especially the cancer drug prices are beyond the reach of many.

About 30 of these doctors hail from the United States and work closely, as mentioned earlier, with pharmaceutical companies engaged in R&D, including clinical trials.

As the cost of many life saving cancer drugs are now exceeding US$ 100,00 per year, all these doctors and researchers involved in the patients’ fights against cancer, are now playing a pivotal role in resisting such high drug prices vigorously.

Examples of astonishingly high drug prices:

In the area of treating rare diseases, the situation in every sense is mind-boggling. When a drug to treat such ailments comes with a price tag of over US$ 400,000 just for a year’s treatment, it is indeed astonishingly high by any standard. Some protestors even described the cost of these drugs as ‘obvious highway robbery’ in the guise of high R&D cost, while some others would continue to wonder as to why is not there a regulatory intervention for the same?

Here below are the top 10 most expensive drugs of the world…and just hold your breath:

World’s Most Expensive Medicines

No.	Name	Disease	Price US$ /Year
1.	ACTH	Infantile spasm	13,800,00
2.	Elaprase	Hunter Syndrome	657,000
3.	Soliris	Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria	409,500
4.	Nagalazyme	Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome	375,000
5.	Folotyn	T-Cell Lymphoma	360,000
6.	Cinryze	Hereditary Angioedema	350,000
7.	Myozyme	Pompe	300,000
8.	Arcalyst	Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome	250,000
9.	Ceredase / Cerezyme	Gaucher Disease	200,000
10.	Fabrazyme	Fabry Disease	200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is protests against such ‘immoral pricing’ have started mounting.

Protests against high drug prices for rare diseases:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Yet another protest prompted cancer drug price reduction by half:

Another report highlights that last year physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York refused to use a new colon cancer drug ‘as it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better’.

After this protest, in an unusual move, the manufacturer of this colon cancer drug had cut its price by half.

Even developed countries with low out of pocket expenditure can’t sustain such high prices:

With over one million new cancer cases reportedly coming up every year in India, there is an urgent need for the intervention of the Government in this area, especially for poor and the middleclass population of the country.

Further, it is worth noting that in countries like India, where out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare is very high, as public health system is grossly inadequate, such ‘astronomical prices’ will perhaps mentally knock-down many patients directly, well before they actually die.

That said, even in those countries where out-of-pocket expenditure towards healthcare is nil or very low, respective health systems, by and large, be it public or run by other payors, will still require paying for these high cost drugs, making the systems unsustainable.

Moreover, patients on assistance program of the pharmaceutical companies, reportedly also complain that these ‘Patient Access Programs’ are always not quite user friendly.

Protests spreading beyond cancer and rare disease treatment:

The concern for high drug prices is now spreading across many other serious disease areas, much beyond cancer. It has been reported that the issue of drug prices for various other disease areas was discussed in October 2012 at the Cowen Therapeutic Conference in New York. Many doctors in this conference felt that the drugs with no significant benefit over the existing therapy should not be included in the hospital formulary.

Pressure on diabetic and cardiac drug prices:

Various Governments within the European Union (EU) are now reportedly exerting similar pressures to reduce the costs of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes and cardiac disorders. These measures are now reportedly ‘putting the brakes on an US$ 86 billion sector of the pharmaceutical industry that’s been expanding twice as fast as the market as a whole’.

It is worth noting that each nation within EU is responsible for deciding the price of a new drug, though the European Commission approves drugs for all 27 members of the EU.

Flip side of the story – Commendable initiatives of some global companies:

There is another side of the story too. To address such situation some global companies reportedly are increasing drug donations, reinvesting profits in developing countries and adopting to a more flexible approach to intellectual property related issues. However, as per media reports, there does not seem to be any unanimity within the global companies on country-specific new drug pricing issue, at least not just yet.

To encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve access to affordable drugs for a vast majority of population across the world, an independent initiative known as Access to medicine index ranks 20 largest companies of the world. This ranking is based on the efforts of these companies to improve access to medicine in developing countries.

As indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO), this Index covers 20 companies, 103 countries, and a broad range of drugs, including vaccines, diagnostic tests and other health-related technologies required for preventing, diagnosing and treating disease.

The index covers 33 diseases, including maternal conditions and neonatal infections. The top 10 companies in ‘Access to Medicine Index’ ranking for 2012 are as follows:

No.	Company	Index
1.	GlaxoSmithKline plc	3.8
2.	Johnson & Johnson	3.6
3.	Sanofi	3.2
4.	Merck & Co. Inc.	3.1
5.	Gilead Sciences	3.0
6.	Novo Nordisk A/S	3.0
7.	Novartis AG	2.9
8.	Merck KGaA	2.5
9.	Bayer AG	2.4
10.	Roche Holding Ltd.	2.3

Source: http;//www.accesstomedicineindex.org/ranking

How high is really the high R&D cost?

A recent article published this month raises some interesting points on this subject, which I am quoting below:

No direct and transparent details are available from the industry for public scrutiny on the total cost of innovation.
What one does have access to are studies on the issue funded by pharmaceutical MNCs themselves.
For most NCEs, public-funded programs in the U.S largely invest in drug discovery.
In industry sponsored studies there is lack of transparency on the real costs of drug research and development.
Various tax benefits allowed under U.S. law are also ignored by industry studies.
Researching new drugs gives one Tax breaks to the extent of 50 per cent in the U.S. If one researches and markets an orphan drug for rare diseases, again, tax breaks are available to the tune of half the expenditure.

Further, a 2011 study by Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton published by the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates, “based on independent sources and reasonable arguments, one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of US$ 43.4 million per new drug.”

It is interesting to note, the above cost estimate is a fraction of what is available from the industry source (over US$ 1.2 billion).

An interesting pricing model prescribed:

Another article recently published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) commented, while pharmaceutical companies reportedly spend billions on research, the actual cost of manufacturing a treatment (such as a pill) is minimal. This cost structure enables pricing flexibility.

The author suggests:

Adopt a smarter pricing model, where a company can charge the highest price that each customer is willing to pay.

To implement smarter pricing that saves more lives, and brings in more revenue, the pharmaceutical industry should create a straightforward grid that specifies the annual maximum a patient should pay out of pocket on drug expenses.

Key variables that determine this maximum include income, family size, and their other drug costs. Patients can submit this data to a third party agency to avail discounts based on these criteria.

However, implementability of this model, especially in the Indian scenario, seems to be challenging.

Conclusion:

Despite this gloom and doom, as ‘Access to Medicine Index 2012′ indicates, some pharmaceutical companies do want to become an integral part in finding out a solution to the access problem in general. Though, there are still many more miles to cover, some companies, though small in number, are demonstrably trying to improve access to health care in the developing countries of the world.

Rising prices of new drugs in general and for dreaded disease like cancer and other rare disorders in particular have now started reaching a crescendo, not just India, but in many other countries across the world and in various forms. Probably due to this reason, currently in Europe, regulators tend to be depending more and more in the concept of cost to efficacy ratios for new drugs.

It is interesting to note, the world is witnessing for the first time and that too in the developed world that a large number of specialist doctors are protesting against this trend, unitedly and with strong words.

The anatomy of initial phase of this groundswell, many would tend to believe, signals ushering in a new era of checks and balances to set right ‘astronomical, unsustainable and immoral new drug prices’ in the patients’ fights especially against dreaded diseases, the world over.

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.

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Responding to the damning stricture made by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2013, the Ministry of Health, as expected, by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 has made the norms of compensation to patients participating in Clinical Trials (CT) more stringent.

‘Patient Compensation’ will now include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CT.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the civil society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Just a day after, on February 1, 2013, the Ministry of Health also notified final regulations on the conditions under which CT sites will be authorized by the local licensing and the inspection authorities of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

Key features of the new Government ‘Action’ on patient compensation:

Following are the key features in the new norms for patient compensation:

1. The sponsors of CTs will now be liable for injuries or deaths, which will take place during the course of a clinical trial and will be required to pay compensation to the patients or their families.

2. The investigator of the CT must inform the concerned pharmaceutical company, the Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and the Ethics Committee regarding injury or death during CT within 24 hours.

3. It will be mandatory for all CT Ethics Committees to be pre-registered with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), unlike the old system where this was not required and trial sponsors reportedly could staff the committee.

4. The pharmaceutical companies and the CROs will get 10 days time to submit a detailed report on related serious adverse event to the Ethics Committee, which in turn will get another 10 to 11 days to convey its evaluation on compensation to be paid to the independent expert committee. The Expert Panel will then advise the DCGI of an appropriate financial compensation within 30 days from the date of receiving the above report.

5. It will no longer require inclusion of specific amount of compensation for injury or death in the informed consent form and does not refer to insurance coverage for potential liability.

6. It requires the sponsors of CTs to provide the trial subject with free “medical management” for as long as it will require.

Will make CT more expensive in India:

Clinical Trials (CT), as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context the above notification will now make CT more expensive in India.

Sharp ‘reaction’ of CT related industry:

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some Clinical Research Organizations have expressed concerns in areas like:

Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries
The use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials,
Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and the lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

Some other Experts related CT industry do highlight a few more troubling issues in the notification, as follows:

1. Compensation to be paid for ‘failure of an investigational product to provide intended therapeutic effect.’ This, they expressed, is intriguing as the very nature of a CT is to ascertain whether the investigational drug is efficacious or not.

2. If compensation is not paid as required, a sponsor or CRO may be banned from conducting any further trials in the country. This, they feel, provision could make India a challenging place to conduct CT.

3. There should also be clarity on the formula to determine compensation, the process for determining a compensation amount, and how an appeal process would work.

The bottom-line is, due to this new policy on ‘Patient Compensation’ CT expenses may go up considerably in India.

Other expert views:

On the other hand, some other experts opined to the International Weekly Journal on Science – ‘nature’ as follows:

“These reforms should go further to restore public confidence and the Indian government should establish special courts to deal quickly with allegations of medical misconduct, such as not fully disclosing to participants the risks involved in a clinical trial”.

Global concern on ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies:

In this context, though issues related to ‘Placebo Controlled’ trials have been raised by the CT related industry in India, very interestingly a paper of Research Administration of the University of California on the ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies’ clearly articulates that the use of a placebo in clinical research has remained a contentious issue in the medical community since long.

Some strongly argue that use of placebos is often unethical because alternative study designs would produce similar results with less risk to individual research participants. Others argue that the use of placebos is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from the widespread use of ineffective medical treatment.

However, as per the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidebook, “Placebos may be used in clinical trials where there is no known or available (i.e. US-FDA-approved) alternative therapy that can be tolerated by subjects.”

This issue also needs to be deliberated and effectively addressed by the Indian drug regulator in the debate of patient compensation for ‘placebo controlled trials’.

A perspective on CT in India:

Interestingly, in this critical area India is fast evolving as a major hub. This is vindicated by a study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), which states that India now participates in over 7 per cent of all global phase III and 3.2 per cent of all global phase II trials. The key points of attraction of the global players, so far as India is concerned, were reported as follows:

1. Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world

2. Huge patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile

3. Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is easy to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants.

Such opportunities, experts believe, should have ideally made the clinical research industry to demonstrate greater responsibility to ensure that patients’ safety needs are adequately taken care of. Unfortunately, despite such expectations, some important areas like ‘patient compensation’ have still remained blatantly neglected.

It has now come to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was with a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths that occur during trials on a person’s pre-existing medical condition and not related to CT.

DCGI had hauled-up 9 companies for blatant negligence:

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by nine pharmaceutical companies, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related death, which ranged from Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 3000) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 6000).

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon these nine pharmaceutical companies on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and with a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to clinical trial by June 20, 2011, or else all other CTs of these nine companies, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The report also indicates that after this ultimatum all the nine companies as mentioned therein had paid the compensation to the families of the patients who had died related to the CT.

Long exploitation of the fragile CT regulations in India:

For all these reasons, the subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

“Pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs”:

There seems to be nothing basically wrong in this approach per se. However, a recent report does highlight as follows:

“Clinical trials conducted by global drug makers and their proxies have generated increased scrutiny in recent years as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs and populations where patients are not exposed to as many medications that can confound results. India has been a prime example”.

A lesson to learn by the Indian Drug Regulator:

It is worth noting that US-FDA in a communication meant for the consumers has stated as follows:

“The Food and Drug Administration’s job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.”

The above approach seems to be drastically missing with the drug regulator in India as on date.

Conclusion:

Over a long period of time, a blatant negligence on reasonable care and financial compensation was allowed to continue by the Drug Regulator and the sponsors alike on the CTs conducted in India. A perceptible intent of justice to the patients, with the enforcement of stricter compensation laws and regulations for CT though belated, could dramatically change the CT scenario in India for the better in the years ahead.

In the fine balance of national priority for this area, patients’ safety and interest, I reckon, should always weigh more than the possibility of increase in the costs of CT in India. Thus, the new norms of Patient Compensation indeed bring with it a breath of fresh air for the concerned stakeholders.

That said, the lose knots in some areas of the new norms, as discussed above, must be properly addressed and adequately tightened for greater clarity of the CT process, for all concerned.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Old is Always Not Gold’: The Saga of Uncertainty on the New Drug Policy Continues

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Along with the initiation of globalization process of India in 1991, many significant reform oriented steps are being taken by the Government for the pharmaceutical industry as its growth booster.

In tandem with gradual reduction in the span of price control, the government also ensured dereservation of specified drugs only for the public sector and opened it up to the private sector, as well. During this period, foreign investments through automatic route was first raised from 49 to 74 percent and then to 100 percent.New product patent regime with the introduction of the Patents Act 2005 ushered in a paradigm shift in the pharmaceutical landscape of India, encouraging the domestic industry to invest in R&D. In line with these reforms, weighted deduction on in-house research and development facility was increased to 200 percent to cover expenditure towards R&D, patent filing, regulatory approvals and clinical trials, over a period of time.

With creation of an enabling growth environment, the government helped the domestic industry catapult itself as a major global force to reckon with, in the generic pharmaceutical space of the world.

Unfortunately, in recent times, the policy makers of the country instead of flooring the gas pedal keeping public health interest in mind, seems to have decided to shift its foot on the brake, creating great uncertainty within the industry.

Recent developments: A cause of concern

As reported by the media the recommendations of the Group of Ministers (GoM) on the Draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011) was scheduled for discussion in the Union Cabinet meeting on November 8, 2012.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) reportedly sent its views on the same to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and also the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) advocating continuation of the current cost plus pricing policy.

As a result, the media reported that the NPPP 2011 was eventually removed from the Cabinet Meeting agenda of November 8, 2012, as the PMO referred the policy back to the GoM requesting the Cabinet Secretariat to mandate the Ministers to hold a fresh meeting (now scheduled on November 21, 2012), consider the view of MoF and get back to the Union Cabinet with a final proposal so that an appropriate decision may be taken by the Cabinet on the new Drug Policy before November 27, as stipulated by the Supreme court of India.

With this, the saga of uncertainty on the new Drug Policy continues unabated.

Finance Ministry views: Continue with cost plus formula:

The key recommendations of the Ministry of Finance as reported are as follows:

The proposal to limit the NPPP to control prices of only formulations leaving aside bulk drugs is not ‘supported’.
Top priced brands in many therapy areas are also the brand leaders. As a result, high prices of such drugs while calculating the ceiling prices would push up prices of many low priced drugs significantly.
The current system which is a cost plus system is adequate to cover all legitimate costs for a manufacturer, particularly when the costing is being done annually and should be continued.
The same cost plus system should also apply to other formulations where additional therapeutic elements will be added. Related incremental cost in those cases can be considered to determine the ceiling price of combination formulations.
The Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) for all NLEM 2011 drugs may be fixed by the NPPA accordingly and the pharmaceutical companies would be free to price these NLEM products at any level below the MRP.
Annual indexation of price with WPI is not supported. The cost analysis should determine the quantum of increase.
Data related to prices and market shares should be collected from sources other than IMS even for drugs covered by them. The methodology to be followed by NPPA for evaluating IMS data and for collecting the data for medicines from other sources should be included in the NPPP.
A phased movement towards 100 percent generic manufacturing, as recommended by the Ministry of Health (MoH), for all drugs under the NLEM should be considered.

The industry view: Have a Balanced Approach

As I understand, the industry feels that the Finance Ministry recommendations are continuation of the same old policy, which has failed to address the key issue of providing affordable and quality healthcare, including medicines, to all, since over last four decades.

However, the pharmaceutical industry has supported the recommendations of the GoM on NPPP 2011 as they reckon it will be a positive step to ensure affordability for the patients, ensure adequate availability and at the same time will not cripple the growth of the industry.

As recommended by the GoM, the draft NPPP 2011 would take the Weighted Average Price (WAP) of all brands with greater than 1% market share by volume as the ceiling price. This formula should improve patient affordability as Weighted Average Price (WAP) of all brands will be most representative of the Indian pharmaceutical market.

The GoM-recommended pricing policy, the industry feels, will certainly have an adverse impact on the pharmaceutical industry as price controls will be expanded and prices will now be based on roughly 91 percent of the pharmaceutical market by value. This will result in over 20 percent price reduction in 60 percent of the NLEM medicines. More importantly, the policy will also achieve the objectives of the Government in ensuring essential medicines are available to those who need these most, by managing prices in the retail market and balancing industry growth.

The existing cost-plus policy, industry leaders argue, has significant limitations and has adversely impacted industry and patients, for example, by shifting bulk drug production out of India (to countries like China), reducing innovation in cost control medicines, limiting new introductions and failing to help medicines reach patients located in rural India.

Many stakeholders have written about the negative implications of a cost-plus pricing methodology. Too stringent price control norms would stifle the pharmaceutical industry and may result in serious shortages of essential drugs in the country. An apt example in this case is that the existing price control regime under DPCO 1995 has caused manufacturing to shift away from the country about 27 notified bulk drugs under price control. In fact, only 47 out 74 bulk drugs under DPCO 1995 are now produced in the country. Such a situation needs, the industry articulates, to be prevented from happening in the future. It is quite likely the focus of the national pharma industry may shift then to export, defeating the primary purpose of the new policy.

Moreover, the WHO in its feedback on the draft NPPP 2011 welcomed the intent to move away from cost-plus pricing as it has been abandoned elsewhere. Even developing countries typically have no price control on private market (non-government, non-social insurance reimbursement) sales of pharmaceuticals.

Based on a survey of developing countries similar to India, it is seen that the countries that do have price control for private market drugs, employ market based methods e.g. in Brazil cost-based price regulations do not exist outside of government reimbursement, social insurance reimbursement schemes. In short, essential medicines predominantly seem to be reimbursed either via government or social insurance or provided free by the government.

Since the Government has recognized that a pricing policy alone cannot ensure access to quality medicines, over the last few months, it has undertaken several steps in the right direction to improve access and affordability of medicines.

The Government has already announced that it will spend over US $5.4 billion to provide essential medicines free to patients in government-run hospitals and clinics. The Government is also in the process of putting in place a central procurement authority to purchase medicines for its use, which, if operated on a level playing field, can realize economies of scale and create the conditions necessary to drive down costs through competition. All such policies can enhance access to medicines and also promote healthy competition in the industry. Both the outcomes cannot be achieved with any price control regime alone.

Expanding access to quality medicines at affordable prices is in everyone’s best interest, and the industry seems to have expressed its willingness and keenness to engage in the development and implementation of policies that will make medicines in India more affordable and accessible to all.

Pharmaceutical industry expressed its support to the key principles of the new pricing policy, essentiality of drugs and market based pricing so as to ensure greater patient sensitized pricing of medicines. As cited by the Economic Advisory Council (EAC) of the Prime Minister, the negligible increase in drug prices over the last 7 years illustrates the intense competition in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market. In comparison, prices of other essential items including food items have increased steeply. Between 2004 and 2012, price rise of drugs has only been 3/8th of all commodities and half of that of manufactured products.

However, in order to make the pricing formula more robust and to prevent prices of lower priced drugs from moving towards the ceiling price, a section of the industry recommended that this formula be combined with price increases limited to Weighted Price Index (WPI) or 10 percent p.a. (the present price increase cap for non-DPCO) whichever is higher, for individual brands. This measure is expected to make it a fool proof pricing mechanism.

New Drug Policy to focus on all-round inclusive growth:

The role and objectives of the NPPP should help accelerating all-round inclusive growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and try to make it a force to reckon with, in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The drug policy is surely not formulated just to implement rigorous price control of drugs. The policy includes other key objectives to contribute significantly towards achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation and also to boost the growth of the industry, working closely with other related ministries of the government.

As stated above by the industry, to correct the imbalance between availability and affordability of essential medicines, in 2005, the government constituted a special taskforce, which is widely known as ‘Dr. Pronab Sen Committee’. This committee was mandated to recommend options other than existing methodology of price control (DPCO 95) for achieving the objective of making available life-saving and essential drugs at reasonable prices.

In its report, the committee did suggest an alternative measure at that time, concluding that the present price control system (DPCO 95) is inappropriate, inadequate and complex, besides being time consuming in its implementation.

Conclusion:

Unfortunately, the views of the MoF point towards continuation of the same old regime, which has failed to deliver for so many decades.

I therefore reckon, it is about time to recognize that the ‘Old is not always Gold’, at least in this particular issue. The government should in no way allow the saga of uncertainty in the formulation of a vibrant and inclusive Drug Policy to continue. The policy makers should consciously shun away any possibility of taking retrograde steps on this critical matter for the sake of both patients and the pharmaceutical industry of India, alike.

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.

Replication of ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the evolving new paradigm of India

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Tapan Ray

“Health leaps out of science and draws nourishment from the society around it”

- Gunnar Myrdal (Swedish Nobel Laureate Economist)

The success concoction of the global pharmaceutical industry for India, by and large, still remains to be sustained attempts in various forms of replication of the ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed world, even when a ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented new paradigm has started evolving in the country, faster than ever before.

Very interestingly, efforts to arrest this paradigm change still continue, even when healthcare related government policies are getting more and more ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented under increasingly assertive public opinion, together with healthcare cost containment initiatives of various governments also in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Commercial and public relations strategies for replication or recreation of more or less similar business excellence environment of the developed pharmaceutical markets of the world now in India, though some may say is possible and would work, but in my view is highly improbable, at least in the foreseeable future. To be equally successful in India, creation of India centric robust and differentiated business models, broadly aligning with the new evolving paradigm of the country, could probably make more commercial sense for all concerned.

“See things as they are, not way you want them to be”:

“Maintain and sharpen your intellectual honesty so that you’re always realistic. See things as they are, not way you want them to be”, wrote the Management Guru – Mr. Ram Charan in his book titled, ‘Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done’ co-authored by Larry Bossidy. In the same book the authors deliberated on ‘The 10 Greatest CEOs Ever’.

One of these 10 greatest CEOs ever, George Merck of the global pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co articulated his vision for the Company way back in 1952 as follows:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits.”

George Merck believed, the purpose of a corporation is to do something useful, and to do it well, which also ensures decent profits.

I have personally witnessed the Merck (MSD) employees to start their business presentations quoting the above famous vision, even today. George Merck’s vision, I reckon, is more relevant today than any time in the past.

In the same context, another very senior official of a global pharmaceutical major was quoted in the Harvard Business Review in its April 28, 2010 edition saying:

“As western pharmaceutical companies consider how to be successful in emerging markets, they must address two key questions:

How will we bring high-quality health care to patients wherever in the world they may live?
How do we effectively manage the transformation of the traditional pharmaceutical business model to one that meets the diverse range of needs of the emerging markets?”

He further said, “Our approach to providing patients with access to our medicines is evolving. We have extended a flexible-pricing strategy for middle-income countries to improve the affordability of our medicines and increase access for patients with lower income levels, while remaining profitable.”

Though some companies have been able to carefully pick up this important signal and strategize accordingly, many others still prefer to follow ‘their own ways’.

Increasing healthcare consumption of India attracting global players:

Along with the economic progress of India, healthcare consumption of the population of the country is also increasing at a reasonably faster pace. According to McKinsey India Report, 2007, the share of average household healthcare consumption has increased from 4 per cent in 1995 to 7 per cent in 2005 and is expected to increase to 13 per cent in 2025 with a CAGR of 9 per cent, as follows:

Share of Average Household Consumption (AHC) (%)


	Household Consumption	1995	2005 E	2015 F	2025 F	CAGR %
1.	Healthcare	4	7	9	13	9
2.	Education & Recreation	3	5	6	9	9
3.	Communication	1	2	3	6	12
4.	Transportation	11	17	19	20	7
5.	Personal Products and Services	4	8	9	11	8
6.	Household Products	2	3	3	3	5
7.	Housing & Utilities	14	12	12	10	5
8.	Apparel	5	6	5	5	5
9.	Food, Beverages & Tobacco	56	42	34	25	3

(Source; McKinsey India Report 2007)

From this study, it appears that among all common household consumption, the CAGR of ‘healthcare’ at 9 percent will be the second highest along with ‘education’ and ‘communication’ topping the growth chart at 12 percent.

As per this McKinsey study, in 2025, in terms of AHC for ‘healthcare’ (13 percent) is expected to rank third after ‘Food & Beverages’ (25 percent) and ‘transportation’ (20 percent).

Thus, AHC for ‘healthcare’ shows a significant growth potential in India, over a period of time. Hence, this important area needs to attract as much attention of the policymakers, as it is attracting the pharmaceutical players from all over the world, to help translate the potential into actual performance with requisite policy, fiscal support and incentives.

Such a scenario in the pharmaceutical space is difficult to ignore by any player with an eye for the future.

Sectoral break-up of the Healthcare Industry:

Even while looking at the sectoral break-up of the healthcare industry, the significant share of the pharmaceutical industry should be quite enticing to many global companies.

According to IDFC Securities 2010, the sectoral break-up of the US$ 40 billion healthcare industry is as follows:

Industry	%
Hospitals	50
Pharma	25
Diagnostics	10
Insurance & Medical Equipment	15

(Source: IDFC Securities Hospital Sector, November 2010)

A promising market:

Pharmaceutical market of India holds an immense future promise already being globally recognized as one of the fastest growing healthcare markets of the world. All components in the healthcare space of the country including hospital and allied services are registering sustainable decent growth, riding mainly on private investments and now fueled by various government projects, such as:

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
National Urban Health Mission (NUHM)
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
Universal Health Coverage (UHC)
Free Medicine from the Government hospitals
Centralized procurement by both the Central and the State Governments

Supported by newer, both public and private initiatives, like:

Increase in public spending on healthcare from 1.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan period
Increasing participation of the private players in smaller towns and hinterland of the country
Wider coverage of health insurance
Micro-financing
Greater spread of telemedicine
More number of mobile diagnosis and surgical centers

Need to strike a right balance:

The pharmaceutical companies need to strike a right balance between ‘Public Health Interest’ and their expectations for a high margin ‘free market-like’ business policies in India.

Pharmaceuticals come under the ‘Essential Commodities Act’ in India, where government administered pricing for all drugs featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011’ is expected and cannot be wished away, at least, for now.

Despite all these concerns, India still remains a promising market for the pharmaceutical players, both global and local. McKinsey & Company in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance realizing true potential” estimated that the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will grow to US$ 55 billion by 2020 and the market has the potential to record a turnover of US$ 70 billion with a CAGR of 17 per cent during the same period.

Domestic Pharmaceutical Industry has come a long way:

Domestic pharmaceutical companies have positioned themselves as formidable forces to reckon with, not just locally but in the global generics market too.

Currently India:

Ranks 3rd in the world in terms of pharmaceutical sales volume.
Caters to around a quarter of the global requirements for generic drugs.
Meets around 70 per cent of the domestic demand for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API).
Has the largest number of US FDA approved plant outside USA
Files highest number of ANDAs and DMFs
One of most preferred global destinations for contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS)

Patients are still being exploited:

Unfortunate and deplorable incidences of exploitation of patients, mainly by the private players, are critical impediments to foster growth in quality healthcare consumption within the country.

In this context, ‘The Lancet’, January 11, 2011 highlighted as follows:

“Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.”

Prevailing situation like this calls for urgent national regulations for provider-standards and treatment-protocols, at least for the common diseases in India and more importantly their stricter implementation across the country by both the global and local players.

Pharmaceutical key business processes in India are almost a ‘free-for-all’ type:

Despite many challenges and damning reports of the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committees, overall key business processes in India are something like ‘free-for-all’ types, mainly because of the following reasons:

No pan-India voluntary or mandatory code exists for ethical Sales and Marketing practices
Many regulatory controls and standards are reportedly below par
Regulatory control on clinical trials done in India is reportedly sub-standard. In many cases even adequate compensation towards trial related deaths is reportedly not paid to the victims families by the companies, mostly fixing responsibilities to the ‘Ethics Committees’.

Key factors to take note of in the changing paradigm:

While looking at the big picture, the global pharmaceutical players, I reckon, should take note of the following factors while formulating their India- specific game plan to be successful in the country without moaning much:

At least in the short to medium term, it will be unrealistic to expect that India will be a high margin / high volume market for the pharmaceutical sector in general, unlike many other markets, across the world.
India will continue to remain within the ‘modest-margin’ range with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
The government focus on ‘reasonably affordable drug prices’ may get extended to patented products, medical devices / equipment and other related areas, as well.
Although innovation will continue to be encouraged in the country, the amended Patents Act of India is ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented and different from many other countries. This situation though very challenging for many innovator companies, is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, even under pressure of various “Free Trade Agreements (FTA)”.

Government no longer accepts that medicine prices are cheapest in India:

Pharmaceutical companies in India will be constrained to live with the continuing focus of the government and also of the civil society on ‘reasonably affordable medicines’ irrespective of the fact whether they are generic or patented.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals has reportedly started comparing the Indian drug prices with international equivalents in terms of the ‘purchasing power parity’ and ‘per capita income’ and not just their prevailing prices in various developed markets converted to rupees.With such comparisons the government has already started voicing that prices of medicines in India are not the cheapest but on the contrary one of the costliest in the world.

The above argument though interesting, worth taking note of, by all concerned to successfully chart-out their respective game plans for India.

A recent media report highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

The above news item also mentions that Tarceva, a Roche lung cancer drug, costs Rs 1.21 lakh in Australia and France while it costs Rs 35,450 in India. But when adjusted for per capita income, which is significantly more in these countries compared with India, the price falls to Rs 10,309 and Rs 11,643, respectively, for both countries as indicated below:

Country	India	France	Australia
Per capita gross national income (PCGNI) (US$)	3260	33940	38510
Ratio of PCGNI of other countries to India	1	10.4	11.8
Eriotnib (Tarceva) 100 mg price in India (Rs.)	35450	121085	121650
Eriotinib (Tarceva) 100 mg Price in terms of weighted PCGNI (Rs)	35450	11643	10309
Sunatinib (Stutent) capsule 50 mg (Rs)	46925	363216	310384
Sunatinib (Stutent) 50 mg price in terms of weighted PCGNI (Rs)	46925	34925	26303

(Source: The Economic Times, August 16, 2012)

Government encouraging R&D Focus on the diseases of the poor:

Many in India, including ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ feel that the pharmaceutical R&D activities should also focus on the diseases of the poor, which constitute the majority of the global population.

However, global pharmaceutical companies argue that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

The counterpoint to the above argument articulates that health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

Recognition of India’s healthcare priorities is important:

Despite chaos in many areas, as mentioned above, a paradigm change in the way pharmaceutical business to be conducted in India, is slowly but surely taking place, where replication of any western business model could be counterproductive. The strategy has to be India specific, accepting the priorities of the countries, even with all its ‘warts and moles’

Participative strategies should yield better results:

To achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical market of India, there is a dire need for all stakeholders to join hands with the Government, without further delay, to contribute with their global knowledge, experience and expertise to help resolving the critical issues of the healthcare sector of the nation, like:

Creation and modernization of healthcare infrastructure leveraging IT
Universal Health Coverage
Win-Win regulatory policies
Creation of employable skilled manpower
Innovation friendly ecosystem
Reasonably affordable healthcare services and medicines for the common man through a robust government procurement and delivery system

Right attitude of all stakeholders to find a win-win solution for all such issues, instead of adhering to the age-old blame game in perpetuity, as it were, without conceding each others’ ground even by an inch, is of utmost importance at this hour.

It is high time for the Government of India, I reckon, to reap a rich harvest from the emerging lucrative opportunities, coming both from within and the outside world in the healthcare space of the country. Effective utilization of this opportunity, in turn, will help India to align itself with the key global healthcare need of providing reasonably affordable healthcare to all.

Conclusion:

Thus in my view, just replication of the ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the new evolving paradigm of India.

In this rapidly changing scenario, the name of the game for all players of the industry, both global and local, I believe, is recognition of the changing market dynamics of India, active engagement in the paradigm changing process of one of the most important emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world and finally adaptation to the countries changing aspirations and priorities to create a win-win situation for all.

By: Tapan J Ray

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

Posted on June 18, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

As reported earlier, Natco Pharma promised to sell its generic version of Sorafenib in India for US$ 176 for a month’s treatment as compared to Bayer’s US$ 5,600, for the same time period.

Let me now very briefly touch upon some WTO related and other facts on CL, in general.

Compulsory Licensing (CL) – A perspective:

World Trade Organization (WTO) defines CL as follows:

“Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner. It is one of the flexibilities on patent protection included in the WTO’s agreement on intellectual property — the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement”.

These flexibilities for CL are not new and exist in the TRIPS Agreement since its inception in January 1995.

However, November 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration on ‘TRIPS and Public Health’ included two new provisions of CL, one for the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) and the other for countries that do not have production capacity.

The key purpose of CL:

CL is generally considered as an excellent provision in the Patent Law of a country to protect public health interest by the respective governments and also the intelligentsia of the civil society. The key purpose of CL is to:

Rectify any type of market failure
Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

Can CL be granted only in an Emergency situation?

This is a common misunderstanding and the WTO clarifies the situation as follows:

“The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licenses”.

Keeping all these in view, now let me go back to the China CL story.

China was preparing for it since 2008-09:

Aljazeera in its June 9, 2012 edition reported that China was toying with this idea since 2008-2009.

In fact, during this time, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China had invited experts from other countries to train their officials on how to create robust legal grounds for the grant of CL in the country.

Chinese Patent Law amendment for CL has already been made effective:

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reported that a revised version of ‘Measures for the Compulsory Licensing for Patent Implementation’ has already been made operational in China effective May 1, 2012.

Interestingly, for “reasons of public health”, such medicines can also be exported under ‘Compulsory License’ to other countries, including those members of the World Trade Organization, where life-saving treatments are unaffordable.

In tandem, China, reportedly, is in the process of further strengthening its legal framework for local manufacturing of generic equivalents of patented drugs in the country.

Some other countries have already issued CL:

In the emerging markets, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have already granted CLs in their respective countries. It is worth noting that USA and the member countries of the European Union (EU) have also issued CL in more than one occasion.

China also encourages domestic innovation being world’s top patent filer in 2011:

All these happened, when ‘Thomson Reuters’ research report highlighted that ‘China became the world’s top patent filer in 2011, surpassing the United States and Japan as it steps up local innovation to improve its intellectual property rights track record.’

Thus China’s intention in maintaining a right balance between encouraging domestic innovation and protecting public health interest is indeed very clear.

A key Chinese concern:

Reuters also reported that the Chinese government is now concerned with the increasing trend of HIV- AIDS in the country and wants to have ‘Viread (Tenofovir)’ of Gilead Sciences, which according to Reuters, is recommended by WHO as part of a first-line cocktail treatment for this disease condition.

Quoting ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’, Reuters reported that as a result of recent expansion of CL provisions in the Chinese Patent Law, the country compels Gilead Sciences to extend significant concessions on the supply of Viread, which includes a generous donation package for the drug, provided the Chinese government continues to buy the same quantity of the medicine from them.

Many would interpret this development as a clever use of CL by the Chinese government to compel Gilead to extend a better deal for Viread for the country.

Will China use the CL provisions for hard price negotiation for patented drugs?

Like Brazil whether China will also use CL as a potent tool to drive down patented drug prices through hard negotiation or actually make the innovator companies to extend voluntary licenses to Chinese manufactures to produce and sell equivalent generics in the country is something which needs to be very closely watched in due course of time.

Increased patent protection and its impact on drug prices in low-income countries:

On this raging debate, in a July 2011 paper titled, “China and India as Suppliers of Affordable Medicines to Developing Countries”, published by National Bureau of Economic research, USA, the authors articulated as follows:

“As countries reform their patent laws to be in compliance with the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, an important question is how increased patent protection will affect drug prices in low-income countries. Using pharmaceutical trade data from 1996 to 2005, we examine the role of China and India as suppliers of medicines to other middle- and low-income countries and evaluate the competitive effect of medicine imports from these countries on the price of medicines from high- income countries. We find that imports of antibiotics and unspecified medicament from India and China significantly depress the average price of these commodities imported from high-income trading partners, suggesting that India and China are not only important sources of inexpensive medicines but also have an indirect effect by lowering prices through competition. As India is the leading supplier of medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa, this region will likely be affected most adversely”.

Thus, this is also an area worth keeping tab in the years ahead, both in India and China.

A subtle difference:

The difference between the Indian and Chinese move on CL, I reckon, is that the Indian Patent Office limited the CL of Sorafenib for domestic use only and not for export in any way to any other country.

However, it is interesting to note that Chinese amendment of the CL provisions will now enable the CL holders in China to apply for permissions for export of the same drug in other countries, as well. This could probably point to the direction of future ambitions of China to pave the way for rapid growth of their generic drug industry by invoking CL measures not only for use within the country, but way beyond the shores of China.

Conclusion:

It is worth noting that despite clear provisions of CL in TRIPS and especially even after Doha Declaration, the world had not seen many CL being granted by any country, as yet.

In this context, ‘Business Insider’ in its June 11, 2012 edition stated as follows:

“We haven’t seen a deluge of compulsory licenses over the years, and the drug companies (along with the U.S. government) have done what they can to slow down or halt this process. In China, every time a government official opens his mouth and even talks about compulsory licensing, the lobbyists are sent in, the Op/Ed columns are written, and things quiet down for another couple years.”

However, now with such broad provisions for CL in their respective patent laws to protect public health interest effectively, both India and China can, at least theoretically, allow introductions of low priced generic equivalents of patented medicines in their domestic markets, well before those drugs go off-patent. This development will certainly make the innovator companies edgy…very edgy!

It will be interesting to watch, whether global pharma majors consider such broad CL provisions both in India and now in China as serious business impediments or not.

Most probably, the worry will be more intense for much larger and faster growing Chinese Pharmaceutical market, which is now widely being considered as the emerging ‘Eldorado’ of the world.

By: Tapan J Ray

The New Drug Policy of India enters into the final lap of a Marathon Run

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Final working out and thereafter announcement of much awaited and long overdue the new ‘Drug Policy’ of India has now entered into a very interesting stage. This is mainly because of the unique combination of the following three key reasons:

1. 2002 Drug Policy was challenged in the Karnataka High Court, which by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued stay on the implementation of the Policy. This order was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 but ordered as follows: “We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated 15.2.2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

2. A live court case on the new draft ‘Drug Policy’ with the ‘essentiality criteria’ for price control is pending before the Supreme Court of India with its next hearing scheduled in the last week of July 2012. In this court case an independent network of several ‘Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)’ known as ‘All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)’ is arguing against the ‘flawed’ draft ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011)’, mainly on the following grounds:

‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ methodology calculated on the ‘Weighted Average Price (WAP)’ of top three brands, as specified in the ‘Draft NPPP 2011’ would not only lead to increase in the prices of medicines, but also legitimize higher drug prices.
To keep the drug prices under check effectively, the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ of Medicines should be based on ‘Cost based Pricing (CBP)’ model rather than MBP.
Adequate control mechanism is lacking in the NPPP 2011 to prevent the manufacturer from avoiding price control by tweaking with the formulations featuring in the National list of Essential Medicine 2011 (NLEM 2011).

3. In this scenario, a Group of Ministers (GoM) of the Union Cabinet has started deliberating on this issue since April 25, 2012 taking all key stakeholders on board to give its recommendations to the Union Cabinet on the scope, form, structure and the basic content of the new Drug Policy.

The bone of contentions:

The methodology and the span of price control of the draft NPPP 2011 have still remained the key bone of contentions for the new ‘Drug Policy’ of India. Suggested three key methodologies: From the responses received on the draft NPPP 2011, it appears that following three are the suggested key methodologies to arrive at the CP of price controlled NLEM 2011 formulations:

Cost Based Pricing
Market based pricing

- WAP of top 3 brands - WAP of bottom 3 brands

The formula suggested by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of lesser of (i) the price paid by the median consumer + 25% and (ii) price paid by the 80^th percentile consumer.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR AND AGAINST OF EACH: A. Cost based Pricing: Besides AIDAN, other reported key supporters of the CBP are the Ministry of Health and All India Chemists Associations. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR: The current drug price control regime (DPCO 1995) is based on cost-plus pricing model, where Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) of price controlled formulations are worked out as per the formula given in ‘para 7’ of DPCO, 1995 as follows: R.P. = [M.C. +C.C. +P.M. +P.C.] x [1+MAPE/100] +E.D. Where,

R.P: Retail price
M.C: Material cost, including process loss
C. C.: Conversion cost
P.M: Packing material
P.C: Packing Charges
MAPE : Maximum Allowable Post manufacturing Expenses of 100 percent
E.D.: Excise duty

The proponents of CBP believe that it is:

Transparent
Most beneficial to the patients
Fair, with a decent profit margin allocation for the manufacturers

ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Many others do not believe in CBP. They argue that price-inflation of non-price controlled drugs is much less than the price-controlled ones, which clearly vindicates that market competition works better than price control of drugs and thus is more beneficial to the patients. The following table shows the trend of general inflation against the drug price inflation from 1992 to 2011 period, as follows:

	Type of Inflation	Inflation (in Index)
1.	General Inflation	403
2.	Price-controlled molecules	151
3.	Non Price-Controlled Molecules	112

(Source: IMS data, RBI CPI average yearly inflation) This school of thought quotes the example of discontinuation of manufacturing in India 29 out of 74 Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) under DPCO 1995 due to financial non-viability on account of CBP. Moreover, CBP is considered by them as a process, which is:

Intrusive
Lacking in transparency
Discretionary
Discouraging for innovation, high quality & efficiency
Not followed by any major country in the world
Not supported by even WHO. It says other countries are moving away from Indian type of CBP

B. Market Based Pricing (MBP): MBP in general is considered by its proponents as a system which is:

Transparent
Non-Discretionary
Encourages growth & investment
Rewards innovation
Promotes efficiency

The two variants of MBP under discussion are:

- WAP of top 3 brands

- WAP of bottom 3 brands

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR:

1. WAP of top 3 brands:

It is a transparent system and will reduce the prices of medicines

With adequate checks and balances in place the method will not lead to increase in prices because of the following reasons:

- All price increases are subject to WPI – Market competition will not permit any price increases – Companies in low-price segments will create pressure to reduce prices further

2. WAP of bottom 3 brands: This group argues that instead of WAP of top 3 brands, if the same for the bottom three brands is considered, ceiling prices will come down very significantly, benefiting patients much more than what WAP of top three brands will do.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

1. WAP of top three brands:

Would lead to overall increase in the prices of many medicines
Below ceiling price brands would raise their price upto the ceiling price level immediately
Would legitimize high drug prices

2. WAP of bottom 3 brands:

Not representative of the market, as only the brands with a low market presence will be considered for WAP calculations
The Bottom 3 priced brands factor in only ~17% of the market
Likely to have an adverse overall impact on patients as many small brands with lowest acceptable quality standards will be considered for WAP calculations, which may ultimately push high quality formulations out of the market.

C. Formula suggested by EAC of the Prime Minister: ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR:

Will ensures affordable drug prices for the patients by:

Encouraging and rewarding high market competition
Discouraging monopolistic or oligopolistic market situation

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

EAC criteria for insufficient competition are based on the 1994 Policy
The situation is different today as the market has grown 9 times since then
The number of brands tends to be low in lower volume turnover molecule segments mainly due to low disease prevalence. Thus bringing these molecules under CBP will be irrational
Instead of implementing CBP where lesser number of brands exists in many generic segments, EAC formula should encourage competition even in these lower value turnover molecule segments to bring the prices further down

That said, ‘Drug Price’ has always remained one of the critical factors to ensure greater access to medicines, especially in the developing economies like India, where predominantly individuals are the payors. This point has also been widely accepted by the international community, except perhaps by the diehard ‘self-serving’ vested interests. Important Points to Ponder:

A. ‘Drug Price’ control alone can not improve access to medicines significantly:

To improve access to medicines, even the Governments in countries like Germany, Spain, UK, Korea and China have recently mulled strict price control measures in their respective countries. However, it is important to note and as we have seen above, though the drug prices are indeed one of the critical factors to improve access to modern medicines, there is a need to augment other healthcare access related initiatives in tandem for a holistic approach.

In India, we have witnessed through almost the past four decades that drug price control alone could not improve access to modern medicines for the common man very significantly, especially in the current socioeconomic and healthcare environment of the country.

B. Taming drug price inflation only has not helped improving access to medicines:

It is quite clear from the following table that food prices impact health more than medicine costs :

Year	Pharma Price Increases	Food Inflation
2008	1.1%	5.6%
2009	1.3%	8.0%
2010	0.5%	14.4%

Source: CMIE Exploring a practical approach: Considering pros and cons of the key methodologies of price control of formulations featuring in NLEM 2011, as I had written in this blog in April 2, 2012, I would like to reemphasize that a middle path with a win-win strategy to resolve this deadlock effectively would be in the best interest of both patients and the industry alike, in the current situation. The middle path, I reckon, may be explored as follows:

Calculate ‘Weighted Average Price’ for each formulation based on prices of all brands – high, medium and low, applying some realistic exclusion criteria.
When inclusion criteria for price control in the draft NPPP 2011 is ‘essentiality’ of drugs, it sounds quite logical that price control should be restricted to NLEM 2011 only.
Enough non-price control checks and balances to be put in place to ensure proper availability of NLEM 2011 drugs for the common man and avoidance of any possible situation of shortages for such drugs.

Conclusion:

Conforming to the directive of the honorable Supreme Court of India on price control of essential medicines in the country, the GoM should now help resolving the issue of putting in place a robust new National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy, without further delay, taking the key stakeholders on board.

In any case, it has to be a win-win solution both for the patients and the industry alike, paving the way for improving access to modern medicines for the entire population of India, together with other strategic initiatives in this direction. This is absolutely essential, especially when medicines contribute around 72 percent of the total ‘Out of Pocket Expenses’ of the common man of the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Drug Price Control has remained the key feature of all Drug Policies of India, since their inception in early 70’s. Most of these policies continued to remain behind their times consistently, without any exception.

That said, the Drug Policy 1994 and the consequent Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO ’95) have now become the largest ‘Dinosaur’ of all Drug Policies. However, the most intriguing point though, both these have still been kept operational by the government and the very concept of a new and a more contemporary one is languishing in a labyrinth since over a decade, for reasons of anybody’s guess.

Drug Price Control system in India:

It appears that the drug price control system in India is here to stay, at least in the short to medium term and that too in a seemingly best case scenario.

The key reasons:

As we know, the key reasons of price control for pharmaceuticals in India are the following:

To contain cost of medicines, particularly the essential ones, at a reasonably affordable level, which is a very important part of the total healthcare expenditure of the common man.
To provide greater access to medicines to all, especially in view of very high ‘out of pocket expenditure’ for health for a vast majority of population in the country.

The economic factors:

Some of the economic factors, which may cause impediments in achieving these objectives are the following:

Sub optimal public healthcare infrastructure, leaky delivery system and high cost of private healthcare services
This is fueled by, as stated above, unabated increase in ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ on healthcare in general and medicines in particular at 78 per cent, as compared to 61 per cent in China, 53 per cent in Sri Lanka, 31 percent in Thailand, 29 per cent in Bhutan and 14 per cent in Maldives (Source: The Lancet)
High expenses on drugs for outpatient care

Though very important, drug cost alone, however, does not determine quality of access to healthcare.

Global scenario for drug price control:

As per published reports, all 34 developed nations of the world have ‘Universal Health Coverage’ mechanism in place in various different forms, including mandatory medical insurance requirements, to effectively address the issue of high access to healthcare including pharmaceuticals in their respective countries, significantly reducing ‘out of pocket expenses’ towards health.

All these 34 countries belong to ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the governments of which, in some way or the other control and regulate drug prices.

The Governments/payors of most of these countries implement the price control measures by playing the role of a dominant market force directly, while negotiating a favorable price from the manufacturers, which are much lower than their equivalent free market prices.

Many other OECD governments set the drug reimbursement prices right at the time of introduction of new drugs through hard negotiation, which are also well below free market prices and acts as the bench mark market prices, in many ways.

In addition to all these mechanisms, the governments in many OECD countries periodically reduce the prices of already marketed drugs quite significantly.

A contrarian view on Drug Price Control:

Some industry experts feel that there is a hidden consequence for the ‘Drug Price Control System’, especially with the cost based one.

The cost based price control as is currently practiced by the government in India compels the pharmaceutical manufacturers to restrict to:

Minimum acceptable quality standard rather than maximum possible quality standards for the patients
Does not encourage innovation in formulation development like novel galenic formulations for better patient acceptance and compliance
Indirectly discourage innovation in product packaging
Ceiling Price mechanism does not encourage advanced anti-counterfeit measures for patients’ safety

These experts also feel that adverse consequences of price control will have a significant negative impact on the pharmaceutical players to plough back fund towards R&D projects to meet the unmet needs of the patients and thereby reducing the range of treatments that could be made available to the patients in the years ahead.

What is China doing?

On March 28, 2011 Reuters reported that China had cut the maximum retail price for more than 1,200 types of antibiotics and the drugs for the circulatory system by an average of 21 percent.

It has also been reported that the Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’

Supreme Court directive on ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

It is worth noting in this context that in 2003, the Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the Drug Policy 2002 directed the government to work out effective mechanism to bring all essential and life-saving medicines under price control.

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Even in its report the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ in India, set up by the Planning Commission of India under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, under recommendation no. 3.5.1, postulated price control and price regulation on essential drugs, which is quite in line with the draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011).

The HLEG report says:

“We recommend the use of ‘essentiality’ as a criterion and applying price controls on formulations rather than basic drugs. Direct price control applied to formulations, rather than basic drugs, is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transactions and prevent a substantial rise in drug prices. It may also be necessary to consider caps on trade margins to rein in drug prices while ensuring reasonable returns to manufacturers and distributors. All therapeutic products should be covered and producers should be prevented from circumventing controls by creating nonstandard combinations. This would also discourage producers from moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen Central and State regulatory agencies to effectively perform quality and price control functions.”

Types of drug price regulations in India:

Cost based price control: e.g. as specified in the Drug Price Control Order 1995 (DPCO 95)
Marked based price control: e.g. as was suggested by ‘The Pronab Sen Committee’ in 2005
Price Monitoring with a cap on annual price increase: e.g. as is currently followed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) for all products which are outside DPCO ’95

The weaknesses of cost based pricing mechanism:

The key criticism of cost based pricing mechanism flows from the following arguments:

This system is not followed by any developed or developing countries worth mentioning, which follow drug price control mechanism in any form
A Complex, intrusive and inefficient system of pricing medicines
Does not consider important variations in the level of GMP standards and the quality of input costs
The conversion cost and packing norms are determined through a sample survey of less than one per cent of pharmaceutical manufacturing units

Pronab Sen Committee report – the basis of price control in the draft NPPP 2011:

The draft NPPP 2011 is based on the ‘Recommendations of the Task Force constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Pronab Sen to explore issues beyond Price Control to make available Life-saving Drugs at reasonable prices’ to all.

‘Pronab Sen Committee’ suggested the following principles of Price regulation to achieve part of the above objective:

1. The National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) should form the basis of drugs to be considered for intensive price monitoring, ceiling prices and for imposition of price controls, if necessary.

2. The government should announce the ceiling price of the drugs contained in the NLEM (other than the drugs procured by hospitals directly and which an individual does not have to purchase from the market) on the basis of the weighted average prices of the top three brands by value of single ingredient formulations prevailing in the market as on 01.04.2005. In cases where there are less than three brands, the weighted average of all the existing brands would be taken. The Org–IMS data set can be used for this purpose initially with a 20 per cent retail margin provided. There is, however, a need to improve the available data coverage, which should be taken up with ORG-IMS or any other data provider.

3. For drugs which are not reflected in ORG-IMS data, the NPPA should prepare the necessary information based on market data collection.

4. During the transition period (i.e. till the time ceiling prices are fixed and notified) prices of all essential drugs may be frozen.

5. The Government should specify the reference product in terms of strength and pack size for each product which would form the basis for price determination. The price ceiling would be specified on a per dosage basis, such as per tablet/per capsule or standard volume of injection. Where syrups and liquids are sold in bottles the ceiling price may be fixed on individual pack size.

6. Price relaxations may be permitted for non-standard delivery systems, packaging and pack sizes through applications to the negotiations committee, which should become applicable for all similar cases.

7. In the case of formulations which involve a combination of more than one drug in the NLEM, the ceiling price would be the weighted average of the applicable ceiling prices of its constituents.

8. For formulations containing a combination of a drug in the NLEM and any other drug, the ceiling price applicable to the essential drug would be made applicable. However, the company would be free to approach the price negotiations committee for a relaxation of the price on the basis of evidence proving superior therapeutic effectiveness for particular disease conditions.

9. In order to determine the reasonableness of the ceiling prices fixed as above, the prices quoted in bulk procurement by Government and other designated agencies may be examined for use, provided that the system of bulk procurement meets certain minimum prescribed standards. Recognizing that retail distribution has costs not reflected in bulk procurement, a markup of 100 per cent over this reference price is recommended.

10. NPPA should set up a computer based system which would scan the price data provided by companies against the ceiling prices determined as above and identify formulations which breach the relevant price ceiling. The company manufacturing or marketing such a product would be required to reduce its price or to face penal action.

11. Companies should be permitted to represent for any price increase on valid grounds, which should then become applicable to the entire class of products.

12. The NLEM should be revised periodically, say every 5 years, in order to reflect new drugs and significant changes in pattern of drug sales within the therapeutic categories. However till the time the new list is finalized the existing list will continue to be valid for the purpose of price control.

13. In the case of drugs not contained in the NLEM, intensive monitoring should be carried out of all drugs falling into a pre-specified list of therapeutic categories. Any significant variation in the prices (say above 10 per cent) would be identified for negotiation.

The stakeholders’ comments on NPPP 2011:

About 60 stakeholders have commented by now on the draft NPPP 2011. The views are quite divergent though. It is interesting to note that the new draft pricing policy, in its current form, has been rejected by all key stakeholders, like the Industry, Ministry of Health, Expert Groups, WHO, NGOs and reportedly even by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, on quite different grounds.

As widely reported in the media, the pharmaceutical industry, though in favor of the marked based pricing mechanism, feels that the draft NPPP 2011 will increase the span of drug price control to over 60 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM). This means over eight times increase in the span of price control from its current level, making the task unwieldy for even the NPPA.

Majority of other stakeholders including the Ministry of Health, on the contrary, are arguing in favor of cost based price control. They commented that the price control system of the draft policy would give legitimacy to high drug prices in India, leading to increase in the overall prices of medicines. This group feels that the top three brands in majority of cases will be the most expensive ones.

Two interesting observations by the World Health Organization (WHO) on ‘Trade Margin’:

The WHO in their observations on the draft NPPP 2011 has made the following interesting comments:

“The new price regulation uses a margin of16% to calculate the retail prices. This is a lower margin than currently – based on the market data 1.1 and 3.3 I calculated a current retail margin of 22%. So the new price regulation implies a margin reduction of 6%, alternatively the CP might be set at a 6% lower price than currently is the case.”

If the WHO observation is correct, there is a scope to reduce the price of essential medicines by 6 per cent only through proper regulation of the trade margin.

WHO also comments that IMS data, the basis of all such calculations by the NPPA, has severe limitations as “Their data does not take into account the discounts, rebates and bundling deals and when the data is collected at the level of the wholesaler they estimate the retailer and patient prices”.

If such is the case, what could possibly be the basis of all calculations as captured in the draft NPPP 2011?

Observation of a distinguished Parliamentarian:

Dr. Jyoti Mirdha , a Member of the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) commented as follows:

“Under this policy the weighted average of three top selling brands will be the ceiling price. There is no logic in restricting the formula to just three brands. Why not five? Why not 10 to arrive at a more representative and reasonable figure? Besides why base on sales figures? In any pricing policy the parameter should be the price. Why not weighted average of 10 least priced brands?”

This could well be a pertinent question.

How to break the logjam now?

Taking on from Dr. Mirdha’s argument , WHO observations and Pronab Sen Committee report, one could possibly try to resolve this logjam by exploring various other available alternatives like for example, the following broad points, to ascertain whether a win-win situation can be created for all through the new drug policy:

What happens if ‘Weighted Average Price’ is calculated based on all brands, instead of top three or bottom three with some exclusion criteria, if required?
When inclusion criteria for price control in the new draft NPPP 2011 is ‘essentiality’ of drugs, it sounds logical that price control should be restricted to National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). Only possible extension could perhaps be taking the entire molecule, instead of specified strengths of the same molecule.
Enough non-price control checks and balances to be put in place to ensure proper availability of NLEM 2011 drugs to the common man and avoidance of any possible situation of shortages for such drugs.
As commented by WHO, trade margin should be rationalized, the MRP needs to be reduced accordingly and the consequential benefits to be passed on to the patients.

Conclusion:

The issue of the new National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy should be resolved sooner than later and that too by conforming to the directive given by the Supreme Court on essential medicines. At the same time, all the stakeholders must feel comfortable with the new drug policy.

The four points, as mentioned above, are just an illustration for choosing an alternative solution. If it works, let us move on. If it does not, let us search for the pathfinder who can break the decade old labyrinth rather quickly, without losing the way yet again.

However, the bottom-line remains that the solution should be a win-win one, both for the patients and the industry alike, benefiting the healthcare space of the country in the years ahead.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

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

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

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

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

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

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

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

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

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

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

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

An opposite view:

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

Money
Time
Risk

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: New

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

‘Old is Always Not Gold’: The Saga of Uncertainty on the New Drug Policy Continues

Replication of ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the evolving new paradigm of India

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

The New Drug Policy of India enters into the final lap of a Marathon Run

The New Drug Policy is languishing in a labyrinth

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