With Free Medicines In, Would The New Government Revisit ‘Universal Health Coverage’ Soon?

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Friday last, the new Union Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan reportedly announced that the his ministry would soon start work on distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country.

For this purpose the Minister would soon call a meeting of the State Health Ministers to integrate this policy with the National Health Mission (NHM). The said meeting will be held under the framework of the Central Council of Health (CCH), which also includes professional experts.

A commendable beginning:

This decision of Dr. Harsh Vardhan would revive a plan that the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised in his Independence Day speech to the nation in 2012, but could not be implement due to paucity of adequate fund. Implemented effectively, the above scheme has the potential to significantly reduce the Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on healthcare in India.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, expenditure on medicines still constitute the highest component of OoP expenses in OP care, though its percentage share has decreased from 71 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012. Similarly for IP care, the share of medicines in total OoP has also marginally decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, it is worth noting that still 46 percent of patients seeking healthcare in public channels purchase medicines from private channels for non-availability. The new scheme hopefully would resolve this issue with sincerity, care and a sense of purpose.

For early success in this area, experts recommend that up and running Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan models of this scheme, which are most efficient and cost effective, should be replicated in rest of the states.

Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation with the manufacturers, and distribution of those drugs free of cost from the Government hospitals and health centers to the patients efficiently, could further add value to the process.

The cost and span:

Planning Commission estimated that a countrywide free generic drug program would cost Rs 28,560 Crore (roughly around US$ 5 Billion) during the 12th Five-Year Plan period. The Centre will bear 75 percent of the cost while the states would provide the rest. Under the previous government plan, 348 drugs enlisted in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) were to be provided free at 160,000 sub-centers, 23,000 Primary Health Centers, 5,000 community health centers and 640 district hospitals.

“Universal Health Coverage” – Still remains the holistic approach:

That said, despite its immense importance, “distribution of free medicines” still remains just one of the key elements of Universal Health Coverage (UHC). It is expected that the new government would take a holistic view on the UHC agenda, sooner, to provide comprehensive healthcare services, including preventive care, to all citizens of the country.

According to another recent media report, the new Health Minister has already expressed a different viewpoint on this subject. Dr. Harsh Vardhan has reportedly said:

“I am not in favor of taxpayers’ money being used to push a one-size-fits-all health policy. From this morning itself, I have started contacting public health practitioners to know their minds on what should be the road ahead.”

Without deliberating much on the roll out of UHC as of now, the Minister promised that the government would work to provide ‘health insurance coverage for all’ through a National Insurance Policy for Health.

This statement is significant, because until recently, the ‘high level’ understanding was that the country, at least directionally, is in favor of public funded UHC, which was defined as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality (promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

The groundwork started with ‘The HLEG Report‘ :

Just to recapitulate, in October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. Prof. K. Srinath Reddy, President of the ‘Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI)’. The group was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

HLEG in its submission had suggested that the entire scheme would be funded by the taxpayers’ money for specified sets of healthcare services and for additional services commensurate health insurance coverage may be purchased by the individuals. Accordingly, to ensure a modest beginning of the UHC, in the 12^th Five Year Plan Period, public expenditure on health was raised to 2.5 percent of the GDP.

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt from within India, as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

The proposal underscored that UHC will ensure guaranteed access to essential health services for every citizen of India, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

UHC provides options to patients:

Under the proposed UHC, all citizens of India would be free to choose between public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services. It was envisaged that people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes.

What exactly is the new Health Minister mulling?

If the new Health Minister is mulling something different to provide similar healthcare coverage to Indians, let me now explore the other options adopted by various nations in this area.

As we know, UHC is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC may have different system types as follows:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.

Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010 under ‘Obamacare’.

The Global scenario:

As per published reports, all 33 ‘developed nations’ (OECD countries) have UHC in place. America was the only exception, till President Barack Obama administration implemented its ‘path breaking’ healthcare reform policy in 2010 against tough political opposition.

India is already too late in providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in ‘True Cost’, following is the list that states in which countries the UHC is currently in place and from when:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type

Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2010	Insurance Mandate

In-sync with the concept, probably with different means:

From the above statement of the new Health Minister, it appears that to provide healthcare coverage to all citizens of India, his ministry would work towards developing a National Health Insurance Policy. He also expressed that his ministry wants to focus on preventive healthcare.

Preventive healthcare being an integral part of UHC, it could well be that Dr. Harsh Vardhan wants to follow ‘Single Payer’ type of UHC system type.

Another school of thought:

However, another school of thought opines that a government owned efficient public healthcare system with adequate infrastructural facilities provides healthcare to patients almost free of cost as compared to the “insurance mandated” one.

This is mainly because, to address respective healthcare needs currently the patients have either or a mix of the following two choices:

Use public health facilities: Available virtually at free of cost if accessible, but quality is mostly questionable.

Use private health facilities: Virtually unregulated, much better services, though available mostly at high to very high cost.

Thus, these groups of experts believe that provision of universal health insurance for treatment at the expensive private facilities may not be cost effective even for the government, if these are not adequately regulated with appropriate stringent measures.

In absence of all those measures, the new Health Minister could consider taking a decision in favor of tax-funded UHC, with appropriate budgetary provisions and investments towards improving country’s healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism for all.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, there is not even an iota of doubt that India needs ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’, like any OECD or other countries of the world for its citizens, sooner. Just distributing free medicines through public hospitals across the country for all, without a holistic approach such as UHC, may not yield desired results.

From the initial deliberations of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, it appears that UHC would soon not just be revisited, but receive a new thrust too, from the no-nonsense minister, probably leaning more towards private participation than with a public funded one, contrary to what was proposed by the HLEG.

Does it matter really? Well…

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.

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models

Posted on February 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting, the key factor of significantly high ‘Out of Pocket (OOP)’ expenditure on healthcare in India is that people are pushed into seeking costlier private care services due to imbalanced infrastructure of healthcare workers, medicines and facilities.

Currently, 74 percent of patients in ‘Out-Patient (OP)’ care and 65 percent in ‘in-Patient (IP)’ care seek healthcare in the private channels. In private inpatient care, the average cost of treatment exceeds the average monthly household income at 121 percent for the affording population and 217 percent for the poor population, forcing many families to borrow money or sell assets.

Thus, the affordability challenges for healthcare of the country, as manifested by high OOP spend, is mostly a consequence of a large patient population using the private healthcare channel due to still inadequate availability of public healthcare services.

The situation is looking up:

According to IMS study 2012, currently, on an average about 54 percent of the patients are receiving free medicines from the Government hospitals. In progressive states like, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka this number goes up to 85 percent. At the same time, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for OP care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

Consequently, this increase will also have significant impact in reducing OOP healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Medicines constitute highest component of OOP:

Medicines still constitute the highest component of OOP expenses in OP care, though its percentage share has decreased from 71 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012. Similarly for IP care, the share of medicines in total OOP has also decreased from 46 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012.

However, still 46 percent of the patients seeking healthcare in public channels had to purchase medicines from private channels. Recently announced drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) after hard price negotiation and distribution of those drugs free of cost from Government hospitals and health centers, could address this issue effectively.

Further scope to reduce OOP:

The study highlights that OOP spend could be lowered by 22 percent with:

Improved availability of healthcare facilities at public hospitals and health centers, which can be achieved through effective implementation of “National Health Mission” with higher budgetary allocation.

Improved availability of medicine at the public channels, which is feasible through effective implementation of already announced “Free Medicine” scheme of the Government across the country.

A total reduction of ~40% in overall OOP spend appears to be possible, the study reiterates, when more people would get confidence that public healthcare can meet all their needs.

The roadmap to achieve the goal:

Fundamentally there are five ways to deal with the affordability issue:

1. Reduction in demand: Creating a better health environment,

2. Reduction in costs: Through price control, increased competition, group purchasing power

3. Increase in financial support from government

4. Increased penetration of health insurance programs

5. Increase per-capita income of households

All these five areas, I reckon, would not be difficult to address through well-structured and strategic Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives.

It is increasingly recognized that there are many other healthcare challenges, which do not fall exclusively under either the public or the private sectors. These challenges need to be addressed with combined efforts… with well structured Public Private Partnership (PPP) models.

Private sector should play its role:

The private sector is already a major provider of health services in India. Hence, it has the wherewithal to support implementation of Government’s flagship healthcare programs, especially in the area of service delivery, to enhance their overall effectiveness.

As the Universal Health Care (UHC) proposal made by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) to the Planning Commission of India highlighted, the government would provide the budget, while the private sector would take the responsibility for delivery of healthcare services.

Accountability for PPP should not fall through the systemic cracks:

The above study indicates, the private parties could include individual physicians, commercial contractors, large private and corporate super-specialty hospitals, not-for-profit agencies (NGOs), pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers. Expertise of all these stakeholders should be appropriately leveraged.

It is absolutely essential to make sure that the accountability of the PPP initiatives does not fall through the cracks now existing in the system.

To control costs and ensure required standards are met, all contractual agreements for PPPs, as recommended, must have adequate built-in monitoring and supervision mechanisms of the highest order, assigning clear roles and responsibilities for each party.

Similarly, NGOs need to be given a larger role of monitoring the activities or services rendered at such facilities to make sure the designated institutions are fulfilling their obligations to the public.

Conclusion:

To make healthcare affordable in India, well-strategized PPP initiatives would have critical roles to play.

Thus, instead of resorting to blame games with Government accusing the private sector to be exploitative and the private sector continuously moaning for ‘unfriendly’ business policies of the government, there is a fundamental need for both the constituents working closely together.

As a result, patients will have greater access to quality healthcare at an affordable price, the industry will grow faster in a sustainable way and the government will have its public healthcare obligations fulfilled to a reasonable extent.

Some of the major sectors in India where PPP has been quite successful are infrastructure, telecom, irrigation, power and airports. So, why should it not work for the healthcare sector of the country, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Tapan Ray

As the saying goes, “Great people think alike”, many thought leaders of very high credibility across the globe, seem to think almost in similar lines when it comes to improving access to medicines for a large section of the global population.

In this article, I shall briefly focus on two such instances, both revolving around the same centerpiece – one from India and the other from the land of ‘pharmaceutical innovation’ – America.

An interesting article written recently by the well-regarded Indian expert of global stature Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, President, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), reiterates emphatically, “India must protect access to medicine”.

In a more focused context related to EU-FTA, the author wrote about possible adverse impact of more stringent product patent and regulatory data protection related issues on access to generic medicines in India and other developing countries. Thus, he argued that EU-FTA should be well negotiated by India and cautioned as follows:

“It must be remembered that India needs to protect its vital interests in any trade agreement, just as other nations strive to. Our interest lies in protecting the lives and safeguarding the health of Indians, without permitting unreasonable restrictions on our ability to produce, use and even export, generic versions of drugs the patents of which have lapsed (or where compulsory licensing has been invoked to protect public health).

India needs to tread carefully while negotiating the FTA with the EU, so that the health of the Indian people is not compromised through provisions that shackle our generic drug industry.”

The debate has assumed a global dimension:

Such raging debates on a critical public health issue, like access to medicines, are also taking place in many other countries, as I write, including America, irrespective of the fact whether these are generic or patented drugs.

Marcia Angell, M.D, a faculty of Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of the world’s leading medical journal ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ wrote an interesting book.

In this book titled “The Truth About the Drug Companies: ‪How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”, she makes many interesting comments on the American pharmaceutical industry on access to medicines and the kind of pharmaceutical innovations that they are involved in.

The world noticed it:

This book arrested global attention and was extensively reviewed. Since, the author wrote more specifically about the American pharmaceutical industry, following are some excerpts quoted from her book reviews in the USA:

New York Times: “A scorching indictment of drug companies and their research and business practices…tough, persuasive and troubling.”

Boston Globe: “A sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of Drug Company power…a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book.”

Washington Post: “Always authoritative…[this book] delivers the message—that drug-company money and power is corrupting American medicine—in a convincing, no-nonsense manner.”

Some key issues raised in the book:

Like the above article of Dr. Reddy, here also the author raises some interesting issues related to the American drug companies. I am penning below some of those issues exactly as expressed by the author (verbatim):

“The magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.”

“R&D is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.”

“The great majority of ‘new’ drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called ‘me-too’ drugs.”

“If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?”

“Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)”

“Now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.”

“Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.”

“One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong.”

“In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they’re worth—and they’re worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.”

“The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called ‘marketing and administration – a name that varies slightly from company to company.”

“The industry is fighting these efforts—mainly with its legions of lobbyists and lawyers. It fought the state of Maine all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2003 upheld Maine’s right to bargain with drug companies for lower prices, while leaving open the details. But that war has just begun, and it promises to go on for years and get very ugly.”

“The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known.”

“There are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact.”

“Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs.”

“While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs. In the meantime, the once-solid foundations of the big pharma colossus are shaking.”

“Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers.”

“The me-too market would collapse virtually overnight if the FDA made approval of new drugs contingent on their being better in some important way than older drugs already on the market.”

“A second important reform would be to require drug companies to open their books. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business.”

“But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.”

An opposite view:

On this an article in Forbes Magazine commented as follows:

“The problem with Angell’s arguments is that they are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies. Furthermore, she makes no accounting for changes in the industry that have occurred over the last decade.”

“It is time for those in the medical profession to spur a more truthful and factual discussion about the pharmaceutical industry and its role in the discovery and development of new medicines. The pharmaceutical industry is a key player in the evolution of healthcare and this needs to be recognized if the industry is to operate effectively.”

Conclusion:

One of the key counter arguments that very often comes up in this area, including in India is, the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is the responsibility of the Government concerned at any cost, even if such protective measures severely restrict access to these drugs to a large population of the society across the globe, due to ‘affordability’ considerations.

It is also claimed that, to come out with innovative medicines, large pharmaceutical companies invest a huge amount of money and time towards R&D related activities.

Thus, the global innovator companies, by and large, with a few exceptions though, believe that stricter enforcement of stringent patent laws by the Governments is the only answer to foster innovation within the industry. Such stringent measures, as they argue, will help them keep investing in R&D to meet the ‘unmet needs’ of patients on a continuous basis.

However, as we have seen above, many experts, like Harvard faculty Marcia Angell and Dr. K. Srinath Reddy have strong and quite different view points. It is certain that the debate on access to affordable medicines is not going to die down, at least any time soon.

Despite all these, it is not difficult, I reckon, to identify an emerging but a clear trend indicating, the priority of the Governments to protect public health interest in the longer term, will ultimately prevail in most parts of the world, including India.

Consequently, the world will probably witness more and more new government policies and legal frameworks in this area striking a right balance between improving access to medicines and fostering innovation, as the countries move on.

That said, taking note of the above two paintings, as it were, painted on the same canvas of ‘improving access to medicines for all’, is it not amazing to note a striking similarity in the thought pattern between two highly credible and independent think tanks, belonging to the oldest and largest democracies of the planet earth, to ensure affordable medicines for all?

By: Tapan J. Ray

“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

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It is very important for any country to ensure access to most appropriate medicines for the patients as and when they require. In many disease areas such access can be remarkably improved through affordable generic drugs, which offer significant savings in cost for absence of monopolistic situation and intense competitive pressures.

In many countries like, India and China to further augment this process, the Government price control on essential medicines is already in force.

A paper titled, “Generic Medicines: Essential contributors to the long-term health of society” highlights the following facts on such drugs:

• Provide an affordable, gold standard medication for many major illnesses

• Allow access to medicines for a greater proportion of the population

• Stimulate healthy competition with the branded sector

• Deliver savings to national health bills

• Are high quality products

Generic companies also innovate:

The same paper also highlights, though innovation has been traditionally perceived as the domain of the research-based originator companies, generic medicine companies often spend significant sums on innovating and improving formulations, enhancing delivery systems and finding solutions to patient compliance issues.

It also says, the generics medicine industry spent 7 percent of revenues on R&D alone, in 2007 and created 150, 000 jobs only in the EU.

Continuous growth of generic drug industry is critical:

Taking all these factors into consideration, continuous growth of the generic drug industry is critical in ensuring broad access to medicines to the population of any country at an affordable price. Nothing else can achieve this objective.

In the developed countries like, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, UK and even USA, large volume of generic medicines are prescribed. Most of these countries have put in place appropriate regulations that facilitate market entry of generic drugs soon after patent expiry. All of them, by and large, encourage even more prescriptions of generic medicines.

Of course, there are many instances of deliberate attempts to slow down generic entry, which I shall deal with separately at some other time.

Quality perception for generic drugs:

In many countries the general perception of efficacy and safety standards of generic drugs is still not satisfactory. In many occasions, these are reportedly prompted by well orchestrated campaigns by interested private stakeholders in this area.

However, in markets, like the EU, Canada and the USA Governments do take public awareness measures to dispel such doubt. Unfortunately not enough similar initiatives have been taken in India with tangible results. The reason could probably lie in the existence of a powerful branded generic lobby in the country, unlike many other markets of the world.

The market:

A report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Generic Pharmaceuticals Market – A Global Analysis” stated, the global generic pharmaceuticals market registered a revenue of US$ 135.85 billion in 2010 with a growth rate of 11 percent. The top eight global markets, namely the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain and Japan account for 80 percent of the total generics market. The United States will continue to remain the largest market in the world for generic pharmaceuticals in value terms.

It is estimated, the global generic drug market will grow to US$ 231.02 billion by 2017 with a CAGR 9.3 percent from 2010. The key growth drivers being:

Patent expiration of some blockbuster drugs
Entry of more biosimilars
High growth of emerging markets
Cost containment measures of governments and healthcare service providers in various countries

BRIC Countries strongly defend generic drugs:

Allegation of attacks on the generic industry by the patent holders of various drugs is also heard quite frequently.

It was reported that in a TRIPS Council meeting in mid 2012 held at the World Trade Organization (WTO), India, Brazil and China defended the right of access to cheap generic medicines by poor countries, strongly resisting attempts by the US, Japan and some other developed countries to club counterfeits or copies of patented drugs with fake or spurious ones.

They also argued that infringing intellectual property rights should not be confused with sub-standard products.

Many believe that because of the reported ‘clout of India, China and Brazil’ in the WTO, this attempt may not fructify despite such attempts.

India is surging ahead:

It is interesting to note that out of top 10 fastest growing generic companies of the world, 4 are of Indian origin namely Glenmark, DRL, Sun Pharma and Taro (owned by Sun Pharma) and 3 definitely are home grown Indian companies, as follows:

Top 10 Fastest Growing Generic Companies of the World:

No.	Company	Country	Sales US$ Million	Growth 2011 (%)	Growth 2010 (%)
1.	Sagent Pharmaceuticals	USA	152	106	153
2.	Perrigo	USA	620	80	45
3.	Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical	Japan	1300	79	25
4.	Watson Pharmaceuticals	USA	3320	46	38
5.	Glenmark	India	778	37	17
6.	Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL)	India	1480	34	15
7.	Taro Pharmaceutical	Israel	436	33	11
8.	Sun Pharmaceuticals	India	1650	29	52
9.	Veropharm	Russia	156	24	28
10.	Polpharma	Poland	580	22	20

(Source: FiercePharma)

India the pharmacy of the developing world:

According to a recent report India is now emerging as the ‘Pharmacy of the Developing World’, as it produces a large volume of high-quality, affordable generic medicines.

The study also highlights, “as a result of tough competition from the generic players of India, the price of first-line ARVs dropped from more than US$ 10,000 per person per year in 2000 to around $150 per person per year today. This significant price decrease has helped to facilitate the massive expansion of HIV treatment worldwide: more than 80 percent of the HIV medicines used to treat 6.6 million people in developing countries come from Indian producers, and 90 percent of pediatric HIV medicines are Indian-produced.”

Another study indicates, as a result of phenomenal success of the homegrown pharmaceutical companies:

67 percent of medicines exports from India go to developing countries.

Main procurement agencies for developing countries’ health programs purchase their  medicines in India, where there are quality products at low prices.

Approx. 50 percent of the essential medicines that UNICEF distributes in developing countries  come from India.

75-80 percent of all medicines distributed by the International Dispensary Association (IDA) to  developing countries are manufactured in India. (IDA is a medical supplier operating on a  not-for-profit basis for distribution of essential medicines to developing countries.)

In Zimbabwe, 75 percent of tenders for medicines for all public sector health facilities come from  Indian manufacturers,

The state procurement agency in Lesotho, NDSO, states it buys nearly 95 percent of all ARVs  from India.

This situation is going to further improve at a galloping pace in the years ahead with proper encouragement from the Government of India.

India tops the chart for ANDAs:

India, with its rapidly growing homegrown generic players, continues to top the Chart for Abbreviated New Drugs Applications (ANDAs) with USFDA by increasing its share year after year, as follows:

Year	Global	India	India’s Share %
2007	492	133	24.1
2008	483	143	27.9
2009	419	132	31.3
2010	419	142	34.0
2011	431	144	33.4
2012	476	178	37.4

Source: Pharmabiz, January 7, 2013 / US FDA

India tops the Chart in DMFs also:

Similarly, India continues to top the Chart with its Drug Master Files (DMF) for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), as follows:

No.	Countries	Filing Type II DMF
1.	India	2759
2.	USA	1323
3.	China	870
4.	Italy	644
5.	Japan	270
6.	Spain	268
7.	Germany	266
8.	France	170
9.	Israel	170
10.	Switzerland	136

Source: Pharma Times, August 2012

Moreover, domestic pharmaceutical companies have now between themselves, around 175 USFDA and approximately 90 UK-MHRA approved manufacturing units, to cater to the needs of high quality and affordable pharma products across the world.

India not loosing its R&D Focus:

Discovery of new drugs being the bedrock for the pharmaceutical industry, domestic Indian companies are also not loosing focus on R&D activities. The New Chemical Entity (NCE) pipeline of the homegrown companies as on 2012 is as follows:

Piramal Healthcare	23
Suven Life Sciences	14
Zydus Cadila	11
Glenmark	8
Biocon	7
Torrent Pharma	6
Sun Pharma	5
Wockhardt	5
Ranbaxy	2
Dr Reddy’s Lab	2
Others	5

Source: Citeline Intelligence Services: Pharma R&D Annual Review 2013

Is the “west pressurizing India to change tack?”

In an interesting article published in ‘The Guardian’, the author observed that the western Pharmaceutical companies are putting health of world’s poor at risk. It commented that India makes cheap medicines for poor people around the world, but the EU, pharmaceutical firms and now the US are pressuring the ‘pharmacy of the developing world’ to change track. The same sentiment was echoed in another article published in Pharma Times.

However, the experts do feel that the Government of India, mostly due to intense public pressure, is well prepared to address any such situation, come what may. Thus, despite any retarding forces coming into play, the incessant march of the home grown pharmaceutical companies in search of excellence, especially in this space, is expected to continue even at a brisker pace.

The triggering factor:

Experts opine that the reason for excellence of the domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry, especially in the generic pharma landscape, is due to the amendment of the Indian Patents Act in 1970 allowing only process patents for drugs and pharmaceuticals.

The Government of India reportedly had taken such a path-breaking decision in the 70’s to lay the foundation of a vibrant domestic pharmaceutical industry capable of manufacturing low cost and high quality modern medicines for the health security of the country leveraging latest technology, including IT.

This decision was also directed towards creation of ‘drug security’ for the country as in the 70’s India was very heavily dependent on drug imports and the domestic pharmaceutical industry was virtually non-existent.

Conclusion:

Paying kudos to the pharmaceutical ‘Crown Jewels’ of India, many industry watchers feel that the global pharma players are now keener than ever before to work with the domestic pharma industry, in various areas of business. This augurs well for all, as it will help creating a win-win situation to add further momentum to the growth of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

Be that as it may, taken in entirety and strengthened by its well-balanced patent laws, India will continue to have a significant force multiplier effect to emerge as a global force to reckon with, particularly in this important space.

In tandem, with other significant cutting edges, as mentioned above, India is now well poised to be an “armageddon” – a contender of supremacy as a “pharmacy of the developing economies” despite selective allegations and detrimental efforts by some vested interests.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d):

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.”

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.

60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
Development of the R&D capacity and expertise  of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor:

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented, “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes, that is what the global CEO of one of the Pharmaceutical giants of the world commented in a very recent interview with Reuters. Adding further to this comment he said, “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development … It’s entirely achievable.”

Therefore, he concluded his interview by saying that the pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge much less for new drugs by passing on efficiencies in R&D to the customers.

A vindication:

The above comment does not seem to be a one off remark. A recent study on R&D productivity of 12 top pharmaceutical companies of the world by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters highlighted that the average cost of developing a new medicine is now US$ 1.1 billion with the most successful company in the group studied incurred an average cost of just US$ 315 million, while at the other extreme, another company spent US$ 2.8 billion.

How much of it then covers the cost of failures and who pays for such inefficiencies?

Some experts have gone even further:

Some experts in this area have gone even further arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real costs are 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 the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large overseas pharmaceutical industry association.

The authors of the above article also 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 undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented 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’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In the same article the authors strongly commented as follows:

“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.”

Another perspective to the “R&D Factor”:

A book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA gives another perspective to the “R&D Factor”. It articulates that the three most important components of R&D investments are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success, which is intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account 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 real return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on the 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 demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types is also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development in tandem. All these factors when taken together, the authors argue, make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, 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

Even reengineered R&D model may not be sustainable:

Many research scientists have already highlighted that sharp focus in some critical areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a considerable extent and also would help avoiding the cost of failures significantly. The savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects.

The areas identified are as follows:

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

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model too still remains in the realm of a wishful thinking and raises a serious question mark to many for various other reasons.

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from its traditional models?

Thus the critical point to ponder today, should the Pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this overall approach gains acceptance sooner by all concerned, it could lead to increase in R&D productivity significantly at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients community at large.

Finding right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace, prompting major cuts in the absolute R&D expenditure by many, as compared to the previous year.

A global R&D spend comparison (2011 and 12):

R&D expenditures in absolute terms of the following global companies in 2011 and 2012, without drawing any relationship to their respective R&D productivity, were reportedly as follows:

Company	2012 US$ Bn.	2011 US$ Bn.	% Change	% of Sale
Roche	10.10	8.81	13.7	21.0
Novartis	9.33	9.58	(3.0)	16.4
Merck	8.16	8.46	(4.0)	17.0
Pfizer	7.90	9.10	(13.0)	13.3
J&J	7.66	7.54	1.5	11.6
Sanofi	6.40	6.24	2.5	14.1
GSK	5.95	6.01	(1.0)	15.0
Eli Lilly	5.30	5.00	5.0	23.4
AstraZeneca	5.24	5.52	(5.0)	18.8
Abbott Labs	4.32	4.12	4.7	10.8
Total	70.36	70.38

Source: Fierce Biotech, March 18, 2013

This particular table points out that five out of the reported ten companies had to spend less towards R&D in 2012 as compared to 2011 and four out of the remaining five players were able to increase their R&D spend just marginally.

Thus the same question comes at the top of mind yet again: is the current pharmaceutical R&D model sustainable and working with optimal productivity and cost efficiency for the benefits of patients?

Towards greater sustainability of the R&D model:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports, “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

It underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

“Open Innovation” is very successful in IT industry:

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used in the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades across the world, including India. Web Technology, Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ model in IT,

In the sphere of Biotechnology ‘Human Genome Sequencing’ is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model. Therefore, why not a similar model be actively pursued in a much larger scale to discover newer and innovative drugs at a much lesser cost for greater access to patients?

Issues involved:

In the evolving process of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharma there are some issues to be addressed and at the same time some loose knots to be tightened to make the process increasingly more user friendly and robust. Many experts feel that the key issues for the ‘Open Innovation’ model are as follows:

▪ Who will fund the project and how much?

▪ Who will lead the project?

▪ Who will coordinate the project and find talents?

▪ Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

That said, all these issues do not seem to be insurmountable problems at all to add greater speed and efficiency to the process, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Conclusion:

Having deliberated on this issue as above, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to the patients sustainable over a long period of time, for the sake of all.

This can happen only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of much beaten and a high cost tract of R&D, especially after having picked-up the low hanging fruits. Dove tailing the passion for business excellence with the patients’ interest, dispassionately, will then be the name of the game.

As the Reuters article quoting the CEO of a global pharma major points out, in addition to improvements in research, increasing global demand for medicines and the explosion in the volume of products sold in emerging markets should also contribute to lower unit costs of the innovative drugs ensuring their greater access to patients.

This process, in turn, will help fostering a win-win situation for all stakeholders, exploding “one of the great myths of the industry” – The ‘R&D Factor’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: of

With Free Medicines In, Would The New Government Revisit ‘Universal Health Coverage’ Soon?

For Affordable Healthcare: Synergize Resources Through PPP Models

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

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

A Force Multiplier: An “Armageddon”: A Contender for Supremacy in the Generic Pharma World

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

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