Tag Archives: No

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

Posted on by
Reply
  • “ARE there different and more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”
  • “TRY and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing.”

Those are some introspective outlooks of Sir Andrew Witty – the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) related to much contentious pharmaceutical prescription generation processes now being practiced by the drug industry in general, across the world.

The ‘Grand Strategy’ to effectively address these issues, in all probability, was still on the drawing board, when Sir Andrew reportedly announced on December 16, 2013 that GSK:

  • Will no longer pay healthcare professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.
  • Will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to number of prescriptions the doctors write.
  • Will stop providing financial support to doctors to attend medical conferences.

These iconoclastic intents, apparently moulded in the cast of ethics and values and quite possibly an outcome of various unpleasant experiences, including in China, is expected to take shape worldwide by 2016, as the report indicates.

Acknowledgment of unbefitting global practices:

Reacting to this announcement, some renowned experts, as quoted in the above report, said, “It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products.”

The world envisages a refreshing change:

A December 11 article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) stated that there exists a serious financial ‘Conflict of Interest (COI)’ in the relationship between many Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and the drug and medical device industries spanning across a wide range of activities, including:

  • Promotional speakers
  • Industry-funded ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs
  • Free access of sales representatives to its faculty, trainees and staff
  • The composition of purchasing and formulary committees

Such types of relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies across the world, including in India, as studies revealed, have been custom crafted with the sole purpose of influencing prescription behavior of doctors towards more profitable costlier drugs, many of which offer no superior value as compared to already available cheaper generic alternatives.

Cracking the nexus is imperative:

Yet another report says, “Ghost-writing scandals, retracted journal papers, off-label marketing settlements, and a few high-profile faculty dust-ups triggered new restrictions at some schools.”

To address this pressing issue of COI, cracking the Doctor-Industry alleged nexus, which is adversely impacting the patients’ health interest, is absolutely imperative. An expert task force convened by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’ in 2012, made recommendations in 15 areas to protect the integrity of medical education/training and the practice of medicine within AMCs.

Some of those key recommendations involving relationships of medical profession with pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

  • No gifts or meals of any value
  • Disclosure of all industry relationships to institutions
  • No industry funded speaking engagement
  • No industry supported Continuing Medical Education (CME)
  • No participation at industry-sponsored lectures and promotional or educational events
  • No meeting with pharmaceutical sales representative
  • No industry-supported clinical fellowships
  • No ghostwriting and honorary authorship
  • No ‘Consulting Relationship’ for product marketing purpose

The above report also comments, “if medical schools follow new advice from a Pew Charitable Trusts task force, ‘No Reps Allowed’ signs will soon be on the door of every academic medical center in the United States.”

MNC pharma associations showcase voluntary ‘Codes of Marketing Practices’: 

Most of the global pharma associations have and showcase self-regulating ‘Codes of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’. However, the above GSK decision and hefty fines that are being levied to many large global companies almost regularly in different countries for marketing ‘malpractices’, prompt a specific question: Do these well-hyped ‘Codes’ really work on the ground or are merely expressions of good intent captured in attractive templates and released in the cyberspace for image building?

Global status overview:

In this context an updated article of December 11, 2013 states that Medical Faculty, Department Chairs and Deans continue to sit on the Board of Directors of many drug companies. At the same time, many pharma players support programs of various medical schools and teaching hospitals through financial grants.  Company sales representatives also enjoy free access to hospital doctors to promote their products.

In most states of the United States, doctors are required to take accredited CMEs. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial part of billions of dollars that are spent on the CME annually, using this support as marketing tools. This practice is rampant even in India.

The above article also highlights incidences of lawsuits related to ‘monetary persuasion’ offered to doctors. In one such incidence, two patients reportedly fitted with faulty hips manufactured by Stryker Orthopedics discovered that the manufacturer paid their surgeon between US$ 225,000 and US$ 250,000 for “consultation services,” and between US$ 25,000 and US$ 50,000 for other services.

However, since August 2013, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands full disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses. Effective March 31, 2014, all companies must report these details to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), or else would face punitive fines as high as US$1 million per year. CMS would publish records of these payments to a public website by September 31, 2014. India needs to take a lesson from this Act to help upholding ethics and values in the healthcare system of the country.

Overview of status in India:

As reported by both International and National media, similar situation prevails in India too.

Keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the medical profession of India. The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored, has drawn sharp flak from other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

Moreover, it is difficult to fathom, why even four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India. 

Learning from other self-regulatory ‘Codes of Pharma Marketing Practices’, in my view, a law like, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States, demanding public disclosure of gifts and all other payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses, would be much desirable and more meaningful in India.

Conclusion:

Research studies do highlight that young medical graduates passing out from institutions enforcing gift bans and following other practices, as mentioned above, are less likely to prescribe expensive brands having effective cheaper alternatives.

The decision of GSK of not making payments to any doctor, either for participating or speaking in seminars/conferences, to influence prescription decision in favor of its brands is indeed bold and laudable. This enunciation, if implemented in letter and spirit, could trigger a paradigm shift in the the prescription demand generation process for pharmaceuticals brands.

However, this pragmatic vow may fall short of stemming the rot in other critical areas of pharma business. One such recent example is reported clinical data fabrication in a large Japanese study for Diovan (Valsatran) of Novartis AG. Had patient records been used in their entirety, the Kyoto Heart Study paper, as the report indicates, would have had a different conclusion.

That said, if all in the drug industry, at least, ‘walk the line’ as is being demarcated   by GSK, a fascinating cerebral marketing warfare to gain top of mind brand recall of the target doctors through well strategized value delivery systems would ultimately prevail, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the moot point to ponder now:

Would other pharma players too jettison the decades old unethical practices of ‘paying to doctors for prescriptions’, directly or indirectly, just for the heck of maintaing ethics, values and upholding patients’ interest?

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.

 

Dissapointing: No proposal of ‘Healthcare Reform’ in the Union Budget of India for 2011-12: China rolled it out in 2009.

Posted on by
Reply

January 15, 2011 issue of ‘The Lancet’ in an article titled, “Learning from others” states the following:

“Having universal coverage through a public commitment does have costs, including public costs. The proportion of national expenditure on health that is met by the government is 26% in India and 45% in China. Or, to look at a related contrast, while government expenditure on health care in India is only around 1·1% of its GDP, it is around 1·9% in China. One need not be a genius to see that if the government of a country is ready to spend more on health, it could expect better results in terms of the health of the people.”

While comparing India with China, I reckon, one should take into account of larger disease burden in India as compared to China and the cost that India pays due to slow progress of reform processes in a democratic framework with open and free society and the vibrant outspoken media in the country. Further, the healthcare reform processes in China started over a decade earlier than India, resulting in a significant difference in the healthcare infrastructure, healthcare delivery and the healthcare financing systems of both the countries, over a period of time.

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation:

Access to safe drinking water in India may be comparable to other emerging economies, but sanitation condition in India needs radical improvement. According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2009) the Access to potable water and improved sanitation in those countries are as follows:

Country Drinking Water  (% population) Sanitation                     (% population)
India 89 28
Brazil 91 77
China 88 65
Mexico 95 81
South Africa 93 59

Key issues in the Public Hospitals:

The ethical issues, which the patients face, especially, in the hospitals of India, I reckon, have not been reported for China by the Transparency International.

Transparency International India (2005) had reported the following seven key issues and irregularities experienced by the patients at the Government Hospitals in India:

  1. Medicines unavailable: 52%
  2. Doctors suggest a visit to their private clinic: 37%
  3. Doctors refer to private diagnostic centers: 31%
  4. Over-prescription of medicines: 24%
  5. Bribes demanded by staff: 20%
  6. Diagnostics tests done even when unnecessary: 18%
  7. Doctors are absent: 13%

All these continue to happen in India, with no respite to patients, despite ‘Hippocratic Oath’ being taken by the medical profession and the new MCI guidelines for the doctors being in place within the country. Moreover, a miniscule spend of 1% of the GDP by the Government of India towards public healthcare of the nation, is indeed a shame.

Healthcare Reform in China:

Early April, 2009, China, a country with 1.3 billion people, unfolded a plan for a new healthcare reform process for the next decade to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. A budgetary allocation of U.S $124 billion has been made for the next three years towards this purpose.
China’s last healthcare reform was in 1997:
China in 1997 took its first reform measures to correct the earlier practice, when the medical services used to be considered just like any other commercial product. Very steep healthcare expenses made the medical services unaffordable and difficult to access to a vast majority of the Chinese population.
Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare services also increased in China:
The data from the Ministry of Health of China indicates that out of pocket spending on healthcare services more than doubled from 21.2 percent in 1980 to 45.2 percent in 2007. At the same time the government funding towards healthcare services came down from 36.2 percent in 1980 to 20.3 percent in the same period.
Series of healthcare reforms were effectively implemented since then like, new cooperative medical scheme for the farmers and medical insurance for urban employees, to address the situation  prevailing at that time.
The core principle of the new phase of healthcare reform in China:
The core principle of the new phase of the healthcare reform process in China is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will assume a critical role.
The new healthcare reform process in China will, therefore, ensure basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. Priority will be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China and the general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public, non-profit hospitals will continue to be one of the important providers of medical services in the country.
Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines in China:
Chinese government plans to set up diversified medical insurance systems. The coverage of the basic medical insurance is expected to exceed 90 percent of the population by 2011. At the same time the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better health care delivery systems of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.
Careful monitoring of the healthcare system by the Chinese Government:
Chinese government will monitor the effective implementation and supervision of the healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the planning of health services development, and the basic medical insurance system, with greater care.
It has been reported that though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, however, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which is a common practice in China at present.
Drug price regulation and supervision in China:
The new healthcare reform measures will include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.
As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the success of the new healthcare reform measures in China will depend on how effectively these are implemented across the country.

Besides Democracy, China has something to learn from India too:

The article, as mentioned above, from ‘The Lancet’ concludes by saying that unlike China, the real progress in India has come out of public discussion and demonstration within the democratic set-up in India. One such program is distribution of cooked mid-day meals to school children and selected interventions in child development in pre-school institutions. Such programs are currently not available in China for development of proper physical and mental health of, especially, the children of the marginalized section of the society

Conclusion:
There exists a sharp difference between India and China in the critical healthcare delivery system. The Chinese Government at least guarantees a basic level of public funded and managed healthcare services to all its citizens. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite the same in India, because of various reasons.
High economic growth in both the countries has also led to inequitable distribution of wealth, making many poor even poorer and the rich richer, further complicating the basic healthcare issues involving a vast majority of poor population of India.
To effectively address the critical issues related to health of its population, the Chinese Government has already announced a blueprint outlining its new healthcare reform measures for the next ten years. How will the Government of India respond to this situation for the new decade that has just begun?

It was very dissapointing to learn from the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister of India for 2011-12 that the perspective of our Government on the importance of healthcare for the fellow citizens of India, still remains indifferent.

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.

Will Global Pharma Majors be successful in their foray into highly competitive generics pharma business offering no (patent) protection of any kind?

Posted on by
Reply

As reported by IMS Health, emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during the same period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this period.

Mega consolidation process in India begins in 2009:

Fuelled by the above trend, the year 2009 witnessed the second biggest merger, so far, in the branded generics market of India when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9 percent stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.2 billion.

This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both Ranbaxy and Daiichi Sankyo, when Daiichi Sankyo will leverage the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively while Ranbaxy will benefit from the innovative product range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also establishes Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.

Another mega acquisition soon followed:

Daiichi Sankyo – Ranbaxy deal was followed in the very next year by Abbott’s acquisition of the branded generic business of Piramal Healthcare in India. This deal, once again, vindicated the attractiveness of the large domestic Indian Pharma players to the global pharma majors.

In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?

Abbott had valued Piramal’s formulations business at about eight times sales, which is almost twice that of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott, the acquired business will report to him and will be run as a standalone business unit after conclusion of the merger process. Warmuth expects that the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion in the next decade.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.” This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right even for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.

For Abbott, is it a step towards Global Generics Markets?

It is believed that the Piramal acquisition is intended towards achieving a quantum growth of Abbott’s business in the IPM. However, it is equally important to note the widely reported quite interesting statement of Michael Warmuth’s, when he said, “we have no plans immediately to export Piramal products [to third-country markets] but we will evaluate that. You won’t be at all surprised that if we evaluate that.”

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:

Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.

If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global pharmaceutical companies to dig their feet deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 98% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.

Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies in India:

To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:

• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business
• Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business
• Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio
• Quality of the sales and marketing teams
• Valuation of the business

What is happening in other emerging markets? Some examples:

The most recent example of such consolidation process in other emerging markets happened on June 10, 2010, when GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that it has acquired ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $253 million. With this acquisition, GSK gains full ownership of ‘Phoenix’ to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly another global pharma major, Sanofi-aventis is now seriously trying to position itself as a major player in the generics business, as well, with the acquisition of Zentiva, an important player in the European generics market. Zentiva, is also a leading generic player in the Czech, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, Slovak and Russian markets, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi-aventis also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

With this Sanofi-aventis announced, “Building a larger business in generic medicines is an important part of our growth strategy. Focusing on the needs of patients, Sanofi-aventis has conducted a regional approach in order to enlarge its business volumes and market share, offering more affordable high-quality products to more patients”.

Faster speed of such consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India:

As the valuation of the large Indian companies will start attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the revolutionary speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India could slow down. The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market of the world.

Recent examples of Indian companies acquired by global companies:

1. Ranbaxy – Daiichi Sankyo
2. Dabur Pharma – Fresenius
3. Matrix – Myalan
4. Sanofi Pasteur – Shanta Biotech
5. Orchid – Hospira
6. Abbott – Piramal Healthcare

Indian Pharmaceutical companies are also in a shopping spree:

It has been reported that by 2009, around 32 across the border acquisitions for around US $2 billion have been completed by the Indian pharmaceutical and biotech players. Recently post Abbott deal, Piramals have expressed their intent to strengthen the CRAMS business to make good the drop in turnover for their domestic branded generics business, through global M&A initiatives.

Some of the major overseas acquisitions by the Indian Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:

1. Biocon – Axicorp (Germany)
2. DRL – Trigenesis Therapeutics (USA)
3. Wockhardt – Esparma (Germany), C.P. Pharmaceuticals (UK), Negma (France), Morton Grove (USA)
4. Zydus Cadilla – Alpharma (France)
5. Ranbaxy – RPG Aventis (France)
6. Nicholas Piramal – Biosyntech (Canada) , Minrad Pharmaceuticals (USA)

What is happening in other industries?

In spite of the global financial meltdown in 2009, the future of M&A deals in India looks promising across the industry. Some of the major offshore acquisitions by the Indian companies are as follows:

 

Mega acquisition of foreign companies by Indian companies:

• Tata Steel acquired 100% stake in Corus Group on January 30, 2007 with US$12.2 billion.
• India Aluminum and Hindalco Industries purchased Canada-based Novelis Inc in February 2007 for
US $6-billion.
• The Oil and Natural Gas Corp purchased Imperial Energy Plc in January 2009 for US $2.8 billion.
• Tata Motors acquired Jaguar and Land Rover brands from Ford Motor in March 2008. The deal
amounted to $2.3 billion.
• Acquisition Asarco LLC by Sterlite Industries Ltd’s for $1.8 billion in 2009
• In May 2007, Suzlon Energy acquired Germany’s- wind turbine producer Repower for US$1.7 billion.

Mega acquisition of Indian companies by foreign companies:

• Vodafone acquired administering interest of 67% owned by Hutch-Essar, on February 11, 2007 for US
$11.1 billion.
• The Japan based telecom firm NTT DoCoMo acquired 26% stake in Tata Teleservices for USD 2.7
billion, in November 2008.

An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:

It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has written a letter to the Department of Pharmaceuticals, highlighting, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.

The letter urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development initiatives of the Indian Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. To a great extent, I believe, this is true, as the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund the capital intensive R&D initiatives.

Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?

In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space.

The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.

It will not be a cake walk…not just yet:

Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratotries (DRL) have proven it over a period of so many years.

We witnessed that acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just 6.4% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation is in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, even post M&A.

Thus the pharmaceutical market of India will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and also the newer tough minded, innovative and determined domestic branded generic players having both cost arbitrage and the spirit of competitiveness.

Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.

Conclusion:

In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the generics business of any company. We have with us examples from India of some these acquisitions not working as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.

Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.

Could similar situation arise in India? Who knows? What happens to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country?

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.